There is a beauty, style, and look
to classic Hammer horror films that only that studio contains. There are only a
handful of times in the history of cinema that a studio has defined themselves
so steadfast, even when they experiment, one can immediately tell who made it by
the style and tone. Hammer is one of those. For this latest franchise article,
we were asked to cover some of the major Hammer studio releases and it seemed
only fitting to start with the one that most people recognize: Dracula.
Spanning multiple decades, the Dracula
series is often times as iconic as the original Universal series and it
certainly helped solidify both Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee as genre
cornerstones. Truthfully, it was a pleasure to be asked to go back and watch
this franchise once again and write this series of articles. Not that my words
do it much justice, but even if I can inspire one to revisit the films, then I
will have done my duty.
Due to the length of this franchise, it only made sense to
split it up into multiple articles to prevent having one massive piece that
people will tire of reading by the time they reach the third or fourth film.
Since there are nine entries, it made sense to evenly split the articles into
three films each. Naturally, we will be going through the series in chronological
order. Part I will cover the first three films.
DRACULA (1958) [Horror of
Dracula]
Director: Terence
Fisher
Notable Cast: Peter Cushing,
Christopher Lee, Michael Gough, Melissa Stribling, Carol Marsh, John Van
Eyssen, Janina Faye, Charles Lloyd-Pack, Valerie Gaunt
The franchise kicks off with Hammer’s adaption of Bram
Stoker’s iconic story and those familiar with most renditions of this tale will
immediately recognize the bones and structure of this film. Dracula, also known as Horror of Dracula in the US, is not
necessarily the same film as the Bela Lugosi classic or the plethora of other
versions of this story. This is Hammer’s Dracula
and by God they put their stamp on it.
Mainly, the film benefits massively from the immediate
Hammer style that was mentioned in the opening paragraph. Although the film
features a very apparent three act structure, it often does not follow a strong
and focused narrative. It plays with its characters and flow with an artistic
fluidity that benefits the tone and atmosphere immensely. The use of the
intricate sets, the sense of grounded detail, and the gothic aura all allow Dracula to immediately draw in its
audience. The leaping narrative, which completely alters course after the first
act with its voice over narrative and change in protagonist from Harker to Van
Helsing, plays out in an almost Shakespearean manner of betrayal, loyalty, and
drama. Anchored by some phenomenal performances, particularly from the first
two credited actors Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee, Dracula inspires a lot of iconic imagery, but backs it up with nuanced
substance and stylish execution.
If there is one thing that continually strikes me as
intriguing about the film is how Dracula himself, blood shot eyes and
manifested magnificently in the massive taut frame of Lee, is sidelined for a
large portion of the film after the first act. He makes such an impression in
that introduction (the manner that he runs leaping from a door and over a table
to latch onto one of his vampire brides is still brilliant) that his presence
is continually felt throughout the film until he reappears in the third act.
Even then, at that point, he does not have much to say as it focuses on an
intense game of cat and mouse until the finale to jack up the intensity. It’s
an odd choice, but one that still works to create a dynamic that ultimately
fits in with the tone and style of the film.
Ultimately, Dracula
is one hell of a way to for Hammer to kick off their franchise. It’s a rather
dark and often violent film for the era, the now famous look of Hammer blood is
makes it all seem more intense than it actually is, and the suffocating
atmosphere and brilliantly executed style and performances still make it one of
the best that the series has to offer. With how the film ends, it makes sense
that the series would go the way it does by following Cushing’s Van Helsing on
his further vampire slaying adventures with the second film, the often
overlooked forgotten “non-Dracula” Dracula
film.
BRIDES OF DRACULA (1960)
Director: Terence Fischer
Notable Cast: Peter
Cushing, Martita Hunt, Yvonne Monlaur, Freda Jackson, David Peel, Miles
Malleson, Henry Oscar
Although I do understand why Brides of Dracula is generally overlooked by many Hammer fans for
its lack of actual Dracula (and thus, Christopher Lee,) I sincerely hope that
doesn’t dismay too many people. Brides of
Dracula is actually an outrageously fun film that has Peter Cushing, as the
formidable ass kicker and doctor Van Helsing, stumbling into a new vampire
plague. Although the film suffers a bit from being far more focused on exciting
adventure and less on plot this time around, it does crank up the fun and
entertainment to maximum force. As far as I’m concerned…no Dracula? No problem.
Once again, the film has an intriguing structure like the
first where Van Helsing isn’t really introduced until the second act. This time
we follow a young lady who stumbles into a small village that has been “cursed”
by a rich family that seemingly hangs over them like a dark gloom. I’ll give
you three guesses to why that is and the first two guesses don’t count…if you
get my drift. What makes the film interesting is how it introduces the big bad
of the film, played by David Peel. Instead of some powerful and intimidating
force like Lee was as Dracula, he’s presented as a manipulative, charming, and
rather arrogant vampire. This allows the film to differentiate itself from the
previous one, even if some fans will dislike Peel in the role for how the film
presents his character.
From there though, it goes through the motions of the usual
vampire flick. Van Helsing rides in, starts some shit, and ends up on a crash
course with Peel’s Baron character who is trying to create a plethora of
vampire “brides” as his army. The second act does waiver a bit too much, not
focused enough to truly develop some of the more interesting plot nuances of
the script or the characters, but by the time it hits the third act, it jackknifes
the narrative out of the way and guns it into full horror adventure/action
territory. The finale is brilliantly memorable as most of it takes place inside
a windmill and ends on one of the best final moments I’ve seen in a Hammer
film.
Truthfully, the performances here are fun, but the film
lacks some of the depth of the first one and for that it’s a slight step down
overall. Much of its surface level adventurous approaches do make up for its
flaws by having a ton of colorful sequences and a fantastic build to a wild
finale. It’s almost a shame that it would take about 6 years before we got
another entry into the series. In a way, the series loses a bit of momentum and
this leads us to the next entry…which sees the franchise losing one star, but
the return of the other.
DRACULA: PRINCE OF DARKNESS (1966)
Director: Terence
Fisher
Notable Cast:
Christopher Lee, Barbara Shelley, Andrew Keir, Francis Matthews, Suzan Farmer,
Charles Tingwell, Thorley Walters, Phillip Latham
Unfortunately, I think my hype got a bit overzealous. It's
not that Dracula: Prince of Darkness
is a terrible film, far from it, but it certainly is underwhelming. Particularly
compared to the fun and wholly entertaining first two entries. Outside of a fantastic
(and visually stunning) ritual sequence where one of Dracula's human slaves
resurrects his master, this third film felt as though it was more or less going
through the motions rather than adding anything all that new or overly
interesting into the mix. Partner that with some limited use of sets, a
check list of Hammer Horror elements, and a rather underused Christopher Lee, Dracula: Prince of Darkness just feels a
bit underwhelming despite some of its strengths.
The film is far more intimate than either of its
predecessors, taking place mostly in and around Dracula's haunt and a rather
small ensemble cast, and it does have a strong sense of atmosphere to it due to
this choice. Granted, from some of the trivia I gather, this was due to the
budgetary constraints and how Hammer needed to reuse sets for multiple films, but
nonetheless the film does use these to its benefit. The performances are decent
and we get some solid chemistry between the four main members that are drawn
into being a part of Dracula's big comeback. The film does miss having a cornerstone
performance like Cushing in a protagonist role to anchor the film, but the ensemble
works. There is a bit of fun mystery to be had in the first half as it sets up
the game board with all the pieces, but after the previously mentioned ritual
(again, it's really creepy and effective) the film tends to crumble into tropes
for the third act and seemingly runs through the motions.
Christopher Lee is given very little to do here outside of
just be intimidating with his size and his bloodshot red eyes. Considering we
at least got to see some layers in the first Dracula film, this comeback feels more like a glorified cameo. There
are lots of speculation to why this is, where new footage of Dracula only
appears in the second half of the film and he has fairly limited screen time
and no dialogue, and whether it was intentional by the screen writer or a
demand by Lee because his dialogue was so terrible is almost irrelevant. It
just sidelines a fantastic villain and an intimidating performance either way. By
the time the finale comes rolling around, attempting to introduce a new way to
kill Dracula that's a bit baffling and feels as though it was added in for the
sake of a fun last scene than anything else, Prince of Darkness felt more like fan fodder than a truly
intriguing entry into the series.
All in all, Dracula:
Prince of Darkness is just a fine film. Underwhelming compared to the first
two, certainly, but outside of sidelining Lee as their big calling card to the
second and a rather predictable and mundane third act, the film does have its
merits with a decent ensemble cast and a couple of memorable moments.
No fear though, this
is hardly the last Dracula film in
Hammer’s series and it only takes 2 years for us to get to our next film – and
the first to not be directed by Terence Fisher. However, you’ll have to wait
for part two of our Hammered in the Neck series for us to cover the next three
films – all with fantastic titles – Dracula
Has Risen from the Grave, Taste the Blood
of Dracula, and Scars of Dracula.
Written By Matt Reifschneider
No comments:
Post a Comment