Title: Dracula (1979)
Director: John Badham
Cast: Frank Langella, Donald Pleasence, Laurence Olivier,
Kate Nelligan, Trevor Eve
Director John Badham’s take on Dracula is a very different
take on the character; on this version he is not the fang bearing, blood spitting
villain we came to know so well through Christopher Lee’s portrayal of the
character in all of those Hammer films from the 60’s and 70’s, nope, this
Dracula was to be a romanticized version of the character, a tortured soul
trapped in eternity, searching for love. I understand what they were trying to
do here, but I think Dracula sans blood and fangs is actually just a bit too
much, I mean, we’re talking about a vampire here, blood and fangs are part of
the equation most of the time. But whatever, I guess this was the kind of
Dracula they wanted to portray, a sexy dude who exudes testosterone , the kind
of man that makes the ladies melt as soon as he walks into the room. And this
is exactly what happens in one moment of the film, Dracula walks in, he’s all
suave, he kisses the ladies hands, dances with them, he even “heals” one of
them, the ladies are obviously impressed while the men immediately see him
as a threat! What can you do, the mother of all alpha males has just walked
into the room!
The way Frank Langella came to play Dracula on this film was
by way of his performance as Dracula on a Broadway show that ran for more than
900 performances from 1977 to 1980, in this way, Langella was echoing Bela
Lugosi who also ended up playing Dracula in Universal Studios classic because he
portrayed the character on a stage play. In Langella’s case it was producer
Walter Mirisch who saw him perform and liked the play and Langella’s
performance so much he decided right there and then that he wanted to make a
film out of it. John Badham (the director behind this film) liked the show so
much he saw it four times! The script for the film itself is based on the play,
so this is probably why the resulting film is so theatrical, but then again, so
are most adaptations of Dracula; I guess, Dracula and the theatrical go hand in
hand. Langella was offered the part and he accepted but only on the condition
that he wouldn’t have to wear fangs, drip blood from his lips or promote the
film dressed as Dracula. So as you can see, from the very get go Langella had
strong feelings as to how the character would be portrayed. Ultimately, this
romantic Dracula is what sets this adaptation apart from all others. I have to
give it to Langella, he is a smooth operator on this one! Take notes dudes, on
this film; Dracula shows you how to sweep a lady off her feet. First things
first, buy yourself a castle and invite her to dinner! Also, get a cape and a
perm!
But this is Dracula we’re talking about here and not
everything can be lovey dubbey in a horror movie. We couldn’t have a Dracula
film and loose the horror element; that just can’t happen. And so, Universal
fought for this film to be scarier, requesting to Badham and Mirsch that the
film couldn’t lose its horror edge, they didn’t want this film to only focus on
the love story. I am happy to say that director John Badham balanced very well
both aspects of the story, the horror and the romance. First off, the film is
drenched in atmosphere. This is one of those films that NEVER loses its
ambiance and I cannot emphasize how important this is to me in this kind of old
fashioned horror movie. I like for the atmosphere to be a continuous thing, I
want to be in this horror world for the duration of the whole film, and this
film does just that! Even the daylight scenes look dreary and void of color and
life. Badham originally wanted to film in Black and White in order to pay
homage to the old Universal horror films, but Universal wouldn’t allow it
because they see black and white as something detrimental, something that might
make the film lose business. So instead Badham went with a very colorless
palette, the film isn’t black and white, but it might as well have been!
So it has that dreary look to it, add to that the full moons,
a castle at the edge of the hill, cemeteries, nights bathed in fog, wolves
howling in the night, cobweb filled castles and yes, vampires, and you got
yourselves one hell of a spooky movie! Even though Dracula himself doesn’t have
fangs on this film, his acolytes do, and so we do get scenes with fanged
vampires reaching for their victims throats! In fact, there are some really
spooky moments on this one, so fear not my friends, you’ll get your romance,
but you’ll also get your horror, Badham did well in not forgetting this was a
horror movie. Another film that pulled this balancing act well was Francis Ford
Copolla’s Dracula (1992). Another element that really takes this production to
another level are the sets. Wow! The exterior and interior of Dracula’s castle
look so awesome, so spooky! The same can be said of the insane asylum. And then
there’s the awesome cast, aside from Langella who is the stand out on this one,
we also get an awesome Van Helsing in the form of legendary actor Laurence
Olivier, who I might add was very sick while making this movie. Still, he pulled it off like off like a champ. We
also get Donald Pleasence, who was originally set to star as Van Helsing, but
decided to play another character because he thought that playing Van Helsing
would be too similar to his role of Dr. Loomis in the Halloween movies. So, instead
he plays Dr. Seward. All in all, we get a really solid bunch of actors bringing
this story to life.
Like any other Dracula adaptation, there are some changes
and the film does play around with vampire lore. For example, the film
completely ignores the opening of the book in which Jonathan Harker goes visit
Dracula to his castle, instead, the story starts off when Dracula is already arriving to London. So those scenes from the book in which Harker comes in contact with Dracula’s vampire brides were completely eliminated. Another thing they
did which I found really odd was how they switched Lucy for Mina. In the book
it is Mina who falls for Dracula, and not Lucy. But for some reason, they
switched them around and on the movie it’s Lucy who ends up being the central
female character. I see no purpose for this switch, so go figure, I don’t know
why they did it, all it does is confuse Dracula fans. But even with these changes here and there, in
the end, John Badham’s Dracula is an excellent take on Dracula. Sadly, even
though it wasn’t a complete flop, the film didn’t make as much as the studio
expected so it wasn’t considered a winner either. Some attribute this to the
fact that so many Dracula/vampire films were released in the same year amongst
them Herzog’s Nosferatu (1979), Nocturna (1979), Thirst (1979) and Tobe Hooper’s
Salem’s Lot (1979). Also, the Dracula farce Love at First Bite (1979) was
released with success, and so the idea of Dracula might not have seemed so
scary to audiences anymore. I personally
hold Badham’s Dracula amongst my top five favorite Dracula films, in fact, I
think I would place it in the top three, right next to Coppola’s Dracula and
Terrence Fisher’s Horror of Dracula (1958), yeah, I place Lugosi’s film on a
fourth place, I’m one of those guys who likes Lugosi’s Dracula (1931), but doesn’t
love it. So yeah, if you haven’t seen this underrated masterpiece, I say give it
a chance, you’ll kick yourself in the ass for not having seen it earlier.
Rating: 5 out of 5
7 comments:
That's wild that the film came from his performance.
Francisco, it was interesting when you talked about the George Hamilton Dracula comedy "Love at First Bite" from the same year because i think a lot of people have got that film and this one mixed up over the last 34 years. I`m not really sure why the Langella movie initially failed at the box office (because it is a superb film as you so rightly said), but, like i said, in the intervening years its like people almost seem to remember Langella and Hamilton being one and the same person and that that "Dracula" and "Love at First Bite" were one and the same movie.
Maurice: Yeah, same as Lugosi, such an amusing fact.
eddie: A pity...the poster for Badhams film is terrible as well...I dont think it does the film justice...it makes Dracula seem so harmless...he is even smiling!
By the way I will be reviewing Love at First Bite some time before Halloween is here...
Great job man. Honestly, I've "never" been a fan of John Badham. I find his style of filmmaking pretty void of any style or substance. Buuuuut, you've sold me on this one so I'll give it a shot. Knowing he made this one as well always kept me away.
There's a couple of directors out there who don't have a distinctive style of filmmaking, but they do produce quality films, I would say that Badham falls somewhere in there. You can't see a Badham film and recognize it as such, but the quality of the production is there. There's many Badham films I've always loved: Blue Thunder, Short Circuit, War Games, American Flyers, Point of No Return....hell, even The Hard Way which I think you would like by the way, it's a 90s action flick that is often times ignored, it stars Michael J. Fox and James Woods.
Badham's Dracula is awesome robotGEEK, a great Dracula adaptation with tons of atmosphere and obvious love for old school horror films. Plus, Langella just eats up the screen, you'll get to feel some sympathy for him even though he is after all, the villain.
I haven't seen this one in ages, Fran. I only remember fragments of it, but it's interesting to note that Browning's version changed things around too. For one, Harker never goes to Dracula's castle. It's Renfield who does so. I barely remember much from the Coppola version, either. Looking forward to your thoughts on LOVE AT FIRST BITE. I'm hoping a new DVD will surface with the original music intact at some point.
Yeah, they all change things around to their convenience. Looking forward to seeing Love at First Bite! I hear good things about it!
Post a Comment