Son of Dracula

Imagine "Rocky Horror" with every drop of vitality, wit and cinematic talent sucked out by a toothless vampire, and you begin to approach the experience of watching "Son of Dracula." As a die-hard Nilsson fan (is there any other kind?), I can't even recommend this film to fellow completionists who simply *have* to see this movie. You really aren't missing much. Ringo, buried under a mass of grey hair, long beard and pointy wizard's hat, is unrecognizable - that is, until he opens his mouth and his completely inappropriate Liverpool accent slurps out. (How's this for a sample of dialogue poor Ringo must spout: "Mercury, my Mercury, you are subdued tonight... To what import might you tonight transcend?") Nilsson's line delivery is so limp and monotone I was convinced someone else had dubbed his voice from a bad Japanese horror flick. He displays none of the energy and humor which so defines his music, even when lip-synching to his own songs. There is zero camp value here; I can't believe anyone could classify this as a comedy. The storyline is utterly pointless ("biological" son of Dracula must decide whether to become lord of the Netherworld, or undergo a procedure to become human so he can feel love for groovy chick), with werewolves, mummies and Frankenstein's monster thrown in for no discernible reason. I give it 2 stars, one for the fact that the picture is visible, and one for the fact that the dialogue is audible. I hate to advise obsessive collectors like myself to stay away, but if you never manage to hook up with a copy of this off the internet, trust me, you are missing very little.

I don't think this film was ever really released widely. It has something to do with Dracula taking over as the head of all the monsters or something, but I'm not sure because its not very good, and I lost interest in anything that was going on.

A good deal of this film is taken over by musical numbers. At the drop of a hat Harry Nilsson will burst in to song, which isn't a bad thing since the music is quite good. The problem is that the rest of the movie is a complete mess. This is more akin to Paul McCartney's vanity projects like Give My Regards to Broad Street, where there's a minimal plot and lots of songs, than anything you could call a real movie. It's a lot of ideas that don't really add up to much.

I can't really suggest anyone actually watch this movie because its a bit of a bore. I give it 4 out of 10 because of the music and the curiosity value, but there always is the album and then again there are some movies best left unseen.

According to David Morgan's fine book, Monty Python Speaks, both Graham Chapman and Douglas Adams worked together to create new dialogue for this movie. Based on the version you see, who knows?

To begin with, several people involved in this ill-advised and little-seen venture – a fusion of Gothic horror and rock music – have connections with other films featuring some of the monsters who appear in it: Freddie Francis helmed the likes of THE EVIL OF FRANKENSTEIN (1964), Dracula HAS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE (1968) and LEGEND OF THE WEREWOLF (1975); Suzanna Leigh had been the heroine of LUST FOR A VAMPIRE (1970); Freddie Jones had appeared impressively as the creature in FRANKENSTEIN MUST BE DESTROYED! (1969); Dennis Price did an extended cameo in THE HORROR OF FRANKENSTEIN (1970) and, for Jess Franco, played Van Helsing in VAMPYROS LESBOS (1970) and the Baron in Dracula – PRISONER OF FRANKENSTEIN (1971) and THE EROTIC RITES OF FRANKENSTEIN (1972)! In retrospect, other contemporary films attempted this formula – namely PHANTOM OF THE PARADISE (1974) and THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW (1975) – with considerably more successful outcomes.

Personally produced for Apple Films by ex-Beatle Ringo Starr (who here appears as Merlin, the famed magician of Arthurian times!), the title role – which comes equipped with a lame pun on the character’s name, Count Downe! – is filled by singer/songwriter Harry Nilsson decked-out with a hirsute look and, understandably, his performance is a pretty bland and completely forgettable one (a good thing, therefore, that the film-makers’ original plan to have David Bowie in the lead didn’t pan out!). Nonetheless, Nilsson does get to perform a number of good tunes during the course of the film (though stymied by the poor sound quality of the edition I watched!) including “Without You”, which has become perhaps his most representative song; among the session musicians one can also recognize other popular figures of the era such as guitarist Peter Frampton and drummer Keith Moon! By the way, Mrs. Michael Caine (Shakira Baksh) also appears as Merlin’s feline housekeeper.

Culled from a worn-out VHS – in which dark scenes come off as extremely blurry – and slightly damaged to boot, as I said, the version of SON OF Dracula that came my way proved far from ideal viewing. Still, the film itself is a bit of a mess anyway: Dracula Snr., depicted as a Max Schreck lookalike, is killed by Jones’ Baron Frankenstein – the villain of the piece, with evil dwarf Skip Martin for an assistant; Price, on his last legs, turns up as Van Helsing (the film, in fact, was clearly shot in 1972 but released after his death) and Leigh is his luscious secretary – who attracts Nilsson’s amorous attentions…so much so that he decides to renounce his vampiric ways (except that with it goes his claim to immortality!); however, this occurs at a most inopportune time – as several monsters have been convened in order to crown him their overlord (a title which Frankenstein actually covets himself)!

Unfortunately, the plodding film resolves itself in a number of tedious conversation scenes – between Dracula Jnr. and Merlin, between Merlin and Frankenstein, between Frankenstein and Van Helsing, etc.; the resolution, then, sees a happy ending for the Count and his companion – while Frankenstein’s well-deserved come-uppance is amusingly delivered over a game of pool by Merlin’s own hand. In the long run, the mournful ballads work better within the context of the narrative than the rollicking numbers – “Without You”, for instance, serves as background to the demystification/humanization of Young Dracula (a title, incidentally, by which the film’s equally well-known and which got changed presumably as a nod to Mel Brooks’ spoof of Universal’s Frankenstein saga from the same year). By the way, this SON OF Dracula shouldn’t be confused with the stylish 1943 outing of the same name Robert Siodmak made for Universal during the heyday of classic monster movies…

I'm giving this a "six" because anybody who seeks out this movie will know, more or less, what he or she is getting into. The Nilsson songs do work with the melancholy of this plot: Dracula's son, who was conceived with a non-vampire woman, wants to cease being a vampire so he can experience love. Nilsson's performance isn't demonstrative and I found his remoteness appropriate. Ringo was a wizard in MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR and he's Merlin here. He's not emoting incredibly, but he is playing a comic role straight, and this, too, works for me. (By the way, check out THAT'LL BE THE DAY, in which Ringo plays a down-and-out Holiday Camp musician. It is truly a serious performance. Also, consider the part in A HARD DAY'S NIGHT with Ringo walking by the river, throwing sticks and kicking stones. He can act when he wants to.) The other actors deliver the archaic dialogue in almost classical style. Again, there is a melancholy to all of this. It is nowhere near as self-conscious as most deliberately extreme movies. The reason for this is that the director, Freddie Francis, born in 1917, had been directing for many years and had a lot of experience. There are some really interesting camera angles. The plot is nuts, but the filming is almost hallucinatory. At one point one of the mad doctors is in his office and the camera backs up to show a portrait in oils, in a gilded frame, of what appears to be the Frankenstein monster in a three-piece suit. There's a close-up of it a minute later and it resembles the Kaiser. I had a grainy copy of this movie and am wondering if the painting was one of these optical-illusion things people used to put on their walls (such as the one where, at first glance, you see people sitting at a table with candles and another look reveals a giant skull) or if the grainy quality of the DVD made me see it wrong. Even if I was wrong about it being the Frankenstein monster, I am amused at the fact that a picture of the Kaiser is on the scientist's wall in a movie taking place in 1974. (And Frankie DOES appear later on.) Yes, it's sub-par. But there's a certain genius in it nonetheless. And the music is sweet.