Drakula Istanbul'da

Atrocious picture quality made this one nearly unwatchable, with innumerable breaks in the film, some scenes are blown out almost completely white, (unintentional?) double exposures, and even visible fingerprints.

This is another fairy faithful adaptation of Bram Stoker's original novel, but inept on all other departments, from bland acting, to its depiction of Dracula as nothing more than a bald old man, to uninspired directing, and no budget sets, which really look like someone's redressed cellar. The film looks nearly comical, like a (lame) William Castle flick.

Perhaps I'll give this a second chance, if I can ever locate a better copy of it, otherwise, I would have a difficult time recommending this to even the biggest fan of Dracula, even Pakistani Dracula was an improvement.

Despite the relocation and the update to a contemporary setting (cars and neon signs are seen), Dracula IN ISTANBUL seems to be a fairly faithful retelling of the famous Bram Stoker story, albeit with the addition of a few new characters - namely a creepy hunchbacked servant who appears to be based on the Renfield character. Horror fans are familiar with Universal's Dracula (and, to a lesser degree, the Spanish version filmed at night on its sets) and the sequels that followed, and then Hammer's Dracula in 1958. But Dracula IN ISTANBUL is a film which seems to have slipped from public scrutiny, like most Turkish movies, and can only now be evaluated in an international, Internet-using world.

The movie has a stagy feel to it, due to the fact that it was basically the first genre movie ever made in Turkey at the time and the budget meant the movie was set-bound at all stages. However, the settings and occasional matte shots of a spooky castle are more than enough to give the movie an appropriate and authentic feel to it. The contemporary setting is a bit jarring at first but makes for some fun changes. For instance, the fragile Mina in the book - the main thrust of Dracula's attractions - here becomes a nightclub dancer played by Euro-beauty Annie Ball (I love the bathtub scene in which the camera shyly zooms into her legs at an appropriate moment). The acting appears stilted at times but is adequate for the production, with kudos going to Atif Kaptan who makes for an eerie, alien-looking Dracula. The extreme close-ups of Drac's madly staring eyes are a highly effective portrait of evil.

Speaking of eerie, horror-wise the movie succeeds in working up a few gentle chills, as is the norm for movies made in that period and watched in today's light. Favourite scenes include a hollow-eyed painting from which smoke weirdly billows, a graveyard exhumation, and a midnight walk through a creepy wood (day-for-night filming always looks better in black and white). The music is appropriate and helps to contribute to the atmosphere of the piece. My only complaint is that the lighting is far too dark in some sequences, and combined with the typically poor quality of Turkish movies in today's world, some bits are impossible to fathom.

The special effects used are simplistic in the extreme, with simple tricks like levitating coffin lids, offscreen howls, jump-cuts to make Dracula seem like he appears from nowhere, and fog billowing on to the screen (allegedly the result of a number of crew members frantically smoking just offscreen due to there being no budget for a dry ice machine!). The fact that Dracula has fangs here and walks down the outside of his castle wall, as per Stoker's novel, is a fine touch. This isn't brilliant by any means - it's badly dated and there are one-too-many nightclub dancing interludes. However there are enough elements to make this of interest to intrepid genre buffs and a minor classic of Turkish fantasy cinema.

Over the years, I have seen several incredibly campy Turkish films from the 1970s and 80s, such as knockoff versions of "Star Wars" and "Captain America". However, I've never seen an older Turkish film until I stumbled upon this version of "Dracula" (1953) floating about on YouTube. It does have subtitles but in some ways is much better than the newer films I've seen. Yes, the production values are at times very bad....but the acting is pretty good and the film does provide a few frights...and it's not as campy as the other films I mentioned. Now I am not saying it's good....but at least it's not terrible.

The story is generally that which you'll see in other Dracula stories with only a few major exceptions. It's set in contemporary times and instead of Dracula buying a manor in England, this one decides to move to Istanbul--which makes a lot of sense considering there aren't that many crucifixes there to dissuade him (you see none in the film)! As for Drac himself, he's a weird looking one with teeth that go out at 45 degree angles--which makes you wonder HOW his bite can penetrate ANYTHING!! Predictably, when Drac begins sucking Sadan dry, her family bring in a Van Helsing-like old bearded guy to help them put a stop to all this.

A few things to note. First, although this was filmed in a Muslim nation, it was at the time officially a secular state and seeing some of the women wearing very little still surprised me a bit. Second, the print on YouTube is in terrible condition and I have no idea how else to find this film with subtitles. Third, while the IMDb trivia section says the word 'vampire' does not appear in the film, it is in the English language subtitles and in many ways it stays very close to the original Bram Stoker novel.

Overall, not even close to being a must-see film. The camera-work is often sketchy (especially on closeups), the 'castle' is an obvious painting and the entire production looks pretty cheap.

Based on an abridged version of Stoker's novel, "Dracula In Istanbul" remains one of the best foreign adaptations of the famous tale. Essentially "Dracula" with a Turkish twist, the film is notable for being the first proper horror film to come out of Turkey.

The film has it's place in horror history because it contains sequences that were absent both in the Universal classic as well as in the Hammer horrors that would begin in 1958. This was the first adaptation to show Dracula scaling down his castle walls and the first to contain the controversial sequence in which Dracula feeds a newborn baby to his female companion (a scene present in the Pakistani "Zinda Laash" as well).

The influence doesn't end there. This movie was also one of the first to show Dracula's canine fangs - a feature completely ignored in previous versions - and it can be partly credited for the craze of vampire films in the 50's. Not bad for a film that did not even get a mainstream cinema release.

A Turkish version of the Dracula story. How absurd and obscure this sounds. But truth is, I was really digging the movie for its first 15 minutes or so. Unfortuntaly after that the movie very rapidly started to become incredible bad and lackluster.

It was very obvious to me, that the film-makers had carefully watched the 1931 movie "Dracula", directed by Tod Browning and starring Bela Lugosi. It's not only a scene-by-scene remake at times but the movie even tries to look exactly like a 1931 movie. I'm still in doubt whether or not this had to do with financial issues or if it was an artistic choice but either way, I was really liking this. It give the movie a truly great atmosphere and I actually liked it that this was a 1953 movie, trying to be like an '30's movie, with its look and overall style.

But somehow, something went terribly wrong with its story. For some reason it is starting to take its own approach and seems to be making up its own story, as the movie goes along. Problem with this is, it just really isn't anything interesting or exciting to follow. The movie gets really lackluster after its fine start, which was a bitter disappointment.

Almost the entire middle part of the movie is more than enough reason to skip on this movie. It's incredibly poorly done, without any excitement or imagination and the movie also really starts to drag at this point, which will totally make you loose interest in it.

Quality wise this also really isn't the best movie. The sound at times is simply missing and the editing has some awkward cuts in it at times. It all makes it obvious what an incredible cheap production this must have been to make and also makes it obvious that most people involved really had no real idea what they were doing.

It's still not a completely horrible movie. I mean, if you are really into Dracula or vampires in general and want to see a fresh and unusual take on the story, done by a totally different culture (there are no crosses in this movie for instance because it's an Islamic movie), this movie is still worth checking out.

5/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/