O Filho de Drácula

We all have them, you know...those movies that for whatever reason we somehow managed to miss in the theatre and can't find available on video and never gets shown on TV. This one, for many years, was mine. My holy grail film.

I have loved the music of Harry Nilsson for 30 years, and the Beatles as well both solo and collectively even longer. When I read about this film in the pages of the late, lamented Creem magazine, I couldn't wait to see it! When I was a teenager, my friends (well, the cool ones anyway) had the (excellent) soundtrack album with its generous helpings of film dialogue, so I knew lines from SoD long before I saw it. But it rarely (never where I could see it!)was shown on TV and was not available through normal video channels...I finally got a copy through a video service that specialized in foreign Kung Fu and porn (!). Breathlessly, I put it in the VCR, hit play, and...

Well, lets just say it wasn't exactly worth the wait.

Son of Dracula is, I am sorry to say, just a terrible film in nearly every respect. It looks cheap and is horribly acted by everyone involved, especially Harry, whom I regard as one of the finest songwriters ever, but is no actor. Ringo is, well, Ringo. It's hard to dis the likeable Mister Starkey and be convincing about it, and he gives a typical Ringo performance here-no more, no less. He gets by , as always in his non-drumming endeavors, on his charm. I had hoped that it would be better served by the direction of Freddie Francis, the Hammer horror veteran, but SoD just looks so shoddy that it is obvious that he couldn't care less and was just picking up a paycheck. The story is a jumbled, confusing mess, and the makeup is ineptly done. Perhaps this can be excused a little by the fact that SoD was intended as a spoof, but even on these terms it is a failure.

That being said, SoD is not entirely without merit-it's great to see Nilsson perform "live" (he never did so during his real career) with an all-star band, and there is a clever scene where Harry puts the bite on a nubile young female while T.Rex's "Chariot Choogle" from his "Slider" LP is playing in the background (they even show Harry putting the needle on the record, which sports a T.Rex Wax

Co. label-unseen in the USA and very cool for this fan of not only Harry but Marc Bolan as well).

I can't recommend this to anyone but hardcore Nilsson fans (we are few in number but ardent nonetheless!), and even then with a caveat; my advice is don't expect much and you won't be disappointed. Much.

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…

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?

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.

I'd heard a lot about this film and even though I love Nilsson, I expected very little of it. Out of curiosity, I found a copy on Ebay and bought it. When i watched it today, it was everything i'd expected, but I really enjoyed it.

It's the type of film that needs to be taken for what it is: rock musicians doing a campy horror film in the 70's.

So the plot was weak, but the music was excellent. The acting was not awesome, but I didn't think it would be.

If you really like high quality movies that require a lot of brainpower, I'd suggest passing this one up. But if you just want something fun and some great tunes, I'd check it out.