Between Hammer and Coppola
I've never understood the criticism of John Badham's "Dracula". This was the film that killed his career, post "Saturday Night Fever". It was his "1941" or "Heaven's Gate", and he wouldn't return until "WarGames" a few years later.
Most of the criticism seems to be that the film is unfaithful to the novel which is entirely unfair given that every other single version is as well. And yes, that does include the cheekily titled "Bram Stoker's Dracula" from 1992, which was nothing of the sort.
More reasonable criticisms would be that the film has a washed-out, bleached aesthetic. That Trevor Eve is a bland Harker and that Olivier's outrageous accent wouldn't be out of place in "Young Frankenstein".
But this shouldn't stop you enjoying this version of the tale. This version makes the best use of the Yorkshire setting of any other adaptation. It's splendidly "Wuthering Heights" and Gothic. The Yorkshire folk are also hilariously grim and miserable and as a dour Yorkshireman myself I appreciate this.
Frank Langella is hypnotic and sinister as Dracula and even now the film features a number of spooky, macabre scenes - such as Dracula clawing at a window, Dracula scaling walls like a spider or the encounter with Mina in the catacombs. The final confrontation with Dracula is also exciting and thrilling.
Why did this fail at the time? I think audiences still had Christopher Lee very much in mind when this movie came out. They couldn't imagine a Dracula with no fangs, no dripping blood and a romantic, brooding presence.
In the modern post-Twilight era, we are now more used to the idea. Dated or not, "Dracula" 1979 does feel like a film that might be more appreciated now than it was then.
"Unfaithful" indeed! Bah!
Most of the criticism seems to be that the film is unfaithful to the novel which is entirely unfair given that every other single version is as well. And yes, that does include the cheekily titled "Bram Stoker's Dracula" from 1992, which was nothing of the sort.
More reasonable criticisms would be that the film has a washed-out, bleached aesthetic. That Trevor Eve is a bland Harker and that Olivier's outrageous accent wouldn't be out of place in "Young Frankenstein".
But this shouldn't stop you enjoying this version of the tale. This version makes the best use of the Yorkshire setting of any other adaptation. It's splendidly "Wuthering Heights" and Gothic. The Yorkshire folk are also hilariously grim and miserable and as a dour Yorkshireman myself I appreciate this.
Frank Langella is hypnotic and sinister as Dracula and even now the film features a number of spooky, macabre scenes - such as Dracula clawing at a window, Dracula scaling walls like a spider or the encounter with Mina in the catacombs. The final confrontation with Dracula is also exciting and thrilling.
Why did this fail at the time? I think audiences still had Christopher Lee very much in mind when this movie came out. They couldn't imagine a Dracula with no fangs, no dripping blood and a romantic, brooding presence.
In the modern post-Twilight era, we are now more used to the idea. Dated or not, "Dracula" 1979 does feel like a film that might be more appreciated now than it was then.
"Unfaithful" indeed! Bah!
- Parks
- Dec 16, 2023