Vampires In Legend, Myth, And Culture
Vampires have been around long before Hollywood found them with myths and legends dating back to ancient times, in all cultures from Europe, to China and India, to even Africa and Central and South America. Typically, they were demonic creatures who attacked their victims at night, drinking their blood—and usually the victim then becomes a vampire also. It was not until the Middle Ages when the plague hit eastern Europe, especially the Balkans, including the famous Transylvania that the legends took such monstrous proportions in their toll both in imagination and terror. Many bubonic plague victims happened to be buried alive and would claw their way out of their graves—and were considered of the undead. The Slavics of Eastern Europe gave us the origin of the name from their Wampyr, became anglicized to Vampyr and later Vampire. The significance to film is that any such myth or legend affects its culture and in turn its literature; besides some ancient and the Balkan tales, the Western culture adopted the Vampire as a tragic romantic figure as in Lord Byron's vampire in "The Giaour" and John Polidori's, "The Vampyre" in the early 1800's. It wasn't until the romantic period of European literature that the blockbuster classic Dracula not only established a whole new genre of fiction but also defined and set in motion the whole film history of "The Vampire." (Guilley, 393)
Vampires in Film more than most in the “Horror”
genre, take their cue directly from literature, and not just from Bram Stoker’s Dracula. According to John L. Flynn in his thorough
filmographic text, Cinematic Vampirs, the French Director/Producer/Writer Georges
Melies, filmed the first Horror film ever, called “Le Manoir du Diable.” (The
Devil’s Castle) in which the 2 minute ‘moving pictures’ invention created
by two French brothers, Auguste and Louis Lumiere’s, le cinematique—much
akin to Edison’s kinetiscope— showed the story of the demon/vampire Mephistopholes
who did battle with a crucifix yielding hero. The
character/demon, Mephistopheles, was directly stolen from Faust—and Melies’ film
even predates the publication of Stoker’s Dracula by one year. This production
is significant in that this type of cinema is where the term ‘moving pictures’
came from—for the images were not on film but on ‘pictures’ that flipped in
sequence as you either ‘cranked’ the machine or after depositing a coin, a small electric motor would flip the pictures. The final significance to this ‘moving
picture’ is the fact that the Vampire film as seen as a sub-genre today, actually
began the Horror genre one year before the Stoker’s celebrated Vampire novel was even
printed. A film actually based upon his work
would not appear for nearly two decades. Thus
begins the genealogy of the ‘sub-genre’ of the Vampire film and the start of the
Horror genre in the ‘moving pictures, movies, and eventually the film industry
itself. (Flynn, 11,12) Flynn continues to separate the subgenre into
further delineations such as:
· The Traditional Vampire film, e.g. all Dracula
movies and others like “The Night Stalker”(1972), “Fright Night’s I
and II” (1985,1989), and “Salem’s Lot” (1979); these have been the
most successful, both in popularity and in profits for the studios.
· The Alternate Species films such as David Bowie’s
“The Hunger” (1983) These contain
many avant garde movies that appeal to the modern Gothic fans
· The Deranged, Psychotic film, much less known such
as “Martin” (1978) and “Fade to Black” (1980), where the Vampire is a
sociopathic individual.
· The Man-made Vampire film, where the usually a
scientist or physician either purposefully or accidentally creates a blood thirsty monster
(most ‘B’ films)
· The Alien Vampire film where the vampire is an
alien from outer space, e.g.—“Demon Planet” (1965) and “Queen of Blood”
(1966) among many other ‘B’ rated productions.
(Flynn, 7)
Other than these categories, other forms of the sub-genre
have developed such as the Vampire comedies or spoofs, teen Vampire movies and TV series,
the Television soap opera—“Dark Shadows,” and “Buffy-The Vampire
Slayer,” and even Vampire porn. Flynn proceeds in his text to review, critique, and
catalogue many of the movies that have been filmed about Vampires ever since the
aforementioned “Devil’s Castle” and continuing until the 1979 release of
“Interview With A Vampire” based also upon the literary achievement of Anne
Rice. Since a full genealogy would be too
extensive, one website lists alphabetically, nearly 700 Vampire films made world-wide
since the first coin-operated, “Devil’s Castle.” (http://www.netaxs.com/~elmo/vamp-mov.html) In the following pages of this research project
the most important, most impacting, and especially those with literary ties will be
documented with short summaries, review, and documented sources—establishing also the
common threads they all have in theme, plot, characters, settings, and style. In doing so the films will be approached in the
following fashion:
Finally in conclusion to this research project, the
effort will be made to reflect on the age-old issue of whether art reflects society or
vice versa by considering psycho/sociological importance of the Vampire in Film and what
it represents, how the Vampire legend fits into our culture and especially our literary
fabric, and the significance Hollywood affects these considerations when factored in with
the studio’s main purposes—to make money. This
treatise will be but a glancing overview and not an exhaustive reference, only to
illustrate the impact of a particular genre of film, its significance in ‘meaning’
on society, and how Hollywood has either manipulated the subgenre or has adapted the genre
to meet the viewing public’s demands. However
the most important goal of this research project will be to illustrate the impact and
influence the Vampire in literature has had on evolvement of the Vampire in film—showing
how the mystique and imagination of the supernatural creature represented by ‘the
Vampire’ has been indelibly implanted in the social and cultural psyche in such a way
as to be expressed in written literature and even the newest form of literature—the
modern film.
The following is a brief timeline of either the most prominent and/or popular Vampire films since the beginning of film. Some films may not have even garnered much critical or popular acclaim, but are significant due to some contribution they made both to the Horror genre and the Vampire sub-genre.
1. 1896: The Devil’s Castle—1896, b/w, Cenamatograph, Writer/Director/Producer: George Meleis. Star: Gustav Von Wangerheim.
2. 1922: Nosferatu—German, b/w, Director F.W. Marnau, Starring Max Schreck. Writer: Henrik Galeen
3. 1931: Dracula—Universal, b/w, Director: Tod Browning, Star: Bela Lugosi. Based on the novel by Bram StokerScreenwriters: Garret Fort, Dudley Murphy—based on the play written by Hamilton Deane and John Balderston.
4. 1936: Dracula’s Daughter—Universal, b/w, Director: Lambert Hillyer. Written by Garret Fort—based on a short story by Bram Stoker’s Dracula, entitled, “Dracula’s Guest.” Starring Otto Kruger.
5. 1942: Son of Dracula—Universal, b/w, Director: Robert Siodmak. Writer: Eric Taylor. Starring Lon Chaney, Jr. as Count Alucard, i.e. ‘Dracula’ spelled backwards. A portend of many twists to the Dracula tale to appear in the coming years.
6. 1943: Return of the Vampire. Columbia Pictures, b/w, Director: Lew Lander. Writer: Griffen Jay. Columbia included a werewolf to compete with Universal’s Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman. This would be the last purely ‘Dracula’ film to star Bela Lugosi, and would also be the last of the great period of Dracula films.
7. 1944: House of Frankenstein. Universal, b/w, Director Erle Denton. Writer: Edward T. Lowe. Starring Boris Karloff as Dr. Frankenstein, Lon Chaney, Jr. as the Wolf Man, and John Carradine as Count Dracula. The first of the ‘B’ Dracula film era, these films bear little resemblance to the classic suspense and horror of their predecessors.
8. 1948: Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein. Universal, b/w, Director: Writers: John Grant, Frederic Renaldo, Robert Lees. Starring Bud Abbott and Lou Costello with Bela Lugosi reprising the ‘Dracula’ role for his last time.
9. 1946-1962: Many ‘B’ films, i.e. low budget, poor writing and direction, little known stars, and many times poor quality cinematography, during this period including Valley of the Zombies(1946), My Son the Vampire(1952), The Bowery Boys Meet the Monsters(1954), The Teenage Frankenstein(1959), I Was a Teenage Vampire(1959), Monster Rumble(1961), and Dragstrip Dracula(1962) as well as many more were unremarkable in representing the genre and paled in comparison to the original Dracula movies during the 1931 to 1944 period.
10. 1958: The Horror of Dracula. Hammer Films, b/w, Director: Terence Fisher. Writer: Jimmy Sangster, based on the novel by Bram Stoker. The first of several films that teamed Christopher Lee as the Count and Peter Cushing as Dr. Van Helsing.
11. 1960: The Brides of Dracula. Hammer Films, b/w, Director: Terence Fisher. Writer: Jimmy Sangster. Starring Christopher Lee as Count Dracula and Peter Cushing as Dr. Van Helsing.
12. 1966: Dracula, Prince of Darkness. Hammer Films, b/w, Director: Terence Fisher. Writer: John Samson. Starring: Christopher Lee as the Count and Peter Cushing as Van Helsing.
13. 1968: Dracula Has Risen from the Grave. Hammer Films, b/w, Director: Terence Fisher. Writer: John Elder. Starring Christopher Lee as Count Dracula.
14. 1969: Taste the Blood of Dracula. Hammer Films, b/w, Director: Terence Fisher. Writer: John Elder. Starring Christopher Lee as Dracula.
15. 1972: Dracula, A.D. 1972. Hammer Films, b/w, Director: Alan Gibson. Writer: Don Houghton. Peter Cushing returns as Dr. Van Helsing to battle Christopher Lee as Count Dracula in the 20th Century.
16. 1973: The Satanic Rites of Dracula. The last Hammer Film to star both Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing as Dracula and Van Helsing. B/w, Director: Freddie Francis. Writer: Don Houghton.
17. 1968: Rosemary’s Baby. Paramount Films. Producer/Director: Roman Polanski. Writer: Ira Levin. Starring: Mia Farrow, John Cassavetes. This movie re-introduced the supernatural, even the Devil himself into the Horror Genre. The viewing public due to social changes in the 60’s began to doubt that science could explain everything—therefore, the movie met the needs of a viewing public that believed there were more supernatural causes for unexplained phenomena.
18. 1973: The Exorcist. Warner Bros., Color. Director: William Friedkin. Screenplay: William Peter Blatty’s adaptation of his own novel. Starring Ellen Burstyn, Max Van Sydow, Linda Blair. Though not a Dracula or Vampire film—‘The Exorcist’ redefined the whole Horror genre and ultimately the Vampire subgenre. It’s significance towards redefining the Horror genre was undeniably pivotal in how future Horror and Vampire films would have to define, depict, and ultimately become successful in making a truly horrific and terror-filled film that would satisfy audiences following “The Exorcist.”
The major significance that these
two films had upon the whole “Horror”film genre is the fact that they returned
to a supernatural basis to explain paranormal phenomena and did not claim a scientific
origin to the stories they related. Their
terror and suspense returned to the gothic supernatural—making the social statement
by their popularity that the viewing public no longer ONLY accepted a scientific
explanation for the unexplained.
19. 1970: House of Dark Shadows. MGM, Color, Director/Producer: Dan Curtis. Writers: Sam Hall and Russell Gordon, based on the successful daytime adult TV drama. Even though it preceded ‘The Exorcist’ and its impact on the genre, ‘Dark Shadows’ continued in the tradition of the Dracula-type Vampire, and began to depict Vampiric violence and bloodletting in a much more graphic manner than ever before.
20. 1971: In Search of Dracula. Independent International Films. Color. Director: Calvin Floyd, based on the book about Vlad Tepes, Count Dracul of Romania by Raymond McNally and Radu Florescu. Christopher Lee returns to portray the historical Count of Transylvania that inspired Bram Stoker and the Vampire genre.
21. 1972: Blacula. American International Pictures. Color. Director: William Crain. Writers: Joan Torres, Raymond Koenig. Starring William Marshall. Popularity limited to black audiences, AIP blended Voodoo with Vampirism to capitalize on the growing numbers of black theater goers following the 60’s Civil Right struggles.
22. 1979: Nosferatu. German, 20th Century Fox. Color. Director/Producer/Writer: Werner Herzog, remake of the 1922 ‘Nosferatu’ without the legal constraints of the Stoker family on the 1922 version, Herzog was able to use the names of Stoker’s characters and more closely follow the novel. Starring Klaus Kinski.
23. 1979: Dracula. Universal Pictures. Director: John Badham. Color. Screenplay: W.D. Richter. Based on the novel by Bram Stoker. Starring: Frank Langella, Lawrence Olivier.
24. Television Vampires:
1964: “The Munsters,” CBS.
1964: “The Adams Family,” ABC.
1966: “Dark Shadows,” ABC.
1972: “The Night Stalker,” ABC.
1978: “Count Dracula,” PBS Great Performances.
25. 1979: Salem’s Lot. CBS/Warner TV Productions, Director: Tobe Hooper, writer: Paul
Novack. Based on the novel by Stephen King.
26. 1989: Carmilla. Showtime Nightmare Classics. Based on novel by Joseph Seridan La
Farue, starring Roddy McDowell, Meg Tilly.
27. 1979: Love at First Bite. American International Pictures. Director: Stan
Dragoti, Writer: Robert Kaufman. Starring: George
Hamilton, Susan St. James. (Comedy)
28. 1985: Transylvania 6-5000. New World Pictures, Director: Rudy Deluca.
Starring: Jeff Goldblum, Geena
Davis, Ed Begley, Jr. (Comedy)
29. 1985: FrightNight. Columbia Pictures. Director/Writer: Tom Holland. Starring Chris Sarandon, William Ragsdale, Roddy McDowell.
30. 1987: The Lost Boys. Warner Brothers Pictures. Director: Joel Schumacher. Writers: Janice Fischer, James Geramious, Geoffrey Boam. Starring: Dianne Wiest, Kiefer Sutherland, Jason Patric, Corey Haim, Corey Feldman.
31. 1989: Fright Night II. Vista Pictures. Director: Tommy Lee Wallace. Writer: Tom Holland. Starring: William Ragsdale, Roddy McDowell.
32. 1992: Bram Stoker’s Dracula:Columbia Pictures-American Zoetrope. Director -Producer: Francis Ford Coppola. Screenplay: James Hart. Based on the novel by Bram Stoker. Starring: Sir Anthony Hopkins, Keanu Reaves, Wynona Ryder, Cary Elwes.
33. 1992: Buffy the Vampire Slayer. 20th Century Fox/Sand Dollar/Kuzui Enterprises. Director: Fran Rebel Kuzui. Writer: Joss Wheadon. Starring: Christy Swanson, Donald Sutherland, Paul Reubens, Rutger Hauer, Luke Perry.
34. 1993: “Buffy the Vampire Slayer,” the Television series. Fox Television. Starring: Sarah Gellar
35. 1994: Interview With a Vampire. Director: Neil Jordan. Starring: Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Antonio Banderas, Christian Slater, Kirsten Dunst.
Of note: Since 1994, and the compilation of this filmography excerpted from John Flynn’s listing, five major film releases concerning Vampires have occurred.
Blade I and Blade II—both original and sequel starring Wesley Snipes in a Martial arts action sub-genre of Vampire film, that includes the Buffy Film and TV series.
John Carpenter’s Vampires (I & II) Director/Producer: John Carpenter. Eerie surrealistic bloodbath of Vampire hunters seeking out Vampires. Starring: James Woods.
Considering the fact that as mentioned earlier in this website there are over 700 films made about vampires since ‘moving pictures’ were invented using Thomas Edison’s cinematograph, and there are countless types, versions, and even vampire westerns, the area of specialty chosen for this research project for review are the vampire films based on the literary vampire, more specifically Bram Stoker’s type of vampire. Of the 35 or more prominent films listed above, only five will be reviewed in this article—both the 1922 and 1979 versions of “Nosferatu,”, the 1931 “Dracula,” Francis Ford Coppola’s 1992 version of “Bram Stoker’s Dracula,” the television documentary based on the historical Vlad Tepes/Count Dracul broadcast on BBC and PBS “In Search of Dracula,” and the 2002 release on the USA cable network of the docudrama on Vlad Tepes, also known as Vlad the Impaler, knighted by the Pope to serve in the order of the Dracul (Dragon) to protect Eastern Europe from the Ottoman Turks.
Though most if not all of these five films were not necessarily blockbuster hits of the genre or received much critical acclaim, the effort will be to review their portrayal from the context from which Bram Stoker created the popular literary creature based upon cultural history, myth, and legend—especially in Eastern Europe—which really shaped the literature, and that from this heritage of literature sprang a whole sub-genre of Horror film that literally due to the number of vampire films made almost deserves its own genre category. According to Silver and Ursini in their book, The Vampire Film, the vampire as a creature is the most singularly filmed monster in film history. Also, besides recognizing that art imitates life, in that the mystical story of Dracula arose both out of history and legend as an expression of a cultural archetype of romantic, seductive evil—it will be hoped to be shown that such reflection of life in art also gives rise to a life of art in itself, e.g. cult-like admiration and readers following the antics of Dark Shadows’ Barnabas Collins or more recently some of the reading audience’s obsession with Anne Rice’s whole cas of bewitching vampires including Louis and Lestat of the Vampire Chronicles. The wheel of art and life revolving back again with the return of the Vampire in Rice’s books to the ranks of literature. It will be hoped that the research and reviews will determine what makes the vampire such an inescapable creation of the literary mind and its significance in the conscious or subconscious of the many vampire fans that devour nearly in a bloodthirsty fashion the film and literature that is populated by the fearsome and romantic Vampire—whether Dracula, Lestat, Barnabas Collins, or the many variations created by both authors and filmmakers.
The Five Films to be
Reviewed:
Documentary—In
Search of Dracula
Docudrama—Dracula,
Dark Prince
Theatrical: Nosferatu (1922 and 1979), compared and contrasted.
Dracula (1931) and Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992) compared and contrasted
In Search of Dracula—Written, Directed, Produced by Radu Florescu and Raymond McNally.
Long before the Berlin wall fell in 1989, two scholars one Romanian, Radu Florescu, from the University of Romania with the blessing of its regime teamed with a British author and historian, Raymond McNally set forth to film a documentary based on the successful publication of their book they had written by the same name, to search out the legends and myths that created the Dracula creature and man in both literature and film. Filmed on a low budget, and on location in Romania, it documents the plague hysteria that contributed to the notion of the undead, many with the plague were accidentally buried alive and would claw their way out of their graves. Of course, being buried alive with very little air to sustain them in their coffins, these ‘living dead’ rose from their burial sites brain-damaged and such behaved monstrously and sometimes would return to their homes, where of course their relatives believed them not to be their lost loved one, but one of the ‘wampyre’ or the undead. Priests would be called for and with great dispatch, exorcism along with beheading and stakes in the heart would set the evil undead at rest. Such were the local Walpurgian legends, and Balkan gypsy stories not only told but even recorded in certain archives—even those of parish priests. This documentary, both the film and movie, were hope to remove some mystique revolving around the mystery of the vampire and especially to remove the stigma from the Romanian national hero that Vlad Tepes represents today even. Prince Vlad Tepes III, of the Romanian province of Transylvania had been a hero to the common people of his province, the stories and legends of which survive among the people today; however, a certain Irish author doing research in the Libraries in London, at Cambridge and Oxford soon fabricated a haunting and romantic figure out of combining the ancient Vlad the Impaler, known for impaling his enemies and drinking their blood, with the tales and legends of the local Transylvanians and gypsies into what has become a truly immortal character—Dracula. This author was Bram Stoker, his twist to the vampire legends was to make of this Vlad Dracul, a romantic anti-hero, a character that people would become mesmerized by his pathetic copy of resurrection, the loneliness that drove him to drink the blood of his victims to immortalize them to serve him. In Search of Dracula does a great deal more than just chronicle the birth of Dracula in Stoker’s mind—but gives the realism to the legend that only being filmed on location in Transylvania, visiting the Castle Dracula ruins, the house where Vlad Dracul was born, and hearing the interviews of the folklore from the locals that still carry beliefs of the undead, garlic, and their national hero, Count Dracula, Prince Vlad Tepes III, Vlad the Impaler. The cinematography is rough due to the low budget, and the restrictions by the Communist government of the time—the government wanted the portrayal to be of Vlad Tepes, the people’s prince. He impaled many a bourgeoisie ‘boyar’ and returned the nobles’ wealth to the peasants (the proletariat)—hence, the perfect communist hero. Christopher Lee make cameos as the Prince Vlad and Count Dracul for sensational reasons to help promote the documentary. This inclusion of an actor that previously played Count Dracula in the Hammer Films’ series was a stroke of genius by Florescu and McNally, since to most vampire buffs, the real history might bore them to death. The film is an excellent documentary.
This film done in the docudrama format vis-à-vis Lifetime, etc. documents as a fictional drama the life and times of Vlad Tepes III or Vlad the Impaler, knighted in the order of the dragon (Dracul) by the Pope to protect the Eastern frontier of the Holy Roman Empire from the Turks. As a buffer province, it chronicles his determination to hold the Turks at bay and try to straddle the fence politically, with rival nobles in his own province, Transylvania and country of Romania. In various ways this proves its historical nature as it portrays his ambivalent nature and confusion by being caught between allegiances to Austria and the Pope and on the other side the Eastern Orthodox patriarchs. He develops his reputation as the Impaler, by ruling with fear, not the peasants as some rulers do—but his noblemen and landlords—many times arranging special banquets for them, when they had either betrayed him to the Turks or to the Austrian Duke, and once they were fed and drunk with wine—had them impaled on six foot spikes. He did this many times, the property of his nobles would be turned over to the peasants. This made a peasantry so loyal as to join him in battles with the Turks when the opposition was ten times greater in numbers. This film, also shows some of the religious aspects that lend to his reputation as a devil of the undead. At various times, amidst a confusion of loyalties he had been excommunicated by both the Eastern Orthodox church and the Pope. The Pope and the patriarchs did this mostly as political justice for his alliance with them was always superseded by his loyalty to his country and peoples. When word reached the Vatican and Greece of his impaling thousands of Turks to scare off the remaining forces of the turks, and had been rumored, probably true, that he had drank of their blood he was considered a rogue. Eventually he was defeated by the king of Hungary and died in prison. Even though he had been excommunicated, he was buried in a chapel in his own Transylvania, however when the priests came to exhume the body to ritually exorcise it, behead and stake its heart, his body was not to be found. This only added to the legend of the Count Dracul becoming a vampire, and increased his legend as a hero of his people even if the church had renounced him as anethema. Though a little long and tedious, integrating his marriage, children, and the historical fact that his father had given his younger brother, Radu, to the Turkish Sultan as a consort—the intrigue and dramatic portrayal of the true story of the legend keeps one engaged. In spite of its no-name cast, Peter Weller stars as the only priest with the courage to challenge him. This role may be fictional, however, the stories regarding his marriage, brother, excommunications, atrocities he committed against his own nobles and the Turks are factual. This film might not garner a large ‘gothic cult’ following, but is an interesting portrayal of a legendary figure that becomes a literary character that does retain an immortal life, whether the original Count Dracul ever did become one of the ‘living dead’ or not. Vlad Tepes haunted the mind of Bram Stoker to the point of obsession and hence the birth of the perpetually re-invented character we see beginning with ‘Nosferatu’ in 1922 and ending with Dracula visiting Anne Rice’s New Orleans in “Dracula 2000.” Bram Stoker removed Vlad Tepes from his legendary tomb and released him into the imaginations of millions. From this we go from fact to fiction in our film reviews.
‘Nosferatu’—(1922
and 1979) Contrast and Comparison
These two vampire films, the 1922 version and the 1979 German, would ordinarily be unremarkable as horror films except for two major reasons. The two major reasons concern the depiction of the vampire, which is true to Eastern European legend—that of an ugly, grotesquely, disfigured ‘living corpse’—literally. This is how vampires were considered to have looked in reality according to myth and legend until Bram Stoker and Hollywood spruced Dracula up into a romantic, seductive antihero both in print and as Bela Lugosi in 1931. Both also are of poor quality the 1922 version mainly due to the nature of film technology of that day and time and the German film due to a low budget for a remake of the original, that obviously German filmmakers did not feel it was work. The major differences in them were that the 1922 version was unauthorized because Stoker’s family would not approve of the use of the novel and the names of the characters to be used in it and the 1979 version was able to use the names and characters as in the Stoker’s novel. These films would be unremarkable except for the fact that they portray the vampire as original legends told of his physical depiction. These films are not riveting horror films, but do have a haunting quality due to the make-up and special effects used to portray the vampire, and their poor cinematography, one due to its being made in 1922 and the other due to low budget lighting, effects, and scenes. Other than the Count as Orloff in 1922 and Dracula in its remake looking like a real vampire is supposed to look, this film would probably be more inclined to be studied by students of film and not by fans of vampire lore.
“Dracula”
(1931) and “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” (1992) – Contrast
and Comparison
The comparison between these two films is much more intriguing to the actual vampire buff—they are both masterpieces of their time. The original 1931 Dracula in it haunting portrayal of a romantic Dracula who pursues the virginal Mina, becoming bat and wolf alike to reach her. This horror flick was a first in cinema in creating a near state of hysteria in the theaters, some places banned its showing even. The lines proved it a blockbuster, and Bela Lugosi became a lifelong typecast as the Count. It was primitive and low budget, using possums and armadillos as giant rats in the Carfax Abbey where the Count slept in his coffin—but for its day it piqued the imagination of a generation, spawning many imitators and ‘B’ flicks, none really doing the portrayal of Dracula as romantic and hypnotic as Lugosi’s. Christopher Lee came close, but will always be eclipsed by Lugosi’s eternally mesmerizing portrayal, a truly immortal performance of the Count.
Likewise, the 1992 production by Francis Ford Coppola, outstretching his budget and not becoming a seller at theaters, was its producer’s disappointment. The Lavish sets, on scene locations though are brilliant in its portrayal of Stoker’s novel. The performances of all the actors, Gary Oldman as Dracula and Sir Anthony Hopkins as Professor Van Helsing were most excellent. The film did not garnish great notice, honors, or acclaim—however, to the true vampire aficionado and especially the romantic it is a hypnotic and entrancing experience, with its surrealistic special effects—whether Coppola gets credit for a masterpiece, he can certainly be sure that both the Count wherever he rests and Bram Stoker are pleased with his production.
“Interview With a Vampire,” (1979)—The New Breed of Vampire
Though preceding Coppola’s Drac, by nearly a decade and a half, the screen adaptation of Anne Rice’s popular novel, Interview With a Vampire, has spawned a whole new variety of vampires as well as fans. Like Stoker’s, the portrayal as a romantic anti-hero remains, but Rice imbues in the reader, as the movie does in the viewer, the situation of being seduced into the killing of the vampire by an empathetic response to the beauty of the Characters and the struggle they have reconciling their killing. Rice almost uses the whole struggle of a homosexual to accept himself as the interpretation of how her vampires deal with their curse. Lestat would be the out of the closet vampire, holding back no remorse for being what he is, while Louis is the guilt-ridden closeted vampire struggling with the morality and mortality of the kill. Rice’s use of sensuality sparks within a new generation, a desire to empathize with her character’s struggles. To some extent her story and the movie’s portrayal is one of self acceptance of mortality and immortality. She leaves the reader as the movie does, wondering whether life is mortal or immortal and how this affects one’s acceptance in life’s continuum. Rice’s book was masterfully done—but was not a blockbuster, not did it win much critical acclaim. Most gothics will not accept its lavish beauty, which Lestat is adamant that in death as in life he must live extravagantly. This atypical film, in spite of the popularity of her novels, and her final approval and pleasure at her novel’s depiction, did not fair well in the critic’s mind or the viewer’s pocket book. It is a shame that such a lavish production of a popular novel’s adaptation failed to garnish anything that was hoped for. The sequel, Queen of the Damned, quickly died at the boxoffice, also—in spite of a continuing growing audience of readers to Rice’s books—her vampires may not be able to stand the test of time that Count Dracula has, born of history and legend, and birthed through literature—Vlad Tepes, the Impaler as Count Dracula—even excommunicated lives on eternally in our imagination.