n
n
n
n
nTitle: Dracula (1979)
n
n
n
nDirector: John Badham
n
n
n
nCast: Frank Langella, Donald Pleasence, Laurence Olivier,nKate Nelligan, Trevor Eve
n
n
n
nDirector John Badham’s take on Dracula is a very differentntake on the character; on this version he is not the fang bearing, blood spittingnvillain we came to know so well through Christopher Lee’s portrayal of thencharacter in all of those Hammer films from the 60’s and 70’s, nope, thisnDracula was to be a romanticized version of the character, a tortured soulntrapped in eternity, searching for love. I understand what they were trying tondo here, but I think Dracula sans blood and fangs is actually just a bit toonmuch, I mean, we’re talking about a vampire here, blood and fangs are part ofnthe equation most of the time. But whatever, I guess this was the kind ofnDracula they wanted to portray, a sexy dude who exudes testosterone , the kindnof man that makes the ladies melt as soon as he walks into the room. And thisnis exactly what happens in one moment of the film, Dracula walks in, he’s allnsuave, he kisses the ladies hands, dances with them, he even “heals” one ofnthem, the ladies are obviously impressed while the men immediately see himnas a threat! What can you do, the mother of all alpha males has just walkedninto the room!
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
nThe way Frank Langella came to play Dracula on this film wasnby way of his performance as Dracula on a Broadway show that ran for more thann900 performances from 1977 to 1980, in this way, Langella was echoing BelanLugosi who also ended up playing Dracula in Universal Studios classic because henportrayed the character on a stage play. In Langella’s case it was producernWalter Mirisch who saw him perform and liked the play and Langella’snperformance so much he decided right there and then that he wanted to make anfilm out of it. John Badham (the director behind this film) liked the show sonmuch he saw it four times! The script for the film itself is based on the play,nso this is probably why the resulting film is so theatrical, but then again, sonare most adaptations of Dracula; I guess, Dracula and the theatrical go hand innhand. Langella was offered the part and he accepted but only on the conditionnthat he wouldn’t have to wear fangs, drip blood from his lips or promote thenfilm dressed as Dracula. So as you can see, from the very get go Langella hadnstrong feelings as to how the character would be portrayed. Ultimately, thisnromantic Dracula is what sets this adaptation apart from all others. I have tongive it to Langella, he is a smooth operator on this one! Take notes dudes, onnthis film; Dracula shows you how to sweep a lady off her feet. First thingsnfirst, buy yourself a castle and invite her to dinner! Also, get a cape and anperm!
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
nBut this is Dracula we’re talking about here and notneverything can be lovey dubbey in a horror movie. We couldn’t have a Draculanfilm and loose the horror element; that just can’t happen. And so, Universalnfought for this film to be scarier, requesting to Badham and Mirsch that thenfilm couldn’t lose its horror edge, they didn’t want this film to only focus onnthe love story. I am happy to say that director John Badham balanced very wellnboth aspects of the story, the horror and the romance. First off, the film isndrenched in atmosphere. This is one of those films that NEVER loses itsnambiance and I cannot emphasize how important this is to me in this kind of oldnfashioned horror movie. I like for the atmosphere to be a continuous thing, Inwant to be in this horror world for the duration of the whole film, and thisnfilm does just that! Even the daylight scenes look dreary and void of color andnlife. Badham originally wanted to film in Black and White in order to paynhomage to the old Universal horror films, but Universal wouldn’t allow itnbecause they see black and white as something detrimental, something that mightnmake the film lose business. So instead Badham went with a very colorlessnpalette, the film isn’t black and white, but it might as well have been!
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
nSo it has that dreary look to it, add to that the full moons,na castle at the edge of the hill, cemeteries, nights bathed in fog, wolvesnhowling in the night, cobweb filled castles and yes, vampires, and you gotnyourselves one hell of a spooky movie! Even though Dracula himself doesn’t havenfangs on this film, his acolytes do, and so we do get scenes with fangednvampires reaching for their victims throats! In fact, there are some reallynspooky moments on this one, so fear not my friends, you’ll get your romance,nbut you’ll also get your horror, Badham did well in not forgetting this was anhorror movie. Another film that pulled this balancing act well was Francis FordnCopolla’s Dracula (1992). Another element that really takes this production tonanother level are the sets. Wow! The exterior and interior of Dracula’s castlenlook so awesome, so spooky! The same can be said of the insane asylum. And thennthere’s the awesome cast, aside from Langella who is the stand out on this one,nwe also get an awesome Van Helsing in the form of legendary actor LaurencenOlivier, who I might add was very sick while making this movie. Still, he pulled it off like off like a champ. Wenalso get Donald Pleasence, who was originally set to star as Van Helsing, butndecided to play another character because he thought that playing Van Helsingnwould be too similar to his role of Dr. Loomis in the Halloween movies. So, insteadnhe plays Dr. Seward. All in all, we get a really solid bunch of actors bringingnthis story to life.
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
nLike any other Dracula adaptation, there are some changesnand the film does play around with vampire lore. For example, the filmncompletely ignores the opening of the book in which Jonathan Harker goes visitnDracula to his castle, instead, the story starts off when Dracula is already arriving to London. So those scenes from the book in which Harker comes in contact with Dracula’s vampire brides were completely eliminated. Another thing theyndid which I found really odd was how they switched Lucy for Mina. In the booknit is Mina who falls for Dracula, and not Lucy. But for some reason, theynswitched them around and on the movie it’s Lucy who ends up being the centralnfemale character. I see no purpose for this switch, so go figure, I don’t knownwhy they did it, all it does is confuse Dracula fans. But even with these changes here and there, innthe end, John Badham’s Dracula is an excellent take on Dracula. Sadly, evennthough it wasn’t a complete flop, the film didn’t make as much as the studionexpected so it wasn’t considered a winner either. Some attribute this to thenfact that so many Dracula/vampire films were released in the same year amongstnthem Herzog’s Nosferatu (1979), Nocturna (1979), Thirst (1979) and Tobe Hooper’snSalem’s Lot (1979). Also, the Dracula farce Love at First Bite (1979) wasnreleased with success, and so the idea of Dracula might not have seemed sonscary to audiences anymore. I personallynhold Badham’s Dracula amongst my top five favorite Dracula films, in fact, Inthink I would place it in the top three, right next to Coppola’s Dracula andnTerrence Fisher’s Horror of Dracula (1958), yeah, I place Lugosi’s film on anfourth place, I’m one of those guys who likes Lugosi’s Dracula (1931), but doesn’tnlove it. So yeah, if you haven’t seen this underrated masterpiece, I say give itna chance, you’ll kick yourself in the ass for not having seen it earlier.
n
n
n
n
nRating: 5 out of 5
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
