IHR induction #32: "Horror of Dracula" (1958, Terence Fisher)

Bram Stoker's novel "Dracula" is arguably the single most important book ever published. Its impact was stunning and sweeping, and its influence continues to this day. Before "Dracula," vampire stories tended to be silly and/or one-dimensional, with undead blood feeders being stoic and zombie-like. The Count, on the other hand, was overtly loquacious and charismatic. It added the undeniable tragedy factor to the vampire mythos, as well as several of the weaknesses (Crosses, sunlight, etc.) and other aspects of the lore that are now accepted as Gospel for vampire philes. And it's all thanks to a single book.

This statement can't be proven, because I can't be bothered to look it up, but the character of Count Dracula has GOT to be the most prolific character in all of moviedom. There have been literally dozens of films over the years to feature him, and their quality varies just as much as the year following the title. Fans of the novel generally prefer Francis Coppola's 1992 movie, purists gravitate toward the 1931 Bela Lugosi version, and morons lean on the 2000 Gerard Depardieu remake/bastardization. My favorite? Look no further.

Ordinarily, I'm not a fan of old-school Gothic horror films; call me ADD, but give me slasher films over doom and gloom any day. Hammer Films, on the other hand, was a company that could make these stories and periods look vibrant and attractive. Not only that, they featured classically-trained actors who fully invested themselves within the confines of their decades-old characters to perfection. While many Hammer Films features rank as classics, "Horror of Dracula" is not only my favorite of the lot, it's my #1 Dracula movie of all time. I base this on my first viewing of the movie, which amazingly enough took place last Friday.

THE MOVIE!

In some circles, "Horror of Dracula" is a polarizing movie, because it takes more than a few creative liberties with the original Stoker source material. The basics are kept in check; Dracula (Christopher Lee) is an evil vampire who spells doom for virtually everyone he meets in an era of Victorian optimism, and a small group of friends must band together in an effort to destroy him. In pretty much all of the particulars, however, this talkie varies. It becomes apparent in the flick's first reel, as this movie's version of Jonathan Harker (John Van Eyssen) isn't your average everyday solicotor, but a bona fide vampire hunter who travels to the creepy, crawly castle in an effort to murder this movie's Count Dracula deader than poor Kelsey's nuts (credit to Mick Foley for that one). At least until he is bitten by the count's lover/vampire slave, and stakes the harpy before succumbing to vampireness himself. Oh yeah, spoiler alert.

In virtually every move that it makes, the movie places an extensive focus on making the distinction between its awesome titular vampire and the people who aim to eliminate him more clear. While the novel, and Coppola's film, by extension, paid plenty of lip service to Drac's attempts to woo Mina Murray and thus planted some level of sympathy to the villain, we get no such thing in the Hammer Films version of the story. In "Horror of Dracula" and all of its seventeen gazillion sequels, Christopher Lee does his damndest to portray Dracula as a really evil son of a bitch and nothing more. He deserves none of our sympathy, and his only interest is in wiping out as many live warm bodies as possible. This Dracula truly enjoys what he does; in Lee's amazing performance, we can see the genuine malevolence and delight that he derives from the terror and panic that he spreads via his actions.

In keeping with its theme of streamlining the experience, two key characters from the novel (Renfield and Quincey) are left on the chopping block, leading to much more emphasis being placed on this film's version of Dr. Van Helsing. Peter Cushing, a legendary veteran of horror films as well as being Grand Moff Tarkin himself, plays Van Helsing, and infuses him with a solid heroic quality that would become a staple in many of the movie's sequels (along with Lee as the ever-present Count). The rest of the movie won't be surprising for all of those who have read the novel, as Dracula takes an active interest in the circle of friends who have an active interest in planting a stake through his heart. Another major difference from the book is the Mina-Lucy-Harker dynamic; Mina is married to Arthur Holmwood, while Lucy is Arthur's sister as well as Jonathan's fiance. As a result, it makes the proceedings a bit more emotional, as Lucy is devastated by the death of her future husband.

Rather than being renowned for its minty freshness and emotional punch, however, "Horror of Dracula" is a movie that has an atmosphere that must be seen to be believed. All of the Hammer horror movies that I've seen have this quality; the bright, energetic technicolor meshes incongruously with the gritty nature of the stories they portray, granting them a truly timeless quality that lends itself just as well to viewings by modern-day college students as it does to people who were alive to see these films in their theatrical run. Yes, random cool early-'20s ironic horror fan, you will enjoy this film, even if you think you won't. After all, I did, and I'm as snarky as anyone you're likely to read out in the world of internet fanboyness.

While there's a couple movies from the '80s that I enjoy a bit more, "Horror of Dracula" is definitely among the upper echelon of vampire movies in my personal compendium, instantly shooting into the stratosphere accompanied by Evil Ed and Bill Paxton. It contains iconic performances by Lee and Cushing, as well as a game supporting cast, marvelous direction from Terence Fisher, and that unmistakable Hammer atmosphere. For "Dracula" movies as well as vampire films, this is practically a master class.