The Queen Is Dead! Long Live the Queen!

I received word from Marty¹ of a terrible loss to the horror industry: Ingrid Pitt, who rose to fame through Hammer Films, has passed away.

He sent the following obituary, confirming the news. She's best-known in vampire circles for starring in The Vampire Lovers (1970), Hammer's adaptation of J. Sheridan LeFanu's "Carmilla" (1871-1872). She wrote about her experiences filming the movie here. Here's a snippet:

When it came to killing Kate O'Mara, who refused to recognise my Vampiric tendencies, I slung her on the floor, sprouted the teeth and moved in. The teeth promptly dived into Kate's cleavage.

She didn't appear in the film's sequels, but did take on other vampire (or vampire-related roles) by starring in Countess Dracula, "The Cloak" segment in The House That Dripped Blood (both 1971) and Beyond the Rave (2008). She also wrote a non-fiction work called The Ingrid Pitt Bedside Companion For Vampire Lovers (1998).

My condolences to her loved ones.

¹ "'Queen of horror' Ingrid Pitt dies‏", Saturday, 27 November 2010 6:06:27 PM.

Round-Up Time

Just a few items concerning vampire-related things in my life at the moment. We start off with my pursuit of Montague Summers, an eBay purchase, a rambling (brief) film review and giving props to Amazon.

I've gotten onto a bit of a Montague Summers (1880-1948) kick. A very prolific writer, best known in vampire studies for writing The Vampire: His Kith and Kin (1928) and its companion tome, The Vampire in Europe (1929). Even though he only wrote these two books in the genre, their impact was massive. Indeed, you'll still find them in print today. He's even spawned a blatant imitator.

Anyhoo, I've been looking for biographical info on the guy, so I ordered two books about him through interlibrary loan. Borrowed both of 'em, yesterday. They are Timothy D'Arch Smith's The Books of the Beast: Essays on Aleister Crowley, Montague Summers, Francis Barrett and Others (Crucible, 1987) and Frederick S. Frank's Montague Summers: A Bibliographic Portrait (Metuchen: The Scarecrow Press, 1988).

I was, quite frankly, disappointed with both. Not with their content, though. You see, I was expecting primarily original material from both, but, alas, they're essentially anthologies of previously published material. D'Arch Smith's book has two essays on Summers: "Montague Summers" (51-57) and "R. A. Caton, Montague Summers, and The Fortune Press" (58-74).

The first essay (presumably published with the second), is reproduced from his 1984 booklet, Montague Summers: A Talk (Edinburgh: Trargara Press). The preface mispells this as "Trargars".

One section of the book did startle me, though: the confirmation that Summers participated in a Black Mass on 26 December, 1918 (56-57). As to one of the other rumours swirling about Summers, the pederasty coverage is relatively hazy, but plausible enough to feel quite disconcerting.

Frank's book is indeed a "bibliographic portrait", consisting of a stack of content mainly reproduced from Summers' own works. The essays that comprise the first part of the book (3-34) have all been published elsewhere. However, the bibliographic chronology and annotated bibliography (156-246) seem to be unique to the book. So, props for that.

I know these might sound like harsh assessements, but just to clarify, these books certainly possess high value for those digging up info on Summers. The harshness is merely one of personal taste. I am keen on original material, you see. First editions. Items as close to a primary source as possible. The books are valuable in that they collate some pretty rare stuff into a solid whole. So, yes, I still recommend them. Personally, though, it means I gotta track down the original sources. At least I've got leads to work with!

*****************************

Speaking of original prints, Christopher Frayling's Vampyres: Lord Byron to Count Dracula (London: Faber and Faber, 1991) arrived in the mail today. I purchased the item from eBay on the 26th of September for GBP 4.99 (after requesting a markdown from 7.99). Quite a bargain.

I already own the paperback edition, which was published the following year. But, I just had to add this '91 hardback to my collection. Incidentally, it's a revised edition of Frayling's The Vampyre: Lord Ruthven to Count Dracula (1978). That one's on my of to-gets, too.

*****************************

Watched Suck (2009) on DVD today. Although the title's probably ironic, it's not far from the truth. It features a swathe of cameos, namely Henry Rollins, Alice Cooper, Moby, Iggy Pop, Henry Rollins, hell, even Alex Lifeson from Rush. As you might've gathered, it's a vampire rock 'n' roll flick. But the music was pretty average and none of those aforementioned musos actually sing in the movie.

It's a bit of an odd flick, incorporating stop motion and dramatic lighting during various scenes. And, I gotta admit, Dimitri Coats made a pretty damn effective vampire...despite his dodgy clothes. I just felt that the flick ran out of steam once the band (The Winners) hit the US border. Just kind've ambled along at that point. It certainly has some clever moments, like the flashback scenes for Malcolm McDowell's vampire hunter. Rather than make him look young or hire a younger actor to play him, the director deftly integrated footage from an actual young McDowell. Nice touch.

I'm also savvy enough to know that the director reproduced a few classic album covers in his shots, namely The Beatles' Abbey Road, Bruce Springsteen's Born in the U.S.A., The Who's The Kids are Alright and T. Rex's Electric Warrior. While quietly amusing at first, it got a bit repetitive, real quick. Didn't really fit the narrative, either. And speaking of "quietly amusing", I don't think I even laughed once during the film. It's a horror comedy. Seemed too limp for that. That said, it was vaguely entertaining. Probably needed a faster pace.

*****************************

The problems I had with Day's book (mentioned here), were fixed up shortly after I wrote that blog entry. I requested a partial refund (half of the total price), as I was still gonna keep the book, which they granted. Kudos, Amazon, for swiftly stitching that up.

Musical Interlude

Presenting the famous club scene from Fright Night (1985), in which Jerry Dandridge seduces Amy right from under Charley's nose.

Never underestimate the power of cheesy 1980s choreography! And yes, that's Marcy D'Arcy pre-Married... with Children. Still, I get a kick out of those tunes in the background. They're Ian Hunter's "Good Man in a Bad Time" and Evelyn ''Champagne'' King's "Give It Up", respectively. I wonder if they'll be incorporated into the pointless remake. Meh.

Anyway, both those songs are available on the film's soundtrack. To see which others made the cut, click here. Some pretty good tunes there.

*****************************

Oh, and William Patrick Day's Vampire Legends in Contemporary American Culture: What Becomes a Legend Most (Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 2002) finally arrived on Monday. Unfortunately, many of its pages were accompanied by underlines in red pen. Grrrr. I've contacted Amazon about that. Outcome pending.

It Was Bound to Happen

I wasn't kidding when I mentioned how mainstream vampires had become thanks to the Twilight franchise. Here's the latest proof.

A word of warning, if you're actually thinking of seeing this flick: it was written and directed by Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer. If those names don't ring a bell, try Date Movie (2006), Epic Movie (2007) and Meet the Spartans (2008) on for size. The best assessment of their movies can be found here (NSFW link).

Sneaky Props

Andrew's screencap (Fig. 1) of a prop in his review of Mystery and Imagination: Dracula (1968) drew my attention:

Fig. 1 Andrew's screencap.

It's a woodcut rendering of Denholm Elliott's Dracula character, which caught my eye for two reasons. Firstly, I've seen that image before. Well, not the version used in the film (more on that, shortly). Second, it tied in with Andrew's comments about the movie's emphasis on sexuality: "If Stoker hinted at a sexual aspect to vampirism then this production screamed it".

So, what's the link between the two?

The image this phony woodcut is based on, originally depicted an incubus. Don't know what an incubus is? Here's a definition: ". . . a demon in male form supposed to lie upon sleepers, especially women, in order to have sexual intercourse with them, according to a number of mythological and legendary traditions."

Thanks to the magic of Google, I've been able to trace the original pic for your viewing pleasure. Here tis (Fig. 2):

Fig. 2 "Male devil embracing woman".

The page's source lists Ulrich Molitor's De Lamiis et Pythonicis Mulieribus ("Of Witches and Diviner Women"). According to Erika Mailmain, this book was first published in 1493 (despite her source listing 1489). She adds that the ". . . book went into several editions, illustrated by woodcuts that were updated so it is possible to find different versions of the same image." That certainly explains why I've seen variations of the same woodcut. Here's a minor variation (Fig. 3):

Fig. 3 "incisione da De lamiis et pythonicis mulieribus di Ulrich Molitor, Colonia, 1489".

And then there's others barely recognisable from the source, except for the same motifs. Like this one, from the c. 1498 Köln [Cologne] edition (Fig. 4):

Fig. 4 Illustration 4.

I highly doubt the production designers consulted the original editions (due to their scarcity) for inspiration, so my guess is they came across the image in a book on witchcraft. Say, for instance Rossell Hope Robbins' The Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology (New York: Crown Publishers, Inc., 1959). On page 465, a reproduction of an image closely resembling Fig. 3 appears. The entry it's incorporated to? "Sexual Relations with Devils".

Wow, 25 Years Already...

Hats off to Vampire News for acknowledging the 25th anniversary of one of my favourite vamp flicks.

It links to Allan Dart's tribute to the film, which provides a teeny bit of info on its upcoming remake (groan).

Although, the celebration of its birthday might be a lil premature. According to IMDb, it was first released on August 2nd, 1985.

Random Updates

Last Wednesday, I received a signed copy of one of the best books you could ever get on vampire folklore. That's right, I'm talkin' 'bout Jan L. Perkowski's anthology, Vampire Lore: From the Writings of Jan Louis Perkowski (Bloomington, IN: Slavica, 2006).

The first half reprints his monographs, 1972-1989 and the second half features his articles right up to 2006 (see: "Props for Perky"). Absolutely brilliant. Can't recommend it highly enough.

============================

I know I've delayed mentioning it, but I actually made another blog entry contribution to VampChix. It was called "So You Want to Be a Vampirologist", in which I give some handy tips on which sources to peruse, etc.

I e-mailed it to her ("RE: Vampire Blog Entry‏", Saturday, 13 February 2010 2:48:07 PM) and made a minor revision ("Blog Entry Revision", Saturday, 13 February 2010 2:58:36 PM).

As with my previous contribution there, some minor edits and mistakes have crept into the transmission.

I'm gonna get pretty pedantic now, so bare with me!

• The "believe" in "how many folklorists actually believe in pixies, unicorns and ogres" wasn't italicised like it should've been. Same goes for the "be" in "Nor do you actually have to be a vampire". Ditto for the "fifty" in "managed to isolate fifty. . ." and the title of my blog after "...if I hadn't started..."
  
• The hyperlink in "blog entries" was meant to apply to "one of my blog entries". Slightly cut down.
  
• The link I gave in the title for Jay Stevenson's The Complete Idiot's Guide to Vampires (2002), was instead changed to an Amazon sidebar ad within in the post. Same goes for Paul Barber's Vampires, Burial, and Death: Folklore and Reality (1988).
• Michele adds an Amazon link to John Cuthbert Lawson's Modern Greek Folklore and Ancient Greek Religion: A Study in Survivals (1910). Ditto for Summers' The Vampire: His Kith and Kin (1928) and The Vampire in Europe (1929).
• The original Amazon.co.uk link for David Keyworth's Troublesome Corpses (2007) is changed to the American version. Same goes for Nina Auerbach's Our Vampires, Ourselves (1995).
• The link to my "Public Service Announcement" was edited out. But, to be fair, I was given a warning about that in advance.
• "That's better!", which concludes the contribution was actually a note I added to the revision I handed into Michele, and not meant to be part of the blog entry itself.
  

============================

I've decided to add a new gadget to my blog, so I can keep all my contributions elsewhere in one place. A bit of a blog roll anthology, if you will. Got the idea from Andrew Dumas' "Reviews" list.

The gadget's ingeniously titled "Contributions Elsewhere". You can find it sandwiched between "Labels" and "Blogs I Read".

============================

Settled in to watch Bram Stoker's Dracula's Guest (2008) yesterday.

Hoo boy, what a terrible film.

The blurb promotes sword fights (not that I think these have a real place in vampire flicks) and we're treated to about two short scenes where this occurs.

Kelsey McCann (Elizabeth), Amy Lyndon (Mrs. Witham) and Dan Speaker (Admiral Murray) were particularly awful in their roles. Andrew Bryniarski (Dracula) was quite imposing, but was obviously riffing on Gary Oldman's portrayal in certain scenes and was probably a bit too "husky" for the role. Kept getting distracted by his squat fingers.

Even though the flick's rated M here, there's bugger-all violence (or much other stuff, for that matter). All the deaths (except Dracula's) take place off-screen. No close-up bites, nothing.

The plot bares little-to-no resemblance to the actual Bram Stoker's "Dracula's Guest", which was promoted as an excised chapter from Dracula (1897), when it was first published in a posthumous short story collection, Dracula's Guest and Other Weird Tales (1914).

If you wanna read a way more thorough review of the flick, check out Andrew's.

============================

Borrowed Peter Day's (ed.) Vampires: Myths and Metaphors of Enduring Evil (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2006) and Harry A. Senn's Were-Wolf and Vampire in Romania (Boulder, CO: East European Monographs, 1982) on interlibrary loan today.

Never read Senn's book before. But what I've been flicking through so far, has been quite interesting, even if he does seem to be pretty flexible in his use of the term "vampire".

I'd love to get a copy of this book meself, but the asking price for this book can be quite steep. So, kids, if you wanna avoid forking out that kinda dough, consult your local library about interlibrary loans!

Peace out.

De-Romanticising the Vampire

Well, it looks like my jubilation over the Fright Night remake being canned, was a tad redundant.

As recent news from Collider.com reveals, it looks like it's going full steam ahead. Even if they're only at first draft screenplay level.

However, there's an undercurrent to the article which conveys a backlash against the "romantic vampire" genre. It's even seeped into the current premise of the movie. Producer Mike De Luca elaborates:

You know, what about this idea is relevant to today and what could be done better than it was…maybe not better but different and different in a way that makes it exciting. And with Fright Night, again, going back to the vampire thing, with all the romantic vampire stuff going on with The Vampire Diaries and True Blood and Twilight, the most obvious. We thought it would be interesting if, in this atmosphere of the way the vampire is being portrayed right now as a romantic object, under the wire of all that in the culture the real thing moves in next door. And the real thing is a killer. Just a predator. It’s the shark from Jaws. On the outside it’s a seductive package and it looks like a human being, but it’s just about ripping your throat out and drinking your blood.

There's echoes of this attitude in Blade: Trinity (2004). Think the scene where "Drake" (Dominic Purcell) walks into the goth shop.

The basis of the idea, of course, is to regress the vampire back to its "monster" status. The creature of evil we grew to know and love through Stoker's Dracula (1897) and various other incarnations.

This nostalgia is typified by John Nettles' "Where Have All the (Real) Vampires Gone? (Or, "Bite Me, Lestat!")".

However, there's two factors that these monster buff miss out on: 1) the vampire of history (folklore) wasn't nearly as brutal as they'd like to think 2) even the monsters in fiction are sometimes shown to have a heart.

For a quick example, let's look at Count Dracula.

In the novel, he is depicted as a cunning, cruel being, looking to spread vampirism through the civilised world. Yet, he clearly has a soft side. Let's take this scene, in which the Count rescues Jonathan Harker from the attentions of his "brides":

"How dare you touch him, any of you? How dare you cast eyes on him when I had forbidden it? Back, I tell you all! This man belongs to me! Beware how you meddle with him, or you'll have to deal with me."

The fair girl, with a laugh of ribald coquetry, turned to answer him. "You yourself never loved. You never love!" On this the other women joined, and such a mirthless, hard, soulless laughter rang through the room that it almost made me faint to hear. It seemed like the pleasure of fiends.

Then the Count turned, after looking at my face attentively, and said in a soft whisper, "Yes, I too can love. You yourselves can tell it from the past. Is it not so? Well, now I promise you that when I am done with him you shall kiss him at your will. Now go! Go! I must awaken him, for there is work to be done."

This "emo" side of Dracula is also alluded to in Bela Lugosi's turn as the Count, when he says, "To die, to be really dead, that would be glorious."

When "monsters" are humanised in this manner, especially by giving them a "tragic" elelment, the natural outcome is to explore the emotional dimensions of their situation. What's the mindset of a being that lives for centuries and must subsist on blood for its own survival?

This, of course, lead to the diversion of vampire-as-monster into vampire-as-hero/protagonist. Thus, Fred Saberhagen's The Dracula Tape (1975) sought to tell the story from Dracula's point-of-view. Its subsequent sequels, in turn, recast the Count as a hero.

More famously, Anne Rice's Interview with the Vampire (1976) was narrated by Louis de Pointe du Lac, a former resident of 18th century New Orleans, who describes the trials and tribulations he faces as a vampire. Probably the most successful vampire novel of the twentieth century, it was further expanded in Rice's elaborate "Vampire Chronicles".

Chelsea Quinn Yarbro's Hotel Transylvania (1978) transformed a mysterious historical figure into a vampiric Romantic hero and also spawned another successful series.

These approaches made the vampire much more "accessible" to the public. He was no longer an aristocrat living alone in a dank castle up in the mountains, but a fully developed "personality", one that could be found in an urban environment.

This also meant that the vampire became more of an accessible "fantasy" figure, too.

And so, from this genesis, the vampire romance genre was born. Its most successful incarnation is, of course, Stephenie Meyer's Twilight franchise.

Of course, this means that fans of the vampire genre, who either grew up with - or prefer - the "monster" variants, were stranded in an overcrowded market.

This in turn lead to a new wave of vampire depiction, in which the vampire's monstrosity is re-introduced, if not enhanced. The vampire hunter also resurfaces as a major character. Think F. Paul Wilson's "Midnight Mass" (1990; 2004), John Steakley's Vampire$ (1991) and David Wellington's "Vampire Series" (2006- ).

Then, there are versions that walk the line, like Laurell K. Hamilton's "Anita Blake: Vampire Hunter" series (1993- ) and Joss Whedon's TV rendition of Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1997-2003).

The tug and pull between romanticisation and de-romanticisation will always be present in the vampire genre. There will always be debates and preferences over what vampires are "meant" to be like.

After all, one of the greatest attributes of the vampire in fiction and film, is its adaptability; the same characteristic that's ensured its success and survival in the present age.

Fangs N' Sunlight

Theresa's written an interesting little item on standardised vampire attributes, but I do have a coupla points of contention with it.

For instance, here's what she has to see about a classic vampire attribute:

Equally as common among the vampire are descriptions of long sharp teeth and nails, but this should not be surprising in the least to anyone. Vampires are often painted as being strict carnivores, and having the dull and rounded teeth and fibrous fingernails that we humans have would be of very little use to a creature that needs to be an efficient hunter and killer.

If one reads through folklore on the subject, as well as the various reports by Austro-Hungarian authorities, one finds nary a mention of elongated canines. This caused Jean Marigny to remark the following in Vampires: The World of the Undead (London: Thames and Hudson, 1994):

The overdeveloped teeth so dear to filmmakers are reminiscent of the werewolf's fangs but are an attribute that seems to have been invented by the literature of fantasy. In general, the vampire does not bite its victims; it prefers to get blood by sucking the skin's pores. (55)

To be fair, the stories aren't generally specific about blood being sucked through the pores, but as fangs were noticeably absent, this is a seemingly logical conclusion in itself.

As to her bit about sunlight...

People also assume that vampires are susceptible to sunlight and that their flesh will combust into inextinguishable flames if they spend even a moment in it. Although this is true for a scant few species of vampires, it is hardly the case for the larger portion.

I'm not really familiar with any (folkloric/mythical) vampire that disintegrated in this manner. Vampires were mainly nocturnal beings, that is true, and the occasional Russian tale had them needing to return to their tombs before sunrise. But, this was because they'd return to "death". That is, they'd revert back to being a corpse...only to rise again at night, anyway.

The whole death-by-sunlight thing was an invention of Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens (1922). Try and find a source prior to that flick in which vampires disintegrate by sunlight. Go on! I dare ya!

Indeed, the film was even more specific about this modern-day "lore":

One can recognize the mark of the vampire by the trace of his fangs on the victim's throat. Only a woman can break his frightful spell--a woman pure in heart--who will offer her blood freely to Nosferatu and will keep the vampire by her side until after the cock has crowed.

When this lore was incorporated into other vampire stories and flicks, this portion was excised.

The vampire literature of the 19th century had no recognition of this form of vampire destruction: Varney (Varney the Vampire, 1847), Carmilla ("Carmilla," 1872) and even the Count (Dracula, 1897) are all depicted walking about in sunlight.

Free Plug!

Alison McNeill, Account Associate II of FutureWorks has informed me of an Independent Film Channel (IFC) presentation called Dead & Lonely.

It's produced, written and directed by Ti West. The guy's credits caught my attention, because he also made The Roost (2005). I haven't seen that flick yet, but it does hold interest. Here's it's synopsis from MovieTickets.com:

A group of young people are en route to a friend's wedding in the remote countryside of Pennsylvania when they hit something unseen, lose control of their car and become stranded. The foursome reluctantly wanders down the deserted road and into the eerie darkness. They come upon a farmhouse where they hope they can use the phone to call for help -- but no one seems to be at home. It isn't long before they learn that the farm has been taken over by vampire bats that have already claimed the lives of the older couple who lived there. But, once bitten, the victims come back to life zombie-style and those still living have to not only dodge the bats, but the undead as well.

So, in essence, what we have here is a survivalist vampire film. Sort've like From Dusk Till Dawn (1996), but cheaper. Much cheaper.

But, back to Dead & Lonely.

It's a five episode web series which will commence screening on Monday, October 26 at Noon ET/PT.

The storyline revolves around a dating site called Date or Die. In the interests of promoting the series, the IFC has actually turned it into a real website. But don't expect to score dates from it.

The storyline follows that two single Los Angeleans are brought together by the site, but, as it happens, one of them is a vampire.

If that tickles your fancy, check out the series' website.

No More Bud

Beloved Aussie actor, Charles "Bud" Tingwell (1923-2009) passed away this morning due to complications arising from prostate cancer. He was 86.

To those wondering why I'm mentioning that on this blog, it should be noted that he had a pivotal role in the 1966 film, Dracula: Prince of Darkness.

Spoiler alert: Don't read the next bit if you haven't seen the flick yet.

He played Alan Kent, the bloke who gets strung up by Dracula's manservant, Klove (Philip Latham) and his throat slit over Dracula's ashes, in a ritual designed to bring the undead fiend back to "life".

This was the first of Dracula's "resurrection" scenes in the Hammer Dracula series, thus making Bud Tingwell the first sacrificial goat and benchmark by which to figure out new and inventive ways to continue the franchise.

Echoes of this practice are seen in American slasher franchises like Halloween, Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street.

Whether or you think this is a good or bad thing, is entirely up to you!

Make Them Stop!

Man, am I sick and tired of remakes.

The sheer amount they seem to be producing these days, is quite frankly disgusting.

I know I've written about it before, but it really gets my goat to read about them being churned out at the rate they are. Can't they let sleeping dogs lie? Is the modern movie-going audience seriously that fickle, that they can't bear to watch a movie older than, say, 20 years old?

Check out Upcoming Horror Films' list of remakes in progress. See how many of your favourites you can spot, dug up from their "graves", dusted off and regurgitated by Hollywood hacks.

To keep in tune with this blog's subject matter, here's a brief sample of vampire movies currently undergoing the remake treatment:

• Isle of the Dead (1945)
  
• The Monster Squad (1987)
  
• Near Dark (1987)
• Låt den rätte komma in [Let the Right One In] (2008)
  

I don't have a nostalgic view of cinematic history. Remakes are nothing new. I'm well aware of that. But, seriously, I feel like we're being bombarded with them at every turn.

I'd love to know if anyone has actually studied their output against those of previous generations. Surely we're making history here - of a more artistically-dubious kind.

Bram Stoker's Drakula?

Everyone knows about the 1931 Dracula, starring Bela Lugosi. It's pretty iconic.

They might even be familiar with the 1922 rip-off, Nosferatu, of Bram Stoker's novel. They probably even know Christopher Lee's 1958 turn in Dracula (although, much more commonly known by its American title, Horror of Dracula).

But how many know about the 1953 "adaptation", Drakula İstanbul'da (Dracula in Istanbul)?

Technically speaking, it's actually an adaptation of Ali Riza Seyfi's 1928 novel, Kazıklı Voyvoda ("Impaler Prince", not "Vlad the Impaler" as the Wikipedia page translates it). That said, it certainly retains a lot of inspiration from Stoker's novel. As Sean notes in his May 14, 2003 entry for Bitter Cinema:

With Dracula scaling the castle walls, implied infanticide, and the ceremonious end of the vampire, with first the staking, then followed by a beheading, and then stuffing the mouth with garlic (as per the instructions in the novel), this movie adaption contains more of the creepier elements of the book than higher-budgeted and more pedigreed productions.

I'd agree with that...to a point. Firstly, Stoker's Dracula certainly doesn't die "as per the intructions". The vampirised Lucy Westenra does, though. Dracula's end isn't nearly so "ceremonious".

Also, the film is set in "modern" times (as of 1953, of course). Thus, we see the use of automobiles and telephones. Not much gothicism here, I'm afraid. Well, apart from an incongurious carriage and Dracula's castle...

This, itself, is a surprising element. Most Dracula-based movies are set , roughly, in a period contemporary to Stoker's novel. Filmakers generally preferred this Victorian Gothic-inspired setting and it wasn't until the early 70's that this attitude started to change. I'm thinking along the lines of Count Yorga, Vampire (1970), House of Dark Shadows (1970), Blacula (1972) Dracula AD 1972 (1972) and Vampyres (1974).

So, I guess we could argue that Drakula was keeping in tune with the up-to-datedness nature of Stoker's Dracula, what, with its telegrams, blood transfusions, typewriters and phonographic recordings.

The other interesting aspect of the film is that it's surprisingly risque for its time. Thus, no longer in Mina (or, in this case, Güzin) a school mistress, but a bit of an exotic dancer. She even has to rebuff some untoward advances in her dressing room. We also get to see her strip (ok, we get to see her legs as she drops off her clothes), she disrobes a few times and we also get to see her taking a bath.

No longer do we have the cape-over-the-face vampire attacks. We actually get to see Dracula's "bride" going for the Harker stand-in's jugular. We witness the same thing with Dracula's attacks. And that's the other thing: we actually get to see Dracula's fangs. To my knowledge, the only other time a vampire's fangs had been depicted in movies, prior to Drakula, was in the aforementioned 1922 Nosferatu. Lugosi's snarls certainly didn't unveil any long and pointy canines. In this instance, you get to see them in the opening shot of the movie!

I'd say that derring-do visual signpost, in terms of vampire movies, is right up there with the drops of bright red blood that spill on Dracula's sarcophagus in the opening credits of Dracula (1958).

The Dracula of this movie represents an interesting transition - and fusion - of Schrek's Graf Orlok in Nosferatu and Lugosi's Dracula: Atif Kaptan's (1908-1977) "Drakula" wears the standard tux (or "head waiter" look. Thanks Love at First Bite)...but he's also fanged and bald.

The film's quite a rarity - both for its time and for availability. So aren't we lucky that LostSilver.com actually hosts it on their website! You can view it here.

Their copy (admittedly in very low resolution, no subtitles and no English dubbing) is the one I watched for the purpose of this overview. So, it helps if you have some familiarity with the Stoker story, to know what's going on. Unless, of course, you speak Turkish. Then, you shouldn't have much problems!

Apart from the sound quality.

Motifs in the Movies

I recently discussed literary motifs in vampire fiction.

Now, it's time to focus on vampire movies.

In lieu of my own thoughts, I thought I'd recommend having a read of Christopher Beam's "I Vant to Upend Your Expectations" and Stephen Harrigan's "Standards for Vampires", both published in Slate magazine.

Remake Canned?

I was quite glad to read coverage concerning the proposed Fright Night (1985) remake been given the flick over at Brian Solomon's The Vault of Horror.

What a relief.

I previously had a brief discussion (see comments) on the proposed remake at Taliesin Meets the Vampires. Not only do I treasure the original movie (its sequel was very influential to my interest in vampires) I'm sick and tired of remakes, in general.

That's not to say I don't enjoy them here and there. Off the top of my head, I'd include The Thing (1982), The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003), Dawn of the Dead (2004) and Halloween (2007) as examples which were carried off quite nicely.

But, seriously, what's the point? Solomon provides an interesting overview of the subject in "Horror Remakes: Then vs Now".

I used to joke about the inevitability of a Gone with the Wind (1939) remake...but at the rate remakes are being churned out these days, it might be a bit more feasible than I first thought.