Tuesday, November 20, 2007
So who is the greatest Dracula? There have been several candidates; Bella Lugosi, Frank Langella, Christopher Lee, Gary Oldman, Max Schreck (in the 1922 German film the vampire was called Count Orlock because the studio couldn’t obtain the rights to Dracula), Jack Palance, Klaus Kinski (in a remake of the 1922 German film mentioned above), and many others that don’t set off many clicks on the cinematic Geiger counter. There was even a woman–well…not exactly. It was from Dracula’s Daughter, so I guess she wasn’t actually Dracula, but it shows the popularity of the fictional fiend.
But who should hold the title of Champion, who should we recognize as the best of the famous, or infamous, vampire film icon, Count Dracula?
Let’s start with the most well known of them all, the one that gave us the ever quoted (and as usual, not in the film) line, “I vaaaant, to suuuuck, your blooooood.” Of course I’m speaking of that originator of the Romanian ruler of reluctant romance, Bella Lugosi.
Considering the impact Lugosi’s Dracula made upon the movie-making world, he’s definitely a top contender in the heavyweight division. Comic books, cartoons, breakfast cereal companies, even Sesame Street borrowed his heavily accented interpretation of the Stoker character. But as powerful and original as Lugosi’s performance was for the time, I can’t say he was the greatest. I’d put him somewhere high on the list, sure, but not at the top. His performance was a little melo-dramatic and stagey. It didn’t have that Stanislavsky realism that a better actor would have given it. And don’t tell me that it was the time of archaic acting, before ‘real’ acting had surfaced. The Private Life of Henry the IIIV from 1933 with Charles Laughton, The Public Enemy 1931 with James Cagney, and The Champ 1931 with Wallace Beery, all were of the same era, two of them made in the same year, and all had performances that surpassed most of what we see in films even today. No, our boy Bela could have done a better job were he a better actor capable of giving a more natural and realistic performance. Although he had a respectable concept of the role he just wasn’t able to pull it off.
Frank Langella. This handsome hero made quite an impact with his interpretation of the Stoker character in the 1979 John Badham film, Dracula. But I think Langella’s was more a sexual, even erotic, power that carried his role than anything else. He was pretty, suave, and elegant, but he lacked menace. He held no real threat. His Dracula had no truly inimical impact or immediate danger that came through. Sure, all the ladies were titillated by him, but the guys simply raised an eyebrow and shrugged. Guys watching Langella’s Dracula felt as if they could legitimately say, “Ah…I could take ‘im.” That’s the problem with those pretty boys. They just aren’t tough enough looking. And an eastern European undead aristocrat that can snap the spine of a wrestler with relative ease should have a look that has the capacity to intimidate the average biker. Frank Langella didn’t. Dracula was Alfa-male, not metro-sexual.
Speaking of Alfa-male, how about that Jack Palance. Wow! Now there’s a chiseled face that has that evil dark lord quality. It was a 1970’s made for TV movie, directed by Dan Curtis. Palance did a decent Dracula, but actually, although he had a presence, Jack Palance wasn’t that good of an actor. I’m sorry but it’s true. Okay, sure, he was excellent as Wilson in Shane, but overall, he’s not had any other really impressive performances to his credit. Again, as Dracula, he had the look, but couldn’t quite bring out the necessary abilities to make it work.
Gary Oldman. That was a bad choice to begin with. Dracula should be big and imposing. Oldman isn’t. From stoker’s novel, Dracula is well over six feet tall. Oldman isn’t. Gary Oldman is however, an actor that has turned in some notable performances, but he just wasn’t right for the prince of night. He didn’t have that Langella lustiness, nor did he have Jack’s jaw. And again, like Langella, no real threat. And Coppola’s pitiful film adaptation of the Bram Stoker novel didn’t help him either. Sadly, I’m afraid I couldn’t call him even much of a contender. You have a director with the potential for greatness, an story that is the quintessential horror tale, and an actor with the capability to handle, if not the physical dimensions of the character, at least the performance challenges, and all you got was a typical Wes Craven style movie. Too bad.
Max Schreck and Klaus Kinski? Uh…moving right along… Now I know that there are critics who think that those rat looking type Draculas are more true to the original book. I disagree, for a number of reasons. I won’t go into them here, but I’m not looking for the greatest literary Dracula, anyway. I’m looking for the greatest film Dracula. And the whole ‘Orlock’ buck-toothed kind of vampire seems to me more bothersome than dangerous. He’s like an irritating kid that keeps kicking your shin, rather than a terrifying monster with super human strength. Instead of driving a stake through his heart, you want to shoo him away so you can get back to your reading. I’d say both Schreck’s and Kinski’s Dracula are just too goofy looking to be taken seriously. Instead of calling in Van Helsing, you feel like calling Orkin.
That brings us to what I think is the preternatural king of the horror genre’s most admirable and worthy representative of the on-screen sophisticated sanguinist–drum roll please–the reigning champion of that nocturnal necro-ne’re-do-well, Christopher Lee. Now hold on, wait a minute, before you harangue. Take a good close look at his Dracula, especially in The Horror of Dracula. In my opinion it was Hammer’s best horror film, and a very good version of the Stoker story by any standards. And one thing that gave it such power was Lee’s performance and interpretation of the legendary character. He actually was big and imposing, he had that face of menace with yet the convincing sophistication a count. We could see Jonathan Harker as an aid employed by the Romanian noble. His performance was very believable and we’re affected as we see the vicious monster emerge that is the real Dracula.
When we first meet Christopher Lee’s Count Dracula we’re impressed with his comportment, his mannerisms, his graceful demeanor, and what seems to be high breeding. But even with all of that, hidden just underneath is the ever so slight hint of darkness, something we sense, something we feel rather than consciously apprehend. Then, when he reveals his true nature, his dark and hideous drive, his bloody lust, we are disturbed at his animalistic depravity. We see the monster, and we are revolted and frightened. Yes, Lee has, to a lesser but adequate degree, the sex appeal of Langella and the rabid fiendishness of Palance. He hits the right balance of the alluring and the terrifying.
So there you have it. Christopher Lee – the greatest Dracula to hit the screen so far.
And I think he’ll hold the title for a some time. Good vampire movies in general, and Dracula movies in particular, are extremely hard to come by. And actors with the talent as well as the physical attributes to portray the classic antagonist are just as rare. So I doubt he’ll be taken down anytime soon. Don’t get me wrong, I would love to see it. A commendable rendering of the Stoker novel with a laudable performance by a capable actor is something I long to see. But until I do, in this Dracula and horror lover’s opinion, Mr. Lee holds the title belt.
Over the next Halloween season of ghosts and goblins, ghouls and gargoyles, if you love vampires as I do, watch them all with a critical eye. I think you’ll agree that the greatest Dracula ever is the very talented Christopher Lee.
Keck
