Post by Eddie Love on Oct 31, 2010 9:41:51 GMT -5
In 1977 Frank Langella created a sensation on Broadway when he starred in a revival of the stage adaptation of the novel DRACULA. The original had made a household name of Bela Lugosi and was recreated in the landmark Universal feature, a film’s whose reputation completely outshone its origins on the boards, so Langella’s arrival in the never revived vehicle was a revelation. He brought an overt sexuality to the role that caused a sensation, even in a stylized production set amid costumes and scenery designed by the master of macabre nostalgia, Edward Gorey. It wasn’t long before Universal would bring Langella’s acclaimed turn to the big screen. (But not before he first recreated it in one of those ubiquitous yet memorable “I Love New York” commercials that aired around the country.)
The film version, released in the summer of 1979, was directed by John Badham, fresh off his SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER triumph. The crisp and agile screenplay was by W.D. Richter, who would soon go on to create BUCKAROO BONZAI. This version relies both on the stage adaptation and the novel itself to cobble together the story. Most of the characters remain, but have been rearranged a bit and all of the settings shifted to the English seaside. The time period is, I believe, the early 20s.
From the spectacular opening shot, the film is a really marvelous production that blends real exteriors and locations with artfully designed set pieces that feel grimly realistic. Only one nocturnal graveyard suggests the prosaically set-bound. The picture’s shot through with atmosphere, yet it’s stylishness is subtle, the filmmaking never intrudes on the mood of dark sensuality.
Langella eschews any fangs or red eyes. From the start he’s a dashing, Gothic leading man, and while I’ll leave it to the ladies to determine if he’s wholly successful in that regard (I’m guessing “yes”), he’s still entirely compelling. For all the hysteria that greeted the arrival of this performance, it’s one of the subtlest Draculas ever. Many of his trademark lines are served up as sly and ironic little nuggets for the audience to enjoy, we’re not hit over the head with their recognition.
Every bit as good is Kate Nelligan as the beauteous object of Dracula’s obsession, Lucy. She gives a simply excellent performance, effortlessly suggesting a fully developed character. She doesn’t waste any time trying to recreate a repressed woman of the time period (see Ryder, Winona), rather she convinces us immediately that she’s a strong-willed woman, and not some tremulous virgin. It’s that much more poignant, then, when she falls under the vampire’s spell, as unlike Minas and Lucies of time’s past, she’s not easy pickin's. She has one powerful moment when she bridles against embracing vampirism. And her final scene is a knockout.
Examining the subliminal sexual fantasies inherent in the vampire legend has become a full-blown industry these days, but it was fairly novel at the time this film came out. Earlier in the decade there had been two very good TV versions of the novel, one featuring Jack Palance and more recently with Louis Jourdan, that had delved more deeply into the Dracula character than much of what had come before. But this version is more successful in depicting Dracula’s powers as being essentially erotic in nature. This conceit bleeds over (pun intended) into the other powers that we witness or project onto him, so even when he may appear as nothing so much as the hero of a supernatural, bodice-ripper, I didn’t have any difficulty imagining he could also kick his nemesis’ ass.
Granted, I confess, that’s not saying that much here. Given the sexual vibrancy of Langella’s take on the Count, it’s always been a little off-putting that Van Helsing is played by a clearly decrepit Lord Olivier. He reprises the Eastern European accent he employed to greater effect in THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL. While he does have some good scenes, I always wonder how things would have played out with a more vigorous actor in the role like Peter O’Toole, John Hurt or Albert Finney. Also in the cast is Donald Pleasance providing a bit of a comic relief. However, he’s playing a character with too much skin in the game for us to understand why he’s clowning around so. (The accompanying docs on the DVD provide some affectionate, if biting, insight into his techniques for stealing focus from other actors.)
The film has some moments that are likely to take today’s audiences out of the picture. There are a couple of scenes of Langella emerging from a bank of smoke machine’s output that may have the feel of a live action recreation of the cover of a romance novel. There’s also a long and curious Maurice Binder designed segment that’s a blood and laser interlude that seemed out of place even when the film came out, but I actually didn’t mind now. Sad to say, what’s most dated in the picture could be Langella’s feathered hairstyle, which does put one in mind of Badham’ prior protagonist Tony Minero.
What I love about the film is that, unlike almost any other variation on the tale, we experience the action through several subtly conveyed perspectives. We get glimpses from Dracula’s point of view very early on -- long before the "mystery" of the story has been unraveled and we learn that he’s a vampire. Badham and Richter do a wonderfully effective job of keeping the perspective shifting throughout the piece. They also succeed in making Dracula magnetic, without falling into the trap of also trying to make him sympathetic.
And, yes, there are some good scares in this picture. When Van Helsing confronts his undead daughter, it’s a scene that still packs a wallop and it benefits from the fact that John Williams' otherwise superb score is used to minimal effect. There’s an ambiguous ending that once frustrated, as it seemed designed to leave the door open for the sequel that never materialized. But today, I love its enigmatic flavor.
There are a lot of good versions of DRACULA, and I wouldn’t suggest that the 1979 adaptation is the definitive one. But it certainly deserves to be ranked higher than it is. The performances of Langella and Nelligan are sterling, and the production design and filmmaking sensational. And for all the obsession today with tales of vampire love and lust, this film is still one of the very sexiest takes on that premise.
