Search - Jess Franco's Count Dracula (Special Edition) on DVD

Jess Franco's: Count Dracula (El Conde Dracula)

Wayne Jefferies | UK | 09/22/2007

(3 out of 5 stars)

"Jess Franco's: Count Dracula (El Conde Dracula) 1970.

The year that Hammer gave us two Dracula films, Christopher Lee agreed to play Dracula again for a 3rd time, in Jess Franco's production of Count Dracula, on the condition that it was a faithful reconstruction of Bram Stoker's novel, & indeed the publicity at the time claimed that it was telling the story as Stoker wrote it. It was possibly the closest movie to Stoker's book up to then, even though there are still almost inevitably some differences.
In terms of portraying Dracula as written, Lee himself claims it's his best performance. Here, like the book, Dracula begins as an old man who gradually gets younger as he drinks more blood. In fact, i think Lee looks very striking as the older Dracula with white hair a thick white moustache. How different he seems to the Hammer productions!
With regard to the film as whole, i do have some mixed feelings about it. It has some good elements, but after the first half hour it does seem to get ponderously slow in places. The first notable scene comes about 10mins in, where Dracula, posing as the Count's coachman drives Harker to the castle amid the howling wolves & the swirling mist, & he gets off the coach & shoos the wolves away with a gesture, - his eyes blazing under the hat & scarf. Even though the 'wolves' are quite clearly alsatian dogs, i really like the whole sequence. It's very atmospheric, & remeniscent of the book. Dracula's first appearance 'proper', with the introductory scene at the castle uses well known lines from the book, & Lee plays it slightly differently to the introduction scene in the Hammer version. This Count Dracula is formally polite, but doesn't quite have the cordiality of his earlier version.
When Dracula shows Harker to his room, i was surprised to see a large mirror in the room, which obviously does not show Dracula's reflection. This goes against Dracula's dislike of mirrors, & i'm sure in the book that Harker notices Dracula's lack of reflection in a small shaving mirror of his own, but i might be thinking of one of the later films. I like the scene a few minutes later where Dracula is talking the history of the Draculas, & battling the turks etc.. etc... This scene is also from the novel, & later productions go even further, by tying the historical figure Vlad the Impaler directly into things. But although Stoker's narrative does speak of a lone Dracula finally returning alone from the field of battle, he never mentions the character specifically. Lee though is clearly relishing his chance to deliver this passage from the book, & the director makes that very obvious with the full close up of Lee as he does so. I like the zoom in on Dracula's mouth too, as he delivers the classic line 'Listen to them, Children of the night. What music they make'. You can just see the fangs! It's also interesting to note that the castle scenes look as though they are actually filmed in a real castle. The rooms are huge, & it all looks very cold & drafty compared to the sumptuous Hammer sets!
I like the next scene with the 3 'brides' as well. I think the transparent, ghostly look as they rise from their coffins works quite well. It's a pretty eerie effect. Although, i do think that Lee underplayed it just slightly in the bit where the Count arrives & dismisses them.
Like the Hammer version, this film also completely omits all the stuff on the ship as Dracula voyages to England. After Harker dicovers the bloody lipped Count at rest in his tomb, he escapes from the Castle in fear, & all of a sudden he wakes up at the sanitorium in England! (Although, it's so obviously modern Spain rather than Victorian England). We're now just over half hour into the film, & this is where i feel it really begins to slow down. IMO, Herbert Lom's portrayal of Van Helsing doesn't help matters. Whereas i felt that Lee undeplayed it slightly earlier on, he's postively OTT compared to Lom's positively complacent version of Van Helsing. It's completely the opposite to Cushing's portrayal, with no sense of urgency whatsoever! Most of the scenes at the sanitorium are pretty dull to be honest. Only the scenes involving Renfield, played by Klaus Kinski, who comes across as suitably disturbed, breathe any life into things at this point in the film.
Things pick up a bit during the scenes where Dracula feeds from Lucy. This is presented in a very different different way to the Hammer style, which included a hint of sexuality right back their first 1958 film. Here it's much more basic, & it actually reminds me more of the way it's done in 'Nosferatu'. The vampire is feeding, & the victim is in a completely trance like state, with barely any awareness, & although Dracula looks nothing like as monstrous as Count Orlok, i think it comes across as very animalistic.
It's unfortunate that large sections of the narrative are really rather dull & dreary for the last hour of the film, but there are some good bits mixed in. There's a momentary highlight when Mina catches Dracula in the act of feeding from Lucy. Lee delivers a good old fashioned snarl, & we see the blood dripping down the Count's face. Also, the bit where the vampirised Lucy lures a child as her first victim, is a brief but suitably sinister scene. Although i think her later staking by Van Helsing & his comrades could've been made a bit more dramatic.
One of the film's most striking scenes comes about 15/20mins from the end, where all the stuffed animals come back to life & attack Harker & Quincy is very effective. As is the scene where the now younger looking Dracula exerts a strong hypnotic control over Renfield, forcing him to try to strangle Mina.
Dracula plans his escape back to Transylvania, but not before killing Renfield, & attacking Mina, whilst confronting Van Helsing, who is now in a wheelchair for no apparent reason that i can discern! But Van Helsing sees him off by drawing a flaming cross in the floor with a red hot poker. The film ends with Dracula escaping back to the castle, but Harker & Quincy have already gone ahead to sanctify the vampires' resting place. In a finale which again isn't as dramatic as it could've been, they stake the 3 brides, & set fire to Dracula whilst in his makeshift coffin, & we see the Count age to death in the flames. The poor special effects for Dracula's aging doesn't help the ending, which seems a bit of an anti-climax after the sheer drama of the way Cushing destroys Dracula in the 1958 Hammer film. And if i hear that organ motif one more time!...... Which reminds me that i forgot to mention the incidental music. It's quite good in places, but there's one bit that gets repeated for what seems like about 50 times!
So all in all, it's a bit of a mixed bag this one. On the one hand, it's fairly faithful to the book, particularly with regard to Dracula's characterization, which Christopher Lee does a very good job of. But it lacks the drama of the Hammer Dracula, & unfortunately Lee's good performance is 'alter-equalled' by Herbert Lom's somewhat sleepy performance. Klaus Kinski is notable, but the other actors are just 'ok', & whilst i do like the first half hour of the film a lot, the rest of it, aside from a sprinkling of good moments, just feels a bit too lacklustre.
All this makes it very difficult to rate, but taking everything into account, i think i'll settle on 6/10."