Two couples, Charles (Francis Matthews) and Diana (Suzan Farmer), and Helen (Barbara Shelley) and Alan (Charles Tingwell), take shelter at the late Dracula’s castle.
The castle’s one inhabitant, the servant Klove (Philip Latham), is happy to see them, as the unknowing visitors are about to unwittingly help usher in the return of his master (Christopher Lee).
After one in-name-only sequel, and re-written second attempt, I was hungry (thirsty) to get back to the original prince of darkness.
Of the series’ titles, Prince of Darkness has to rank at the top. Here is Dracula - accept no pretenders.
It had been eight years since Christopher Lee played Dracula, so the film opens with a flashback to the finale of 1958’s Dracula.
Since it has been over two years since I wrote about that film, I wanted to expand more on my thoughts on Lee’s Dracula.
I believe I mentioned the sexuality Lee brought to his portrayal, something the film definitely leans into
Watching the Hammer horror films often feels like a cinematic reunion as many of the cast and crew were shared with the other major UK genre export of this time, the James Bond franchise.
While they share few overt similarities (at least for now - here’s looking at you, Satanic Rites of Dracula), I could not help but draw hypothetical connections between Hammer Horror’s success at the turn of the Sixties, and the early Bonds, particularly the casting of, respectively, Lee and Sean Connery.
Connery is often regarded as one of several new British stars who broke the idea of what a local movie star was - getting rid of the received pronunciation, with a more openly emotional, physical and sexual presence - one can see this in the popularity of Stanley Baker (the true forerunner), Michael Caine and Terence Stamp.
While he appeared earlier, and was more associated with popular genre fare, Christopher Lee’s breakthrough is based in part on a similar type of appeal - while his presence is menacing, he brings a sensuality and eroticism that are integral to the success of the film. Everything that is repressed in the original story, all the hidden desires of the Victorian era, are embodied by Lee - and it is his very attractiveness that is key to how he seduces his victims.
He radiates less of that sexuality in Prince of Darkness, but suppressed desire is still part of the film’s make up. Instead of being the locus of sensuality, he becomes the catalyst - after he has converted Helen into his bride, she attempts to seduce Diana.
While this is intriguing, one of the downsides of the film is that - after a spectacular opening - it does not make better use of its leading man.
Dracula’s resurrection is the highlight of the film.
Alan follows Klove through the castle into Dracula’s tomb, where the servant murders him and then drains his body of blood.
Dracula is slowly reconstituted through a series of dissolves as his flesh slowly grows over his bones.
After the titular villain returns, the film slows down, as it turns into characters running around rooms. I was expecting this section of the film to turn into a bloodbath, but not enough of these boring characters die.
Made over a decade before the slasher genre, Prince of Darkness feels like a half-step in its direction - but without the bodycount or sex.
And Lee almost becomes a piece of art direction - he never speaks, and just looms out of the shadows with a red-eyed glare.
Thank the production team for at least giving the count a worthy adversary:
Andrew Keir’s Father Shandor. Played with a gruff confidence by Keir, he is a man of contradictions:
Despite being a man of the cloth, he is a skeptic who rubbishes the village folk for their superstition. He also drinks wine and carries a gun.
Whenever Keir is onscreen, the movie gains a sense of gravitas and scope. I was double-checking the credits for the later Dracula movies to check if he would return.
Klove (Philip Latham), Dracula’s human familiar and servant, makes for a fine secondary antagonist. I particularly enjoyed his first appearance, a cheeky misdirect that parodies Lee’s introduction in the first film (framed in a long shot, he resembles a dishevelled version of his master).
Fundamentally, Prince of Darkness lacks the forward momentum of the original Hammer Dracula.
There is a lot to like (Michael Reed’s vivid photography; James Bernard’s reprise of his iconic score), but the story feels like a prelude to a real campaign of terror.
Terence Fisher being at the helm does mean the film feels slightly out of time. If you did not know it was made in 1966, you would think it came out a year after the original film.
I was curious to check out Lee’s remaining appearances, but on the evidence of this film, I was sceptical. I will hold my thoughts on the rest of the ‘saga’ - check back in when Dracula rises from the grave again…
Related
