Scars of Dracula (Roy Ward Baker, 1970)

After his brother Paul (Christopher Matthews) goes missing, Simon Carlson (Dennis Waterman) and his fiance Sarah Framsen (Jenny Hanley) follow his trail to Castle Dracula, where the Count (Christopher Lee) proves to be a distant if willing host.

His hospitality does come with some unexpected - and potentially fatal - conditions…

For context, I watched this film before its predecessor. 

Purely on director pedigree, I expected to enjoy this movie more than Taste the Blood of Dracula. Instead the inverse was true.

Directed by Roy Ward Baker, a fine craftsman who was coming off of the fantastic The Vampire Lovers, Scars of Dracula was intended as something of a reboot for the flagging franchise. Boasting several ideas and moments which had been previously utilised, it has the ingredients to be great.

Sadly the film suffered from a low budget and rushed schedule, factors which Baker blamed for the final result.

Before we put the stake through its heart, I want to bring up some highlights, such as the opening sequence.

The camera enters Dracula’s castle to rest on his cloak draped over a slab.

It turns out the camera is a POV from a bat that drops blood on his ashes, which triggers his resurrection.

A short time later - following the murder of a young girl - an angry mob of villagers burn the castle to the ground.

They head back home to their church, where they find their families massacred - it is a shocking reveal that sets Dracula up as more powerful and wrathful than previously depicted.

Blood drips on candles cross-fade to red birthday candles to introduce to the boring real leads of the movie.

This opening is so effective, it helped keep up my interest for the rest of the film - I doubt it would carry the same power on another viewing.

While the film’s budget is clear throughout, the biggest disappointment is the leading man.

Christopher Lee gets far more to do than any of the previous sequels - but there is something detached and off about his performance.

Part of the effect is the sense of repetition.

When party animal Paul () barges into the castle, his interactions with Dracula play like a reprise of his first meeting with Jonathan Harker.

It almost feels like Lee is baffled to be going through the same motions again.

The film often feels like a greatest hits of the Dracula series - we get another familiar named Klove (Patrick Troughton) ala Prince of Darkness, albeit with a very different personality. We also get Dracula killing and feeding on his brides (Dracula Has Risen From The Grave).

 

It also draws more inspiration from the novel (we get Dracula’s lizard-like crawl along the outside of his castle).

There is more overt violence - Dracula stabs his bride to death after she betrays him; the Count burns Klove on the back with a heated blade.

While that also sounds interesting, it is played with almost no sense of energy or imagination. 

As Dracula’s youthful opponent, Waterman is earnest but dull. He gets little to do, and has almost nothing to do with Dracula’s demise - the Count is struck by lightning as he is about to impale Waterman with a metal rod.

As Waterman’s love interest, Jenny Hanley is beautiful as Sarah - but gets nothing to do.

The one bright spot amongst the cast is Patrick Troughton as Klove.

In contrast to his predecessor of the same name, this Klove has his motivations which end up in conflict with his master.

He falls for Sarah from a photograph, which puts him at odds with Dracula for most of the runtime, and gives it simmering tension that the film otherwise lacks.

There is a sadomasochistic streak to their dynamic, as Klove clearly still wants to be in his boss’s good graces (at one point, he proves himself to the vampire by kidnapping a young maiden for his sustenance).

Troughton is in great form, leaning into making Klove pathetically human, driven by his own selfish impulses - it is a portrait of human evil that feels far more sophisticated than the film around it.

Related

Horror of Dracula (1958)

Brides of Dracula

Kiss of the Vampire

Dracula - Prince of Darkness

Dracula Has Risen From The Grave

Taste the Blood of Dracula

If you are new to this blog, I also co-host a podcast on James Bond, The James Bond Cocktail Hour. 

You can subscribe on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

If you enjoy something I wrote, and want to support my writing, here’s a link for tips!

Taste the Blood of Dracula (Peter Sasdy, 1970)

When a group of rich men, William Hargood (Geoffrey Keen), Samuel Paxton (Peter Sallis) and Jonathan Secker (John Carson), swap their usual drinks and sex workers for a black mass, they accidentally resurrect Count Dracula (Christopher Lee).

As the trio go back to their genteel lives, the Count plots his vengeance on them…

The latter Dracula films of the Hammer cycle have a poor reputation. One can feel it in this film, at least in terms of execution, but even at this stage it still feels like the filmmakers are working out new ideas and variations on familiar themes.

A direct sequel to its predecessor - we get Dracula’s impalement by cross - Taste the Blood of Dracula has an odd backstory.

Originally it was not meant not to feature Dracula - instead, Ralph Bates’ libertine Count Courtly was meant to be the villain ala Baron Meinster from Brides of Dracula. 

There is a good story here - the plot of Victorian gentry dabbling in black magic, then falling apart, is potent, particularly the trio’s paranoia about each other following Courtly’s mysterious demise feels almost noir-ish.

My big issue might be down to the direction.

Director Peter Sasdy worked in TV, and you can see this in the visual language - long and mid-shots for dialogue, with close-ups for emphasis or reaction (most emotional reactions happen in close up).

There is an emphasis on cutting through coverage, rather than carrying action in frame.

It is serviceable, but lacks the sense of mounting tension that Terence Fisher would allow to build within the same shot.

It also has the effect of making the film feel rather cheap and disposable.

On the other hand, that lack of polish - combined with the scripts’ skewering of Victorian hypocrisy - makes the film feel like a direct inversion of the Hammer template.

What Horror of Dracula and its previous sequels only alluded to is rendered explicit here - at least more in intent, if not in explicit content.

While the film might have worked without Dracula, it would depend on who was cast as Courtly.

In the final film, this brief but pivotal role as essayed by Ralph Bates, a young actor Hammer hoped to turn into their new star (Bates would later go on to portray Dr Jekyll in the gender-swapped Dr Jekyll and Sister Hyde).

Bates is not particularly good. Courtly is a black magic practitioner who joins forces with the three wealthy men of leisure, and is meant to be the ultimate Dionysian. 

But Bates comes across as too put together to be a party animal, and lacks the presence to convince as the film’s antagonist. Frankly, the character feels like it could have been played by a young Christopher Lee.

In contrast, Geoffrey Keen - later famous as the Minister of Defence in the James Bond films, is particularly striking as the hypocritical William Hargood.

Ruling over his family with an iron hand, he hypocritically refuses to endorse his daughter Alice’s (Linda Hayden) relationship with Paul (Anthony Higgins), Paxton’s son.

She eventually falls under Dracula’s spell - the one disappointment about this aspect of the film is that the vehicle for this is traditional mind control, although she is feeling her father.

Dracula has the power to free her of her father and the Victorian restrictions that she rebels against. The mind control muddies the metaphor - an abused woman seeks escape in the arms of another abuser.

A more sophisticated film would have Dracula seduce Alice by playing to her insecurities and desires.

All of the horror of the film is based on undermining the family and the father as the all-powerful patriarch - all three of the men end up murdered by their own children. 

It is an element of horror that feels particularly tied to the mood of the late Sixties, as the younger generation became disillusioned with the hypocrisy of their elders (one could also read the film in reverse, as reflecting the fears of an elder generation afraid of being overthrown).

There is some interesting subtext to be read into the family dynamics (there is something creepily incestuous about Hargood’s possessive approach toward his daughter), and the film plays with the now-tired formula in surprising ways: Dracula’s lair is an abandoned church; Paxton Senior ends up staked by Dracula’s brides.

The story is a collection of interesting ideas and moments, but it is nullified by a weak ending - Paul restores the church and Dracula is reduced to ashes again.

It feels rather prosaic.

As the last Dracula film in the same story continuity, Taste the Blood is a slightly disappointing finale - but it should not be dismissed.

Its many points of interest elevate it far above the films which would sadly follow.

Related

Horror of Dracula (1958)

Brides of Dracula

Kiss of the Vampire

Dracula - Prince of Darkness

Dracula Has Risen From The Grave

If you are new to this blog, I also co-host a podcast on James Bond, The James Bond Cocktail Hour. 

You can subscribe on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

If you enjoy something I wrote, and want to support my writing, here’s a link for tips!

Dracula Has Risen From The Grave (Freddie Francis, 1968)

In an attempt to draw a local village back to the Church, Monsignor Ernst Mueller (Rupert Davies) takes it upon himself to exorcise Dracula’s (Christopher Lee) castle.

When this exorcism inadvertently leads to the resurrection of the Count, the Monsignor finds himself a target as a vengeful Dracula looks to take his niece Maria (Veronica Carlson) as his new consort.

I have not heard great things about the latter Dracula sequels, which made them fertile ground for a reappraisal.

Perhaps my fresh eye could uncover some gems, some fresh blood still flowing in the franchise’s veins?

In this case, I would say yes.

Opening with a cascade of blood to herald the opening credits, the film boasts a striking visual palette that seems more vivid than its predecessor.

Directed by celebrated cinematographer Freddie Francis, the film strikes out on its own from the opening:

A young church bell man finds blood trickling down the rope.

The priest (Ewan Hopper) then finds the corpse of a young woman dangling from the bell.

This mocking calling card from Dracula draws in the stern Monsignor who takes it upon himself to exorcise Dracula’s castle.

I am not familiar with Rupert Davies so I had no expectations for him as the Count’s new nemesis.

What sticks out about him is how human he is. 

Peter Cushing’s Van Helsing felt completely resolute in his mission, and completely without vice or weakness - a fairly traditional hero.

Father Shandor from Prince of Darkness feels even more like a swashbuckling hero, even with his love of booze - he still seems fundamentally a white knight.

Davies’ Mueller is marked not only by his relative ignorance of Dracula, but his arrogant belief that he can resolve the village’s plight.

In a way, he is the first of Dracula’s foes to have an actual character arc.

When he begins the ceremony, a storm unleashes.

The other priest falls downhill, hits his head and lands near the frozen river where Dracula lies trapped - the trickle of his blood reawakens the vampire.

This is where the film really starts to differentiate itself.

In contrast to the fairly traditional heavy Klove from the previous film, the weak-willed priest (Ewan Hopper) becomes Dracula’s familiar

Hopper’s priest gets no name, but his sweaty, terrified performance highlights this film’s strength in vividly drawn characters.

It also draws attention to the way this film portrays religion - as entirely based on faith. Its power - and the power of Dracula - is based entirely on the faith of individual people. 

One of the key conflicts of the film is between the Monsignor and his niece’s boyfriend Paul (Barry Andrews), who is an atheist. This causes the Monsignor to disapprove of their union. It is only when she becomes a target for Dracula, that the pair are forced to work together.

I was trying to work out why this film worked for me and not its more illustrious predecessor, and it comes down to this level of characterisation and the narrative that develops out of these characters’ conflict.

The characters in Prince of Darkness - aside from Father Shandor - felt like mannequins waiting to be bumped off. 

The characters in Dracula Has Risen From the Grave are familiar archetypes, but they at least have definition - and the cast bring their own textures, their own flavour, that make the film feel more alive. 

The most vivid character is Zena, a vivacious barmaid who becomes Dracula’s first victim - she enjoys having a good time, and shows interest in Paul - she clearly wants romance, but gets treated as a good time girl. 

Her character is not that deep - and the film’s overall view of her is about as enlightened as the Monsignor’s - but she does get more shading compared with Dracula’s previous ‘brides’. After Dracula attacks her, she seems to enjoy his attention, and is enraged he demands she bring Maria to him.

Like the unnamed Priest, Zena feels like a more nuanced take on Dracula’s usual acolytes.

And because his acolytes have understandable motivations, this highlights how truly singular Dracula’s evil is. 

When Dracula enters Maria’s bedroom, it is played along the same lines as his seduction of Lucy in the original film, but reframed as a loss of innocence for the young woman - emphasised by including a shot panning from Dracula on top of Maria to a child’s doll that she is holding and pushes away. 

As with the original film, it turns out Dracula has hidden his coffin in the basement of the house - whereas this is a surprise in the Fisher version, here we are shown the process of the Priest gaining entry to the property, which generates more tension for the viewer. 

The film turns into a battle of faith v science, as the Monsignor and Paul join forces to save Maria. 

There is an almost great moment where Paul impales Dracula but it does not work because he does not believe in the power behind the stake.

  

Ultimately, the film does not lead to Paul’s conversion, but the redemption of Hopper’s fallen priest, who sacrifices himself while offering the final prayer that destroys the Count as he lies impaled on a cross.

There is a lot to recommend with Dracula Has Risen From The Grave.

The photography is beautiful, and the sets by Bernard Robinsion - working at Pinewood instead of Hammer’s old ground Bray Studios - have more of a sense of scope (I liked the rooftop exteriors, with the buildings so close together that characters can walk and run between the roofs).

A worthy pivot from the familiarity of its predecessor, Dracula Has Risen From The Grave may not quite match the original’s drive, but the deviations it makes from the familiar template (this time, we never see inside Dracula’s home) give Lee’s vampire more bite.

Related

Horror of Dracula (1958)

Brides of Dracula

Kiss of the Vampire

Dracula - Prince of Darkness

If you are new to this blog, I also co-host a podcast on James Bond, The James Bond Cocktail Hour. 

You can subscribe on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

If you enjoy something I wrote, and want to support my writing, here’s a link for tips!