Horror of Dracula

I kind of like how this Dracula film has Jonathan Harker "indexing the Count's library",  the vampire learning of the fiance of this "distinguished scholar", Lucy Holmwood (her face and name certain to be etched in his mind and plans once he leaves the residence of the Dracula Castle and grounds with plans on a new undead bride to claim as his own). Harker (John Van Eyssen) admits to us in his diary that the whole trip to index and catalog Dracula's library was to actually rid the world of such a cursed fiend. Harker is a prelude, a precursor to Van Helsing. Through Harker we know the kind of monster the heroes of the film are up against. Harker wasn't quite as prepared as Van Helsing, and a bit naive as to how he'd handle the Count once he planned to kill him. Through Harker's failure, though, Van Helsing would right the ship and persevere in the good fight against evil.

I have always found it amusing how those involved with Hammer loved the blood. There's an early scene where Harker fails to stake Dracula in time (starting carelessly with the female slave under Dracula's power), and we see a line of blood down the mouth of both the Count and his undead bride. Even at the beginning, blood dribbled into a pool on a statue carrying Dracula's name.
Van Helsing answers the letter from Harker, traveling from Karlstaadt to Klausenberg where nearby  Castle Dracula rests on a mountain, receiving the diary of Jonathan's from an innkeeper's daughter, detailing events prior to his fated vampirism at the Count's cause. Terence Fisher and company respect Harker by not showing Van Helsing stake him, while Dracula has already fed from the throat of Lucy, unbeknownst to her brother, Arthur (Michael Gough) and Arthur's wife, Mina (Melissa Stribling).

The battle lines are drawn as we listen and watch as Van Helsing, in his study, collects his notes and listens (and adds) to recordings about just what can kill a vampire and why such devices as light and the crucifix are so successful in hurting Dracula. Dracula is at first sight hospitable and cordial to Harker, but this is just a facade that changes soon after they meet and the vampire bride tries to feed from Jonathan. The rest of the film presents Dracula simply as a parasite, handsome and stately, but still a beast in search of blood.

Come. Let me kiss you.

What's ultimately criminal is what Dracula does to the innocent. Not only does he feed from them, but they, in turn, become just as predatory and vile as he is. Lucy is turned and tries to feed from her little cousin.  These vampiric victims are, as Van Helsing puts it "possessed and corrupted by the evil of Dracula" and only a stake to the heart "liberates their soul" and gives them a peace that forever relinquishes the curse of the undead. There's a powerful scene, both in its horror and beauty, has Van Helsing "free Lucy", a savage staking full of spitting blood that leads to a look of peace and serenity on her face that justifies the need to do such a thing.

When Mina is the next chosen to be Dracula's desired bride, this is the opportunity, much to Arthur's horror, for Van Helsing to find and kill the vampire count. This does bewilder me from a logic standpoint because I can't figure why Dracula would risk that, especially staying in the cellar of the very man associated with his adversary. It is all for the purpose of Van Helsing learning where the casket carrying earth from his home, placing a crucifix inside, and forcing Drac to head back to Castle Dracula. Where better to end this film than Castle Dracula? And how better than Van Helsing using ingenuity and quick thinking to defeat Dracula, using the very tools of the vampire hunting trade in order to counter what he lacks, physical strength?

I mentioned before than I always enjoy the creative ways Hammer kills Dracula. In this film, they allow the sunlight to turn him into dust, with us seeing his various parts, leg and hand, eventually head, shrivel and deteriorate into nothingness. The dust blowing away in a breeze, just Drac's signet ring remaining, is quite an image to close to film. Oh, but this wasn't the end. Just like Hammer loved to find creative ways to kill Count Dracula, they also enjoyed resurrecting him applying various bizarre methods (his dried blood, his body's dust, often mixed with the blood of the living which, in a cocktail, gives birth to the Count, allowing him to hunt his prey once again.).

I always love to see how various filmmakers and actors portray Dracula. There are plenty of interpretations and ways he's treated. Hell, Lee portrayed Dracula two different ways: in Hammer, he's mostly a vile creature who stands really tall in his long black cape while in Jess Franco's Count Dracula he's more humanistic, expressive, and talkative. I like seeing the character conveyed in numerous ways. Palance was a force of nature who didn't let anyone stand in his way, while Lee could often enter a room, to that overpowering score that commands attention, and move like a ferocious animal. Lugosi was debonair and careful in what he said and how he behaved as Frank Langella plays him as a sexual being lustfully pursuing his next female conquest. I guess that's why I gravitate towards movies based on Dracula...