Yes, I went a little gif happy but what better movie, right? Unlike Lugosi who technically only portrayed Dracula once (although, many of his fans like me consider his vampire in "Return of the Vampire" to be Dracula without the ability of Columbia pictures to use the name...), Christopher Lee donned the black cape and fed from many young women over the course of centuries, battling Van Helsings of different generations (played by Cushing, and who better, right?), as Dracula. Sure, he often said very little and wasn't as known for his pizazz with dialogue while portraying the character as Lugosi was in the '31 film, but that guy could walk into a scene and fucking own it. And with blood soaked teeth and blood shot eyes, in full beast mode, Lee's Dracula bursts through a door as Harker is being bitten by a bride he thought needed his help, with an intensity Lugosi never could have pulled off. That difference in the two makes their distinctive portrayals all the more fun because their interpretations give Dracula different personalities. These are two generations of Dracula, each of their era. [Horror of] Dracula (1958) gives Lee the titular role he could financially benefit from while Peter Cushing carries the weight of the content. Lee, as powerful a presence he is, benefits from the Dracula character but Cushing proved with Brides of Dracula later (in 1960) that he could carry a film in the franchise without Lee. But Hammer, to their credit, knew how to cast. So no matter if Lee was with or without Cushing, the supporting cast helped to maintain the Hammer franchise. At any rate, Cushing, to me, is just as important to the success of this iteration of Dracula as Lee. While Van Sloan is a fun Van Helsing in the '31 Dracula, I can't imagine how that film could have turned out if Lugosi wasn't in the title role.
My Official Review: Click
Comments
Post a Comment