WHY CHRISTOPHER LEE IS THE BEST COUNT DRACULA

Christopher Lee is living history.  He hung out with JRR Tolkein, Muhammad Ali, and Errol Flynn.  In films, he played Frankenstein’s monster, Dr. Jekyll and Mr .Hyde, Saruman, Death, The Devil, Fu Manchu, Mohammad Ali Jinnah – 1^st Prime Minister of Pakistan, Willie Wonka’s father and numerous other monsters and baddies.  He even played a gay character in the movie SERIAL.

Perhaps the role he is most identified with at least the one I first remember associating him with is Count Dracula.

And I think Christopher Lee was the best Count Dracula for a number of reasons.

One was biological of course.  I reject the non-threatening suave James Bond Dracula which became a trend for awhile in vampire movies of the 70’s and the 80’s.  Dracula is scary and threatening and he doesn’t need to look innocent to fool any ladies, he has the power of hypnosis!  Lee at 6’5 with the countenance of a serious and dangerous looking guy was very, very imposing.  He had the perfect face and physique for the role as well as a deep, powerful voice on the occasions he did speak.  Dracula should not be overly talkative as I discuss in the next paragraph.  

Dracula’s not The Joker cracking one-liners while committing crimes.  He’s more like an animal with a deep hunger and an instinct for survival.  He is not joyful and insane, he is evil but I would argue he is more concerned for his own well-being than anything else (again, like an animal).  Unlike other versions of Dracula, where he is dancing, drinking champagne, living the high life, the Lee Count Dracula is usually settling scores with adversaries and always looking for necks to bite.

The settling scores part is important because the one thing Dracula feels other than hunger is anger.  Could be anger at the position he finds himself in no longer being human or anger at what forces placed him in this position or anger at humans still enjoying life or anger at those who fight him and seek to destroy him.  The Francis Ford Coppola version of DRACULA gave the count a back story but I don’t think that added anything.  Humanizing a monster only helps if you are no longer making a horror film.

So Christopher Lee’s humorless, menacing, angry, merciless Dracula was note perfect.  He’s not indulging in witty repartee with potential victims and enemies alike.  Rather, he’s coming to their bedrooms at night and hiding from well-armed foes.  Both of these make a lot more sense as far as how Dracula would act.

Vampires have increasingly been linked with sex in recent films, books etc.. I personally have never seen the connection.  Drinking someone’s blood is not erotic (at least not to me) rather it symbolizes swallowing somebody’s essence, consuming them whole, what Renfield playacts with flies and other creatures in the insane asylum.

Despite the fact that Hammer increasingly sexed up the Dracula films as the sixties wound down and the 70’s started and censorship standards loosened up, Lee’s Dracula remained outside of sex.  Others may misread what is going on but a vampire has more immediate concerns.  Lee not allowing Dracula to get caught up in the sexed up atmosphere was a great acting choice.

Dracula is an aristocrat and should have regal bearing but regal bearing in that part of the world at the time periods involved would not have been about sociability but about positions and tradition and ritual.  The demeanor of the proud, snobbish, more superior than thou member of royalty perfectly fits in Lee’s Dracula.  Perhaps this is one of the few parts of Dracula’s humanity that has stayed with him – The stiffness, the unapproachability, the looking down at lesser beings.  Becoming a vampire has only multiplied these.

Many actors have played Count Dracula but before playing a part like that one must know what kind of film you are making and how does Dracula fit in with that.  I feel that Dracula is a monster but a force of nature more than a calculating super villain type, more Godzilla than Hannibal Lecter or Blofeld.  Christopher Lee comes closest to that of any actor who ever wore the cape.

Seriously though there should be a bridge or a building named after Christopher Lee someplace.               

 

FIVE FILMS - OUTRAGE BEYOND, I DIDN'T COME HERE TO DIE, GRABBERS, SIGHTSEERS, IT'S A DISASTER

OUTRAGE BEYOND

Sequel to THE OUTRAGE has less graphic violence than its predecessor but just as much byzantine conspiratorial plotting.  You will never look at a baseball again in the same way – does for the batting cage what MARATHON MAN did for dentistry and DELIVERANCE did for the great outdoors and hicks.  Not as powerful as the first film but still entertaining.

I DIDN’T COME HERE TO DIE

Short dark black joke of a film that is a variant of FINAL DESTINATION and TUCKER AND DALE VS EVIL.  Low budget hurts but gore is surprisingly effective.  More like an episode in an anthology film that a full fledged move of its own.

GRABBERS

A bit like Tremors with the same sense of humor but with alien starfish monsters rather than giant worms.  The joke kicker of the film that alcohol and getting drunk are the only way to stop these creatures (and to stop one from being eaten) make this an amusing thriller.  A fun film for a Saturday night perhaps.

SIGHTSEERS

More of a comedy than a horror film although I give props for the violence which is gory.  As much a commentary on co-dependent relationships as a horror movie with parts that feel more like a sitcom than a horror movie.  Quirky unusual film with a bit of an unsatisfying ending.

IT’S A DISASTER

Nice to see David Cross in a  film that suits his sense of humor rather than a cameo in something like MEN IN BLACK.  Could have come out of one of his routines.  Very funny in places but I didn’t like any of the characters (which may be the point) 

  

DOGTOOTH - WHERE INTERESTING VISUALS AND GOOD STORYTELLING FAIL MEET DURING A FILM

As I was watching the Greek film DOGTOOTH, I kept thinking there’s a good film in here someplace.

The director knows how to frame a scene and there are many memorable images – The two sisters then the older sister by herself dancing at dinner, the scene where the older brother kills a cat, the family barking like dogs and meowing like cats.

Likewise, the story is well-thought out.  The idea of a father who deliberately isolates his family has been played out in the news in recent years although his near total web of lies is too far removed from a steadily encroaching real life as to be realistic.  The phony language they come up with and the character of each of the three kids are examples of how well thought out parts of DOGTOOTH are.

The problem is that these two positive elements (interesting visuals, good story) never meet in the actual film and the result is a confusing albeit ambitious mess.  A little back story might have helped and perhaps a little exposition too as there are many details from their life I couldn’t pick up from the story.  In addition, within this self-created self-contained universe, some of the behavior of the characters makes no sense.  They feel like the poorly thought out improvisations of an inexperienced actor.  We invest time in understanding these characters and some of their actions do not make sense to the armchair psychiatrist in all of us viewers.

Aside from the unrealistic setting and family life, the graphic sex scenes act as a distraction rather than help the plot.  This is the rare film where salaciousness dilutes the narrative.

Critics went nuts over this film when it came out in 2009 and parts of it do work very well.  The problem is the parts don’t work together and the result is unsatisfying. 

WHY IRON MAN III IS THE WORST COMIC BOOK MOVIE I'VE SEEN SO FAR

For the record, I’ve never been a big fan of Iron Man.  The character in the comic book was borderline fascistic and that wasn’t all.  Tony Stark was a sexist one percenter – A richer less violent version of the Comedian from The Watchmen.  I wrote about my feelings on Iron Man before http://rgdinmalaysia.xanga.com/659696905/iron-man---propaganda-the-comic-book-vs-the-film-and-supervillains/

The first movie was at least blessed by the presence of Jeff Bridges.  The second movie was a bore despite the presence of Mickey Rourke.  One thing I noted about Iron Man in the above linked post was that he has quite a good rogue’s gallery that filmmakers had yet to really tap into it.

So I was excited when I read that The Mandarin was to be the villain for the third Iron Man film.  For a number of years during the golden era of comics, he was considered Iron Man’s #1 foe.  When I heard that Ben Kingsley was to play the title role, I wasn’t worried as 1.) I understood racial sensitivities and the Mandarin’s Chinese stereotype 2.) Kingsley is a superb actor in whatever he is in.

So I saw Iron Man III this weekend and honestly it is the worst comic book movie I have ever seen.  It is an abomination.  A movie made by people who know nothing about comics (or plot or story).

Now comic books and film are two different mediums for sure.  Comic books have more in common with literature in which the dramatic ebb and flow and larger than life hero vs villain struggle is key.  More on that here  

http://rgdinmalaysia.xanga.com/651086670/everything-i-need-to-know-i-learned-from-comic-books/

Kevin Smith’s version of Daredevil is considered a failure but I thought he did a good job transferring the key elements of the Elektra/Bullseye story to the big screen both in compressing it for time considerations and in keeping the most important story points intact.

  

But what IRON MAN III does to The Mandarin is inexcusable. SPOILER - having him turn out to be not real but a drunken actor fronting for the real villain is a huge letdown especially when the real villain is a ridiculous, glowing red Guy Pearce (a normally reliable actor who has been in many great films – LA CONFIDENTIAL, MEMENTO, RAVENOUS, THE PROPOSITION etc.).

I have not liked The Dark Knight films as I feel they have demythologized a comic, a hero that was already compressed to real life size – That is the appeal of Batman!  This approach works even less successfully on Iron Man.  We need the fantastic nature of Iron Man’s foes to offset the stodgy, offensive Stark/Iron Man character and the limitations of his powers.  After all, he’s just a man in an iron suit – Basically, the suit does everything.