marymorrissey
this movie is quite different, I think, from "flesh for frankenstein" which is much campier and sort of tongue in cheek. even though the films are on the surface so similar. this has always been my feeling anyway. I don't know what the intention was but this movie is much more poignant and scary and overall has much more emotional impact.it's not without campy humor but on a horror movie level it still ranks very very high up with "Let the Right One In" and the original Draculas well above the vast majority of vampire films, of which, when you get right down to it, there are very few that are not profoundly disappointing. For one thing, Udo Kier's performance is spectacular, really breathtaking. Gary Oldman's Dracula may be virtuosic, but it's not that gripping there's not so much feeling coming from him. You really see what a great actor UK is in this film and what a stage actor he could be if he wanted to be. It's amazing how he moves, how physical his performance is. You can see in this film that he could do really well with Shakespeare. One of the problems with all vampire movies even the original is that they are almost all period pieces in essence even when set in the present day, because they are alway so self censored and Hays Code ready. This movie, set in the late teens/roaring 20s, is much more involving for its grappling with certain issues that movies did not whatsoever up till the 60s and 70s - as the petit bourgeois finally caught up with what the lower and upper classes were up to in the silent film era. Most vampire movies deny not only the virginal thing but really even sex itself. An even more fundamental drawback, making vampire movies by and large so unsatisfying, is well illustrated by something I remember hearing Clive Barker say at some talk I heard him give "Who wouldn't want to be a vampire? You can live forever f*** whoever you want just by looking at them from across the room!" etc etc. That's the problem with most vampire movies - they don't give you any sense of what the drawbacks are of vampirism so there's nothing not to like about it. Ya get to fly like a bat and turn into mist and well you have to get shaved by a barber I suppose is the only drawback. This Warhol Morrissey version and "Let the Right One In" are the first two to convey that there is "conflict" in the whole vampire lifestyle and so they are by leaps and bounds more powerful than any others that I can think of offhand.
Ali Catterall
Tartan Video 2006 Contents: Commentary featuring Paul Morrissey, Udo Kier and Maurice Yacowar, Screen-test, with commentary, Production stillsThe first striking thing about this extras package, is that director Paul Morrissey literally never stops talking - which suits our purposes just fine. The second is that director Paul Morrissey could talk the legs off a centipede which, again, suits our purposes down to the ground, as you learn a lot about this movie over a good two hours. In the screen-test we see footage of Flesh For Frankenstein's Srdjan Zelenovic auditioning for the role of Dracula (before Udo Kier ultimately stepped into his over-sized shoes). Morrissey was clearly very taken with the towering and aloof actor, who he recalls as having "an extraordinarily deep voice, as if coming from the grave. You pay attention to a man like that." We also learn that the aristocratic Zelenovic grew up in a "Soviet slave camp" (aka Yugoslavia), that his brother (who was just as tall) was a basketball player; and that his father was a general in Tito's army. The production stills segment (featuring some great photos of Morrissey and Kier) lasts a good 25 minutes, affording Morrissey more time to discuss casting, characters, and behind-the-scenes stuff. Among other things, we learn that cameo performer Roman Polanski wanted to write his own part, rather than improvise; and that Udo and Joe Dallesandro were given haircuts so they could start shooting the minute Flesh wrapped. A fan of spontaneity, Morrissey wasted no time in bringing his next project to the screen. "Dracula started shooting at 1pm after finishing Frankenstein an hour before. I suppose if they'd ask me to make a third right afterwards, I'd probably have done it." The real meat is in the director's commentary proper - which is slightly confusing until you work out these are three separately recorded interviews edited (not entirely seamlessly) together. Mostly, this works. Sometimes, as with the juxtaposition of crusty but avuncular film historian Maurice Yacowar and the more down-home Morrissey, it renders matters redundant. Kier's own introduction "I'm Udo Kier, I'm Dracula, I'm on the search for the blood of a virgin and I hope you enjoy it," comes quite out of the blue, and makes you jump out of your skin. "I didn't want to overplay it and play Dracula when I'd just played Frankenstein," Kier recalls. Once persuaded, Morrissey next explained he'd have to lose 10 kilos. "I said, 'I know how to do it.' I just didn't eat anymore." And he ended up in a wheelchair. Still, he appears to have relished the chance to star in something other than the more sombre fare he was used to. "Dracula was important for me, it was seen by a lot of people. If you make a film in German, where's the audience? Some old guys hiding away in Brazil, if you know what I mean!" Yes, Udo, we know what you mean. Some of those Nazis probably got off on Joe Dallesandro's heaving buttocks too. Elsewhere he comments that "vomiting blood looks so great when you have a tuxedo on. Look at the red... it's beautiful." Sometimes, Udo, you seem like a strange and scary man. Morrissey, often introduced by a disembodied woman's voice, reveals that the castle "belonged to someone who was in a madhouse and was rented out;" and that, "I did almost no research - I respect the legend, but I wasn't going to have my hands tied." Yacowar's commentary, though erudite, can occasionally become intrusive, and an unwitting parody of 'Cahiers Du Cinéma'-speak, for a discussion about what is essentially a trashy horror-comedy. "There's an inexplicable psychology between their stripping in the fields and their sexual banter," he notes of the Di Fiori sisters, while "the combination of blood and bread makes the scene an infernal parody of communion. Morrissey must really enjoy the sex scenes played with Marxist polemics. He is sexually exploiting the class that exploits him economically." "This sequence is so beautifully photographed," Morrissey interrupts. But Yacowar is far from finished. "For both of the vampire's climaxes Morrissey uses quiet piano music. This gives the blood-taking act the calm of satiety and culmination... the toilet is Morrissey's personal metaphor for the moral vacuum that has been created by liberal self indulgence." Later he'll concede, "Maybe I'm reading too much into that line. I usually do." He's mostly good value, however, especially for priceless stuff like, "This is a very elegant composition, with the little mound of breast in the foreground, romantically heaving." To summarise, then: Keir? "There's communism in it, there's sex in it, there's revolution in it, there's aristocracy in it, and there's a vampire in it." Thanks, Udo. Final thoughts, Paul? "It's looking for the ambivalence of serious and silly, the meaningless and meaningful." And last but not least, Maurice. Who, for once, seems totally lost for words. "Whatever it is," he reckons, "it's some sort of a vampire movie." Got that? "But it raises more questions than it answers." Yes? "It's a kind of strange tribute to the horror movie mentality." Uh-huh. "A little bit horrible in some parts, and enjoyable in others." Come, Maurice, you're simply not reaching. "It's not one simple thing." Bless.
paudie
This film was made immediately after "Flesh for Frankenstein" with some of the same cast and much of the same crew. Dracula, the last of his family, can't find any more "werrgens" (as Udo Kier memorably puts it) in Romania so his servant has the idea of going to Catholic Italy, where they must be growing on trees. In Italy he gets himself invited to visit a poor noble family and their four unmarried daughters. The parents are delighted that the supposedly rich Count may marry one of their daughters and boost the family coffers. However the Count is only after virgin blood! Unfortunately thanks to Dallesandro's character who works on the estate, the middle 2 daughters no longer qualify as virginal.However the Count has to find that out the hard way, leading to much vomiting and blood regurgitation. Not surprisingly after this he is found out and the films heads towards it's OTT climax. I preferred it to "Flesh for Frankenstein" for a few reasons. The story is better, there isn't as much "horror" and the characters are (slightly) more realistic. It is interesting to see the Dracula story taken out of Transylvania and to see the Count portrayed as unwell. There aren't as many funny one liners as in Frankenstein but the behaviour of the characters is quite amusing. Director Paul Morrissey still includes some striking scenes e.g. the opening credits where the sickly Count dyes his white hair black and reddens his pale lips. The four daughters are also interesting characters in different ways. Their parents are a bit mad, especially the father, and provide some comic relief.The acting is pretty good. Udo Kier is more low key than in Frankenstein as the ill and melancholy vampire, though he certainly gives it his all in the blood vomiting scenes! Arno Juergens again plays his servant, a much stronger character than in Frankenstein. Here the Count relies on him completely to arrange his life and most importantly provide food and drink. The daughters are all played well. Milena Vukotic as the eldest, resigned to being a spinster. Dominique Darel and Stefania Casini work very well together as the more liberated middle daughters. Silvia Dionisio plays the youngest daughter and though she doesn't look 14 as the character is supposed to be she has the right air of innocence. Maxime McKendry plays the Marchesa di Fiori. Her very English accent is a bit offputting at times but her practical attitude to the families situation contrasts with her husband,the Marchese, played by famous Italian director, Vittorio Di Sica. The director's commentary tells us that Di Sica wrote his own lines and this is easy to believe as he comically rambles on about the suitability of "Dracula" as a name for his daughter's potential suitor, even before he has met him. The revelation that he is responsible for the family's poverty isn't surprising. You get the impression Dallesandro is playing himself as the last estate worker and he does a good job of looking brooding and serious, spouting Communist theory while rolling in the hay with a daughter or two. The director's commentary on the DVD is quite interesting. Morrissey reveals that there was all of an hour between the end of Frankenstein and the beginning of Dracula, enough time for Kier and Dallesandro to change hairstyles. He also says that he loves using actors with varying accents together. He certainly hit the jackpot in this regard with Dracula. Another revelation is that Morrissey went to Italy to make Frankenstein only, but he asked producer Carlo Ponti for so little money to make it Ponti suggested he make two films for a little more money. When pressed for another story Dracula was the first thing that came into his head. Most surprising of all is that Udo Kier was not first choice to play the Count but only came in at the last minute when Srdjan Zelenovic, who played the male creation in Frankenstein, wasn't able to stay in Italy. Morrissey says Zelenovic had the aloofness and distance he wanted for Dracula, though, having seen him in Frankenstein, I'd describe his acting style as wooden. The film isn't meant to be taken too seriously but I certainly enjoyed it. Harmless fun!
