1. Movie Review: Dracula (1958)
a.k.a. Horror of Dracula
Dracula (1958)
Directed by Terence Fisher. Starring Peter
Cushing, Christopher Lee, Michael Gough,
Melissa Stribbling, Carol Marsh, John Van
Eyssen.
Cross-posted to Black Gate.
October films come in two flavors for me:
Universal and Hammer. I have affection for
almost any Gothic horror films these studios
produced during their Golden Ages (1930s
and „40s for Universal, 1950s and „60s for
Hammer), even the lesser entries. The
studios have such opposite visual approaches to similar material—the black-and-white shadows
of Universal, the rococo lurid colors of Hammer—that they create a perfect Yin and Yang for
Halloween, a Ghastly Story for Whatever Suits Your October Mood.
And what suits my mood best, most of the time? Hammer‟s 1958 Dracula, released in the U.S.
asHorror of Dracula. This isn‟t my top-pick of the Hammer canon—I lean toward two 1968 films
for that honor, Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed and The Devil Rides Out—but it is the film I turn
to more than any other when the calendar changes into the deep orange and serge hues of the
Greatest Month.
Dracula „58 is my favorite version of the Dracula story, and perhaps my
favoritevampireanything—with the possible exception of Matheson‟s novel I Am Legend. It has
flaws, but scoffs at me for even thinking that they exist. It is so desperately alive, so exploding
with its own entertainment value, and so rich in execution that it never fails to be “exactly what I
wanted to watch tonight.” I can say that about few films, even objectively better films.
Just to caution you, because a comment suggested it, I will now talk extensively about
the wholefilm, so if you recoil from “spoilers,” be warned. However, I think this is a spoiler-proof
film. You can know the whole story of the film beforehand and still receive the full effect. This is
the genius of a great film.
Dracula is the cornerstone of the Hammer Film Productions legend, and an icon of the Anglo-
Horror revival that seized the 1960s. Hammer had already entered the field of horror with their
science-fiction “Quatermass” films, the intriguing spiritual spin-off X the Unknown, and the
unusual creature-search adventure The Abominable Snowman. In 1957, the studio made their
first color period horror movie, The Curse of Frankenstein, which whirled far away from both
standard source materials—Mary Shelley‟s novel and the 1931 James Whale film starring Boris
Karloff—to represent an accidental manifesto of the new terror. It also introduced the horror-
watching world to the double-team of Peter Cushing (Doctor) and Christopher Lee (Monster).

2. But The Curse of Frankenstein is a very good
film, while the follow-up of Dracula is a superb one. As Hammer prepared to film a sequel to their
Frankenstein success, The Revenge of Frankenstein, they also set in motion the filming of the
other famous Gothic movie monster from Universal‟s stable. The filmmakers involved in The
Curse of Frankenstein all moved over to the new film: director Terence Fisher, screenwriter
Jimmy Sangster, producer Anthony Hinds, production designer Bernard Robinson, composer
James Bernard, cinematographer Jack Asher, editor James Needs, and stars Peter Cushing
(Doctor) and Christopher Lee (Monster). The result was a fresh synthesis that sealed the style
that Hammer would use through the next decade.
Dracula had a tricky time getting funding. Universal-International originally was cold to the
production (the studio was outwardly hostile toward The Curse of Frankenstein and made it clear
they would pursue legal action if the film‟s monster resembled the famous Jack Pierce make-up
design of their Frankenstein Monster), but finally chipped in for the international rights. The rest
of the money came from the National Film Finance Council. The massive success
ofDracula would change Universal‟s mind about Hammer doing versions of movie monster they
had made famous, and with next year‟s The Mummy, Universal-International entered an
agreement with Hammer to give them full access to their catalog. The Mummy then went on to
make even more money than Curse of Frankenstein and Dracula.
With the distance of over half a century, it is difficult for modern audiences to understand how
shocking and powerful Hammer‟s Dracula was when it reached theaters. The Vampire King is
incredibly physical and violent, leaping over tables, bestially snarling, hurling people across
rooms, drooling fire engine-red blood from his fangs. His adversaries don‟t hold back, either: the
camera doesn‟t flinch from showing stakes driven into chests, squirting blood, while an
enthusiastic Van Helsing wields the hammer. Much of this comes from director Terence Fisher,
who always kept his films keyed on movement and grand theatricality. Fisher delivered action-
oriented finales, and the closing moments of Dracula „58 were filled with so much energy and
agony that audiences were stunned. I still think the ending of Dracula is one the best horror-
finales ever lensed: Dracula is not destroyed, he is violently and harshly annihilated after a
thundering fight and chase build-up.
Looking at Dracula „58 in the history of adaptations of Bram Stoker‟s novel presents a weird
confluence of elements and new ideas. A combination of budgetary concerns and the desire to
do something different made interesting changes to Stoker‟s novel and popular conceptions from
the Bela Lugosi film of 1931. There are superficial differences, such as Dracula‟s inability to
change into animal form (“That‟s a common fallacy,” Van Helsing announces, thus saving about
£5,000 in one sentence) but many that make significant changes in the whole subtext of the
story.

3. First, Dracula (Christopher Lee) is no longer
the initial aggressor or the active mover of the story. It‟s Van Helsing (Peter Cushing) who puts
events into motion and makes the first move against the Count. Bram Stoker‟s Count planned to
invade England with an army of coffins and called Jonathan Harker to his castle to make the
arrangements. But in Jimmy Sangster‟s script, Dracula is quite willing to remain in his fortress
with his vampire bride (Valerie Gaunt) and feed off the local population, and let the rest of the
world mind its own business. But Van Helsing sends Jonathan Harker (John Van Eyssen) to the
castle to destroy Dracula on the excuse that he will catalog the Count‟s library. When Harker (an
idiot, as always) screws up the assignment and only manages to kill Dracula‟s bride before
Dracula kills him, the Count decides to get his revenge—and a new bride—and seeks out
Jonathan‟s fiancée Lucy (Carol Marsh) and then Lucy‟s sister-in-law Mina (Melissa Stribbling).
Although never stated, I think that Dracula is also hunting to find someone to really index his
library. Somebody who won‟t kill his live-in girlfriend. Freelance librarians these days, I tell you.
Second, Dracula appears to be monogamous. Only one vampire bride lives in his castle. Budget,
I‟m assuming, but it also accents Dracula‟s anger at Van Helsing and Co. for coming along and
interfering with his life. Hammer films are known for their relatively brazen sexuality,
and Draculahas a quite a few heaving bosoms waiting in anticipation of Dracula‟s embrace (just
watch the way young Lucy lays herself out like a girl on her wedding night, awaiting her
handsome groom), but it is interesting that the Vampire King here only focuses on one victim at a
time, and moves on to the next whenever his opponents kill the current one.
Third, Dracula is no longer a foreign menace, but a domestic one. The budget curtailed the
cross-continental action of the novel. The story instead occurs entirely in a fictionalized German
country (a.k.a. “Hammerland”) where Van Helsing has established headquarters in Carlstadt, a
remarkably Anglo city that is only a carriage-ride away from Dracula‟s haunt in Klausenberg (the
German name for Cluj, a Romanian city, but since this is a fantasy-geography there‟s no reason
to believe that it really is Cluj, and it seems far too small).
Fourth, and perhaps most important, is the significant changes that Sangster‟s script makes to
the character of Van Helsing.(Dracula‟s motivations are different from the character in the novel,
but he still seems closer to the vicious tyrant of the book than the figure pioneered on stage and
then in the 1931 movie.) Stoker‟s Van Helsing is an archetype of the Wise Mentor figure, a Merlin
giving advice to the young knights of the Round Table in their quest to slay the dragon. Sangster
re-writes Van Helsingas a younger man, the active hero of the story who has hardly any
companions at all except the reluctant Arthur Holmwood (Michael Gough, later of Alfred-the-
Butler Batman fame), who is about the same age as Van Helsing. Van Helsingdoesn‟t stumble
upon Dracula‟s existence and take up the task of eliminating him as in the book; his whole life is
focused on the eradication of the plague of the undead, with Dracula his primary target. The
changes to Van Helsing‟s character are even more pronounced in Peter Cushing‟s performance,
which I will discuss in more detail later.

4. After Bela Lugosi, Christopher Lee is the
actor most associated with the Vampire King, and his performance benefits from having nothing
to do with the evening clothing-attired version that Lugosi made famous. Lee‟s Count Dracula is
dressed in simple, all-consuming black, with a cape hiding him from head to foot. He exudes the
manners of a cruel tyrant of the Middle Ages, no longer polite or filled with social grace, but
brimming with the steel arrogance that he simply must be obeyed.
The Christopher Lee Count Dracula is foremost a physical creature. Lee has often said that he
sought to make Dracula “more human,” and I do not think he means “sympathetic.” Even though
Dracula is on a quest to get revenge for his bride‟s staking, he‟s hardly a figure of pathos. He
didn‟t love the vampire woman that Harker killed; he owned her as any deserving tyrant
wouldown his trophy beauty, and now he wants beautiful property to replace her. What I believe
Lee means about a “human” Dracula is a flesh-and-blood creature that is vitally alive, even
though it is technically undead. This Dracula hurtles across the screen, running, leaping, and
throttling. It must have stunned audiences in 1958 when Dracula made his sudden second
appearance, after a scene of cold commonplace hospitality to Harker, as a blood-drooling red-
eyed monster. It still has shock power today.
But as great and career-making a role as Dracula was for Christopher Lee, at the end of the film
it is Peter Cushing‟s Van Helsing who leaves viewers amazed. I‟ve seen Dracula „58 as many
times as I‟ve seen any of my favorite movies, and sometimes I prefer some parts of it more than
others, and sometimes I find myself critical of sections that I wasn‟t critical of the last time and
even rejoicing in sections I was criticizing the time before. I think this is true of any movie that we
love with rough honesty, something different than childhood idolization. (Although childhood
idolization is itself wonderful; joy should never be denied.) However, what always is and will
always be a pure joy in Dracula „58 for me is Peter Cushing as the finest and most marvelous
embodiment of a vampire hunter.
Peter Cushing is One of My Favorite People.
Seeing him in anything, his face, his expressions, his voice tones, his command of all around
him, is a wonder. I can never have enough of Peter Cushing, even when he‟s doing lesser work
(yes, he was capable of it, although it seems impossible when I write it down). That he is dead
and there is a terminal point to his work is a painful thought, but no one lives forever. Not even
Dracula, and that‟s because Peter Cushing‟s Van Helsing is there to put an end to him.
Dracula „58 is really Van Helsing—much more so than a certain horrible film of the same name,

5. which is nominally about a Dr. Van Helsing. In Terence Fisher‟s film, it is Van Helsing‟s world,
and Dracula is only (un)living in it . . . and on borrowed time. If Dracula could see with clear eyes
the man he is up against, he would crawl back to his castle, bolt all the doors, and lie in his coffin
until he starved to death from blood deprivation. Because there is no way this semi-mad, fully
brilliant, thoroughly ambitious Dr. Van Helsing can ever be beaten. He is a straddling colossus
between science and the supernatural, but dismissive of the conventional thinking on both, and
driven with a puritanical haughtiness that is ultimately not puritanical at all, but bloodthirsty. He‟s
almost a villain in his ruthlessness, and if he were not on our side opposing the evil undead, I‟m
sure he would have enslaved every single one of us already and killed all the heroes trying to
stop him.
The above paragraph is my way of describing Peter Cushing‟s performance in Dracula. I find
myself lost trying to write about it in standard film review language. Peter Cushing‟s Van Helsing
is one of the great layered film characters. He‟s heroic, but also unable to relate to other people
in a socially normal way. His lack of empathy, often demonstrated in his matter-of-fact dealing
with the confused Arthur Holmwood, borders on psychopathic. Van Helsing knows he is right and
that he is all that stands between humanity and the plague of the undead contagion, and he does
not understand why other people even need to have this explained to them. Or why somebody
might object to having his sister‟s corpse gorily staked in her coffin. The exception that proves
the rule is that Van Helsing‟s only kind exchange with anybody in the film is with an eight-year-
old girl (Janina Faye). He appears to feel some guilt over sending Jonathan Harker off to his
death at Castle Dracula, but it seems this is more Van Helsing‟s self-reprobation for his own
logistical failing, not that Jonathan Harker was a close friend. He can hardly offer anything in the
way of comfort to Jonathan‟s fiancée Lucy or Lucy‟s family aside from insisting they have to let
him have his way with the stake and the cross and the garlic or they will all regret it.
Although an inexpensive film, Dracula „58 disguises the budget with the tremendous work of
artistic director Bernard Robinson, the man who became the visual architect of the Hammer
House of Horrors. Robinson‟s work is so different from the style of the Universal films that he was
almost fired for what he was attempting. At first glance, Dracula (and most Hammer movies of
the age) are alarmingly bright, with few shadows and remarkably clean Gothic interiors.
However, Robinson‟s genius lies in his choice of décor and his use of color to create a
sumptuous fantasy world. The terror of a Hammer Film‟s sets are not in darkness or webs, but in
texture, decadence, and detail. The smallest object placement can create weird, upsetting
compositions, or add a sense of reality to the inherently unreal Victorian world. For example, the
large stove made of green porcelain in Van Helsing‟s study in the background and the “magical
machine” of a Dictaphone in the foreground. Dracula‟s castle has a visual marvel on its floor, a
marble zodiac wheel inscribed with Homeric Greek along the edge. Harker‟s room in the castle is
crammed with bric-a-brac, including a writing desk with astonishing woodwork detail on the
drawers. And Dracula‟s vaulted tomb is a place filled with the heaviness of stone and earth, a
foreboding place even though it has few ornaments.
James Bernard‟s score deserves special
mention for how it contributes to the new atmosphere of Gothic horror alongside Bernard
Robinson‟s designs. Bernard‟s music thunders and stabs. It rejects subtlety for huge brass
booms and neurotic strings. It‟s hyper-aggressive, but it works, because the film is virile enough
to move to that sort of rhythm. Bernard‟s “Dracula Motif” is a wonder of simplicity, three

6. notessynchronized to the syllables of “DRAC-u-la!” “DRAC-u-la!” (James Bernard enjoyed
creating his themes to match the syllables of the titles. He did astonishing work with long titles
such as The Devil Rides Out—“The . . . De-vil . . . RIDES OUT!”—Frankenstein Created Woman,
and Taste the Blood of Dracula, both of which use sweet love themes, believe it or not.)
Orchestrating this work is director Terence Fisher. Dracula isn‟t necessarily the best work he
ever did, it is perhaps the most typical of his wild and aggressive style and how it influenced all of
Anglo-horror to come.
Hammer continued to make Dracula films until the late „70s, when the company ceased film
production. The results were uneven. The first sequel, 1960‟s The Brides of Dracula, does not
even feature the Count, but it was a true sequel because Peter Cushing returned as the
crusading Van Helsing and took on one of Dracula‟s aristocratic descendants. This florid and
strange movie is one of Hammer‟s most beautiful, and easily the finest of the Dracula sequels. It
wasn‟t until 1966 that Hammer got Christopher Lee to put on the fangs again (although he
refused to speak any of the dialogue written for him) and produced the attractive-looking but
mostly dull Dracula—Prince of Darkness, with Van Helsing nowhere to be seen. It was also the
last of the Dracula films that Fisher directed.
The series improved a little with the next outing, 1968‟s Dracula Has Risen from the Grave, and
then got back to near-great status the next year with the Peter Sasdy-directed Taste the Blood of
Dracula, where the Count turns the children of wealthy decadents against them. But with the
cheap-looking Scars of Dracula in 1970, the series entered steep decline. Peter Cushing
returned as Van Helsing‟s descendant in the first movie with a modern setting, Dracula AD 1972,
a film with a certain campy charm because of the swingin‟ Chelsea backdrop—too bad Dracula
spends most of his time hanging around a dull ruined church while the rest of the movie has
fun.The Satanic Rites of Dracula (1974) keeps the modern setting and Peter Cushing, but tries to
fashion an espionage thriller from the material and ends up showing that series was blood-
drained. The last film, also release in 1974, is an interesting genre-masher, The Legend of the 7
Golden Vampires, which puts the Hammer movie into a Shaw Brothers‟ Kung Fu feature.
Cushing played the original Van Helsing, but Lee was done by this time, and Dracula‟s short
appearance was undertaken by John Forbes-Robertson.
Hammer Film Productions is once again releasing movies, with a film of The Lady in
Blackforthcoming. Will they re-visit their old standby of Count Dracula again? At this moment, the
only “Dracula” film project that might possible excite is one with the name “Hammer” on it.
BFI restored the film in 2007 and created this amazing trailer for it. It encapsulates all that is
wonderful about the complete movie. Appropriately, Dracula is almost unseen in it, with Van
Helsing leading the charge.