Dracula (1979)

Title: Dracula (1979)

Director: John Badham

Cast: Frank Langella, Donald Pleasence, Laurence Olivier, Kate Nelligan, Trevor Eve

Director John Badham’s take on Dracula is a very different take on the character; on this version he is not the fang bearing, blood spitting villain we came to know so well through Christopher Lee’s portrayal of the character in all of those Hammer films from the 60’s and 70’s, nope, this Dracula was to be a romanticized version of the character, a tortured soul trapped in eternity, searching for love. I understand what they were trying to do here, but I think Dracula sans blood and fangs is actually just a bit too much, I mean, we’re talking about a vampire here, blood and fangs are part of the equation most of the time. But whatever, I guess this was the kind of Dracula they wanted to portray, a sexy dude who exudes testosterone , the kind of man that makes the ladies melt as soon as he walks into the room. And this is exactly what happens in one moment of the film, Dracula walks in, he’s all suave, he kisses the ladies hands, dances with them, he even “heals” one of them, the ladies are obviously impressed while the men immediately see him as a threat! What can you do, the mother of all alpha males has just walked into the room!

The way Frank Langella came to play Dracula on this film was by way of his performance as Dracula on a Broadway show that ran for more than 900 performances from 1977 to 1980, in this way, Langella was echoing Bela Lugosi who also ended up playing Dracula in Universal Studios classic because he portrayed the character on a stage play. In Langella’s case it was producer Walter Mirisch who saw him perform and liked the play and Langella’s performance so much he decided right there and then that he wanted to make a film out of it. John Badham (the director behind this film) liked the show so much he saw it four times! The script for the film itself is based on the play, so this is probably why the resulting film is so theatrical, but then again, so are most adaptations of Dracula; I guess, Dracula and the theatrical go hand in hand. Langella was offered the part and he accepted but only on the condition that he wouldn’t have to wear fangs, drip blood from his lips or promote the film dressed as Dracula. So as you can see, from the very get go Langella had strong feelings as to how the character would be portrayed. Ultimately, this romantic Dracula is what sets this adaptation apart from all others. I have to give it to Langella, he is a smooth operator on this one! Take notes dudes, on this film; Dracula shows you how to sweep a lady off her feet. First things first, buy yourself a castle and invite her to dinner! Also, get a cape and a perm!

But this is Dracula we’re talking about here and not everything can be lovey dubbey in a horror movie. We couldn’t have a Dracula film and loose the horror element; that just can’t happen. And so, Universal fought for this film to be scarier, requesting to Badham and Mirsch that the film couldn’t lose its horror edge, they didn’t want this film to only focus on the love story. I am happy to say that director John Badham balanced very well both aspects of the story, the horror and the romance. First off, the film is drenched in atmosphere. This is one of those films that NEVER loses its ambiance and I cannot emphasize how important this is to me in this kind of old fashioned horror movie. I like for the atmosphere to be a continuous thing, I want to be in this horror world for the duration of the whole film, and this film does just that! Even the daylight scenes look dreary and void of color and life. Badham originally wanted to film in Black and White in order to pay homage to the old Universal horror films, but Universal wouldn’t allow it because they see black and white as something detrimental, something that might make the film lose business. So instead Badham went with a very colorless palette, the film isn’t black and white, but it might as well have been!

So it has that dreary look to it, add to that the full moons, a castle at the edge of the hill, cemeteries, nights bathed in fog, wolves howling in the night, cobweb filled castles and yes, vampires, and you got yourselves one hell of a spooky movie! Even though Dracula himself doesn’t have fangs on this film, his acolytes do, and so we do get scenes with fanged vampires reaching for their victims throats! In fact, there are some really spooky moments on this one, so fear not my friends, you’ll get your romance, but you’ll also get your horror, Badham did well in not forgetting this was a horror movie. Another film that pulled this balancing act well was Francis Ford Copolla’s Dracula (1992). Another element that really takes this production to another level are the sets. Wow! The exterior and interior of Dracula’s castle look so awesome, so spooky! The same can be said of the insane asylum. And then there’s the awesome cast, aside from Langella who is the stand out on this one, we also get an awesome Van Helsing in the form of legendary actor Laurence Olivier, who I might add was very sick while making this movie. Still,  he pulled it off like off like a champ. We also get Donald Pleasence, who was originally set to star as Van Helsing, but decided to play another character because he thought that playing Van Helsing would be too similar to his role of Dr. Loomis in the Halloween movies. So, instead he plays Dr. Seward. All in all, we get a really solid bunch of actors bringing this story to life.

Like any other Dracula adaptation, there are some changes and the film does play around with vampire lore. For example, the film completely ignores the opening of the book in which Jonathan Harker goes visit Dracula to his castle, instead, the story starts off when Dracula is already arriving to London. So those scenes from the book in which Harker comes in contact with Dracula’s vampire brides  were completely eliminated. Another thing they did which I found really odd was how they switched Lucy for Mina. In the book it is Mina who falls for Dracula, and not Lucy. But for some reason, they switched them around and on the movie it’s Lucy who ends up being the central female character. I see no purpose for this switch, so go figure, I don’t know why they did it, all it does is confuse Dracula fans.  But even with these changes here and there, in the end, John Badham’s Dracula is an excellent take on Dracula. Sadly, even though it wasn’t a complete flop, the film didn’t make as much as the studio expected so it wasn’t considered a winner either. Some attribute this to the fact that so many Dracula/vampire films were released in the same year amongst them Herzog’s Nosferatu (1979), Nocturna (1979), Thirst (1979) and Tobe Hooper’s Salem’s Lot (1979). Also, the Dracula farce Love at First Bite (1979) was released with success, and so the idea of Dracula might not have seemed so scary to audiences anymore.  I personally hold Badham’s Dracula amongst my top five favorite Dracula films, in fact, I think I would place it in the top three, right next to Coppola’s Dracula and Terrence Fisher’s Horror of Dracula (1958), yeah, I place Lugosi’s film on a fourth place, I’m one of those guys who likes Lugosi’s Dracula (1931), but doesn’t love it. So yeah, if you haven’t seen this underrated masterpiece, I say give it a chance, you’ll kick yourself in the ass for not having seen it earlier.

Rating:  5 out of 5

Lolita (1997)

Title: Lolita (1997)

Director: Adrian Lyne

Writer: Stephen Schiff

Cast: Jeremy Irons, Dominique Swain, Melanie Griffith, Frank Langella

Review:

On my review for Stanley Kubrick’s Lolita (1962), I mentioned that that particular version was a prisoner of its time, and it's true, the book on which the film is based on (Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita) is a novel about a  man who falls in love with a 12 year old. For all intents and purposes, it’s a story of pedophilia. Surprisingly as this may sound, considering how sexual a lot of Stanley Kubrick's films are, his version of Lolita is restrained in the sexual aspects of the story, failing to go where its story begs for it to go to. It fades to black in key sequences, and lets the audience imagine what is happening between Professor Humbert and Lolita. Fast forward more than 30 years later and director Adrian Lyne decides he wants to do another take on Nabokov’s novel. Was this version also restrained, or did it go further?

Lolita is the story of Professor Humbert Humbert, and man who suddenly finds himself playing with the notion of falling in love with a 15 year old girl, a child. He even goes as far as marrying Lolita’s mother so that he can be closer to Lolita! Will Humbert control his aberrant thoughts? Or will he move forward with his desires? And what will the outcome of his actions be?

I was a bit disappointed with Kubrick’s version of Lolita. Not that its badly directed or acted or anything. It was just one of those films that are kind of hard to digest. It was deliberately slow paced, it didn’t go all the way with its themes because of the conservative times it was made in, but the performances pulled me in and the story of course grabbed me, because I wanted to see how Humbert and Lolita would end up, would their crazy idea of a relationship work? But mostly, I stuck with Kubrick’s film all the way to the end for one main reason: its Kubrick, and I have to watch every Kubrick film before I die no matter what I do. I ended up liking the film even with its ‘flaws’.

On the other hand, Adrian Lyne’s version of Lolita was actually a pleasure to watch. Not that Im into stories about pedophiles, Im speaking more of the way the film was shot, wow. Lyne really captured some beautiful imagery on this film. He framed every shot perfectly, he filmed in beautiful locations, and got the best performances he could out of these actors. He pulled of a story that is not easy to tell, in a very beautiful way. My hands down to Mr. Lyne for filming such a beautiful looking picture. I really enjoy Lyne’s directing style. He frames things perfectly and beautifully, but he also gets right in there in the action, making you feel as if you are right there in the movie with the characters. There is one scene where Lolita comes back into the house running through the stairs to meet with Humbert so she could say goodbye to him. When Lolita is going up the steps, you feel like you are right there with her because of the way the scene was shot. Bravo, Mr. Lyne. Its no surprise this director has made one of my favorite horror films ever: Jacobs Ladder; yet another film that is visually striking. So be ready for some beautiful imagery with this version of Lolita.

The theme for this film are controversial, some might think the film favors pedophilia, which it doesn’t. Humbert and Lolita’s outcome is a testament to that. This film did come closer to capturing the developing intricacies of Humbert and Lolita’s strange relationship. It focuses on those little details, those little moments that are decisive in moving forward with a relationship, in this sense, I have to say that this film developed everything better than Kubrick’s version did. Kubrick's version was afraid of its themes, while this version embraces them. You see Humbert oogling on Lolita, you can see machinations forming in Humbert’s brain, you can tell this man wants Lolita in his arms. And Lolita is more of a provocateur in this film, she is the one pushing Humbert’s buttons as well. Dominique Swain, the actress who plays Lolita was only 15 when she shot this, but Adrian Lyne filmed her more erotic scenes with a body double. This illusion works perfectly well, for I didn’t notice it until I recently read about it. Still, the sex scenes are not graphic at all, it’s the idea that grabs and shocks you. But we're not here to see Jeremy Irons making out with a 15 year old girl, this film is after all a morality play, we want to explore what is the right thing to do. And if you choose to do the wrong thing, what are the consequences?

What I loved about Kubrick’s version more than anything was Peter Seller’s performance as Claire Quilty. The guy who tries to “rescue” Lolita from Prof. Humbert’s claws. It was such a crazy performance, the character comes off as kind of nuts, psychologically damaged. On Lynes film this character is played by Frank Langella, a solid actor if there ever was any. Langella brings an air of disgust and depravity to his character. Quilty is on screen for a very short time on this film, yet he is incredibly mysterious, and at the same time intensely revolting. A sexually aberrant individual. A despicable character, but a great performance!

All in all, a great movie. The controversy surrounding the thematic elements made it difficult for this movie to take off at the box office. It actually got a very small theatrical run and was later premiered on cable tv. I was surprised to discover that this film didn’t even get any Oscar Nominations when it so obviously should have gotten many awards. I guess this shows just how conservative the members of the academy are. This movie should have at least been nominated for cinematography, but alas, it was ignored by the academy that year. I guess Titanic was “king of the world” on that year and Lolita was completely ignored because of that. A shame, because even though this films thematic elements speak of a very ugly truth; this is actually a very beautiful film to look at. A true work of art.

Rating: 5 out of 5

 

The Box (2009)

Title: The Box (2009)

Director: Richard Kelly

Stars: Frank Langella, James Marsden, Cameron Diaz

Review:

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic” - Arthur C. Clarke

Arthur C. Clarke is one of my favorite science fiction authors; I’ve read most of his books and enjoyed them. Many of Clarke’s works focus on how amazing, vast and unexplored the universe is. He also addresses -many times through out his body of work- the issue of the existence of God and the validity of religion. He was quoted saying that he was fascinated by the concept of God. So it came as no surprise to me that Richard Kelly’s new film The Box based a lot of the films ideology’s and logic in the famous Arthur C. Clarke quote that is posted above.

This films premise is not really as complicated as some make it out to be. Basically, a strange and mysterious man visits a household and makes a very unusual proposal to them. He hands them a small box with a red button on it and says to them that they have a choice to make. They can press the red button, at which moment someone whom they don’t know will die, and at the same time, simply for pressing the red button, they would get a payment for a million dollars in cash. The household that is presented with this premise is a poor one, a couple that is struggling to make ends meet. Of course the offer of receiving a million dollars for simply pressing a red button seems like one they should at least consider. All their present economical troubles would vanish, but somebody they don’t know would have to die. To press the button or not to press it? That is the question.

The following review will be sprinkled with many spoilers. This is not going to be one of my regular reviews where I try and avoid spoilers, on this review I will be giving my own take as to what I thought the film was about, so if you don’t want the particulars of the story spoiled for you, read no further. On the other hand, if you have seen The Box and you are open for a discussion of this films themes; then read on my friend!

I have read many reviews on this film that make it out to be a confusing film. And in a way, a confusing film is the kind of film you are to expect from writer director Richard Kelly who was responsible for directing the “mind fuck” films known as Donnie Darko (2001) and Southland Tales (2006). I agree, both can be extremely confusing (yet enjoyable) films. But I don’t think The Box is as convoluted as Kelly’s previous films. It does have some confusing elements to it, but they are not really pushed to the max as in previous Kelly films. The Box plays with many of the themes that Richard Kelly loves to explore Like interdimensional travel or traveling through time. Donnie Darko has Donnie, a depressed and neurotic teenager discover that he can travel through time and space, and he can even see where his destiny is headed. On Southland Tales he dealt with similar themes of traveling from one dimension to the next, and maybe stumbling upon another version of you from some other point in time. Even though these films might prove to be confusing, they made for truly interesting films to watch, the mystery of it all always keeping you glued to the screen.

Director Richard Kelly, trying to stick to his artistic integrity, while directing a commercial film

The Box is similar in this way. It’s got that strange aura of mystery to it all the time, you will be intrigued through out its duration. In this way, once again Richard Kelly shows us how much he admires David Lynch. This movie feels like a Lynch movie even more so then Southland Tales and Donnie Darko did. In fact, a couple of scenes from The Box were swiped from Lynch films, mainly Lost Highway (1997). So even though this film might prove to be “too confusing” for some, some might also delight in that constant vibe of strangeness that the film evokes every step of the way.

So heres where we start talking about the movies themes. Did anyone out there get the vibe that this movies premise was simply that of God putting a common family to the test? Testing them to see if they would do what is right? Frank Langella played the mysterious Mr. Arlington Steward, the man who knocks on the Lewis household and presents them with a moral dilemma. I thought the dilemma in this film was interesting, considering the times we are living in where a lot of people suddenly face themselves with the fact that they have to struggle to survive, to put food on their tables, to pay the rent. The Lewis Family is living on a “pay check to pay check” situation as Cameron Diaz’s character puts it; so I liked the fact that the film is asking people out there these questions. Things might be bad, but if push came to shove, would you be willing to kill others so that you could be okay?

The fact that this film is about “doing what’s right” and making the right choice is really what drives me to believe this movie was all about the Lewis family getting a visit from God. The biblical allusions are there plain as daylight. The option to press the button or not is similar to temptation, same as the situation the biblical Adam and Eve were in when God puts the tree of “good and evil” in paradise and tells them not to eat from it. The Box is more or less the same story. The Box is the tree of good and evil, and pressing the button on the box would be the equivalent of eating from the tree that God told you not to eat from. The answer to pressing that red button or not, should be an automatic “no” simply because of the fact that somebody would be dying if you press it. Doesn’t matter if you don’t know the person, or if you won’t see that person die, you’re still supposed to be killing someone if you press it. And all for a million dollars, for monetary gain. If you press that button, you are making the wrong moral choice, breaking one of the ten biblical commandments “though shall not kill” and as is shown in the film, the Lewis family ends up paying for “sinning” in such a big way.

Which is really what Arlington Steward does in the film. He makes the Lewis family pay for having committed the atrocious crime of pressing that red button. Arlington Steward might not really be God himself, but he has god like powers and is certainly connected to the supreme being in some form or another. For all intents and purposes, he represents God in the film, spewing judgment left and right, making evil doers pay. But how does Arthur C. Clarkes quote fit the rhyme scheme of this film? Well, I’m thinking that this film was taking the route of Alex Proya’s Knowing (2009) which presented us with the idea that maybe angels are really aliens, and that we humans, not fully understanding them see them as angels. We see them as something spiritual (or magical) because we do not understand their scientific nature. This is something that movies do when they tackle religious themes, because in this way you present both sides of the tale, in this way avoiding audience alienation. The Box has a science fiction angle to it with the whole teleportation thing, the traveling through dimensional doors thing. So it has that ambiguity to it. It’s not an openly religious film, but its religious connotations are there. I’m thinking this was just Kelly’s way of being as indirect as possible with the biblical references in the film.

The people who work for Mr. Steward -the god like character in the film- are an allegory for religious individuals. They act strange, they all seem to be mentally connected somehow. They don’t like outsiders meddling in their business, asking questions and doubting things. One scene has Marsden’s character Arthur Lewis searching for information about Mr. Steward past history. Trying to see where he comes from and what makes him tick (same as one might search for the truth behind the idea of God) and what does he confront himself with? Stewards followers! They question him and his purposes, and then they make him choose between “eternal damnation or eternal enlightenment” which should be enough information to let anyone who is watching this film know how much it’s commenting on religion and faith.

I liked the idea that Mr. Steward refers to the whole box thing as an ongoing experiment. He tells them “the experiment continues” with another family who will be presented with the same choice. To me religion is a social experiment, placed upon society by governments to regulate and control peoples moral and ethics. I also find it interesting how Mr. Steward goes from door to door, presenting the family with this experiment, same as many preachers do with their teachings, spreading the teachings of the bible from door to door. After watching The Box I came to a conclusion. In my opinion, religion has demonstrated itself to be a failed experiment, bringing more evil then good to the world. It should be eradicated, and people should be taught to be good simply because they choose to be, because its what’s best for them and their fellow man. Not because they are afraid God is watching them, and he is going to make them pay. But thats my own personal take on religion, so dont take it personal if you think differently. The Box is a dark, mysterious and at times terrafying movie. I found it to be an intriguing flick, with great themes, but not as complex as some make it out to be.

Rating: 4 out of 5