by Allan Fish
(UK 1977 160m) DVD1/2
Come freely, go safely
p Maurice Barry d Philip Saville w Gerald Savory novel Bram Stoker ph Peter Hall ed Richard Bedford m Kenyon Emrys-Roberts art Michael Young
Louis Jourdan (Dracula), Frank Finlay (Van Helsing), Susan Penhaligon (Lucy Westenra), Judi Bowker (Mina Westenra), Jack Shepherd (Renfield), Mark Burns (Dr Seward), Bosco Hogan (Jonathan Harker), Richard Barnes (Holmwood), George Malpas (Swales), Ann Queensberry (Mrs Westenra),
For a quarter of a century this BBC version of Bram Stoker’s legendary tale had laid dormant, a cult building up about it, enveloping the popular consciousness like a mist over the Borgo Pass. One almost had visions of the original tapes being buried in a chest filled with genuine Transylvanian earth in the Blue Peter garden at the back of Television Centre and there was a time when you thought it would ne’er emerge again from the depths of Shepherds Bush. Yet finally, there it was, restored, released and revisited again and again by a delirious fan base. It would be entitled to disappoint, but it didn’t, and that’s remarkable when one considers the numerous mediocre Counts we have had before and since on the small screen. Those with long memories may recall the 1968 black and white version with Denholm Elliott a horribly miscast Count and a terribly young, on the cusp of stardom Susan George as Lucy. Others may remember a hammy Jack Palance in 1973, and most recently, a truly atrocious revisit with Marc Warren as the Count and David Suchet devouring scenery as Van Helsing (why, oh why, did someone not think of getting David Tennant to play Renfield, a part he was born to play).
What is it that makes this version so memorable? Perhaps that it is not afraid to take its time; all the major big screen versions ran no more than nine reels, while this lets its story fill nearly three juicy, bloody hours. Though combining two characters into one and making a few other narrative changes, Savory’s script sticks closer to the spirit of the novel than any before or since. And it’s a rare series of its time that feels atmospheric even now. Many BBC serials of the period – think Our Mutual Friend, even I, Claudius – were virtually entirely set on soundstages and had no exterior shots at all. There are plenty of studio shots in this Dracula, but they are forbidding and grimly shot, and counterbalanced expertly by excellent use of exteriors. Sure, some of the special effects may be very much of their day, with their almost psychedelic tinges, but there’s a real vision at work here. The shots of Dracula moving down the walls viewed from below and above, the smoky mist hovering over Castle Dracula, the animal cries in the woods at night, and even the dread in the calm before the storm opening sequence. One doesn’t need to know Stoker to know that Harker is going to meet something pretty frightening once he has been sent on his way by his fiancée.
It all wouldn’t have worked half so well, though, without expert casting, and truly it could not have been better. Sure, Finlay is a hammy Van Helsing, but that’s the part, and he’s a good enough actor to know that, beneath the accent, there are times when less is more. The two women are perfectly chosen, with Penhaligon never more bite-worthy than as Lucy and the ever-delectable Bowker a truly fetching Mina. Credit, too, to a young Jack Shepherd, who has a great time as Renfield, but in truth it all falls on its lead performance. And it could so easily have fallen, for the then 56 year old Jourdan would hardly have been a first choice of many fans at the time, but he’s truly never been better. All the more frightening because, like Christopher Lee in the original Hammer, he’s so polite. His reaction to Harker’s mirror is a classic in itself, and it’s hard not to love the moment when he lifts Harker’s bulky, heavy trunk like it was a pillowcase on his arrival. True, parts of it may date for modern audiences, as is the case with any TV drama of the era, but for students of the book, this has to be the first port of call, perfect viewing for a cold Sunday night, with lights dimmed to nothing and a plentiful supply of beverages, garlic bread (naturally) and handy snacks.
I remember watching this when I was a kid…I believe Masterpiece Theater here on the American PBS channel would rerun it every once in awhile. And I frickin’ loved it. I picked up a bad VHS copy eons ago…and then the DVD that was finally released. I think this is the truest in spirit to Stoker’s novel, though one could argue for or against that assumption until they’re blue in the face. It’s been years since I’ve re-watched it…will have to put in on the schedule.
…and I couldn’t agree more with Allan on this one.
I have a love for the over-the-top Christopher Lee performances in the many films he did as the character and God knows I still adore the Todd Browning/Bela Lugosi version. I am one to sing the praises of Coppola’s version and Gary Oldman’s turn as the Count in that, one of the most faithful adaptations of the source novel. However, this one not only stays faithful to the source, it also captures the texture of the places and period without getting extravagant like the overly detailed Coppola version does. Unlike that 1992 version of the story where we are probably more interested in the costume design, music and over-all look of the film, here the story and the meaning of the book takes front and center spot.
Jourdan, I’ll agree with ya Allan, was probably not the first choice, but the performance is so good that you cannot think of anyone better in the role and, in my book, his is one of the thee definative performances of the character (only Schreck and Kinski come in with Jourdan).
David Schleicher is right about where he first and many times saw it here in the states because that is EXACTLY where I had seen this many times (on PBS channel 13 here in the Tri-State area) and I watched it every time I saw it listed in the paper…
I only wish someone would do a version of Frankenstein as good as this…
This was a wonderful, out-of-the-blue selection to present as a review today.
REALLY BROUGHT BACK MEMORIES!!!!!
God, this brings back fond memories. Here in the states PBS used to play this on Halloween ever year, and when trick or treating was a day other then Oct. 31 (sometimes in cities when it falls on say a monday, they’ll have the kids trick or treat on saturday night), I’d watch this. I was too young to know who it was, or even what it was but the material wasn’t objectionable so I was allowed. I never really knew who did it, so thanks I’ve now got a copy coming to relive my youth. I remember thinking that pbs was some sort of horror network around this time, and being upset when I’d turn it on to find something else (which was the other 364 days of the year).
This version is second to none in the Dracula canon.
This version of Dracula I remember liking when I saw it on PBS back in the day, but to be honest I don’t remember very much about it other than Jourdan’s understated menace, which I found cool at a time when I considered both Lee and Lugosi corny. I can’t call it definitive, given my dim memories of it, but it’s certainly one of the better ones. Then again, I also liked Palance’s version back then, and he probably comes a little closer physically to Stoker’s vision than Jourdan does. The real question for adapters is whether to go for a faithful reproduction of Stoker’s pen-portrait or whether you concentrate on recreating his mood by the most cinematic means. The Jourdan Dracula argues for the latter approach.
Jeannette.
Back in 1969, Spanish director Jess Franco made “El Conde Dracula”, starring tall, dark and gruesome Sir Christopher Lee as the Count. If only he had appeared in the 1977 BBC adaptation of Stoker’s story, looking like he did in 1969, like a true Victorian gentleman, dressed in black, with that great moustache, his white hear and growing Younger after every snack, this movie had peen almost perfect. I say “almost perfect”, because the BBC melted Lord Arthur Holmwood and Quincy Morris to one character.
Still I liked the BBC adaptation when I first saw it, years ago. So I recently bought it.
By the way, I wonder why BBC never thought of asking an elderly Dutch or Belgian actor to play Van Helsing. Now Rutger Houwer will be giving it a try, but in 1977 we had actors like Kees Brusse and Jan Leclerc, for instance. But I must say, Frank Finlay did a nice job too.
The 1977 BBC version is, in my opinion, until this moment the only adaptation allowed to call itself “Bram Stoker’s Dracula”. Let’s forget Coppola’s “kliederwerk”!
On a trivial note, the revival of this entry for Allan’s countdown coincides with Jourdan’s birthday. Sources vary on his natal year, but suffice it to say that the man is ninety-something now, and may he be ninetysomething-more.
Well, the Count…immortal…
Superb choice of the best version of the book. Sheer class. The only thing I’d debate is “parts of it may date for modern audiences, as is the case with any TV drama of the era.” As it’s a classic, it hasn’t dated – just the attention spans of MTV viewers, curiosity and sense of adventure of these quick-cut junkies. Do you think they would sit still for ‘The Shop Around the Corner’? Give them ten or 15 minutes of this and they would be lost.
Anyway, splendid choice.
Superb choice of the best version of the book. Sheer class. The only thing I’d debate is “parts of it may date for modern audiences, as is the case with any TV drama of the era.” As it’s a classic, it hasn’t dated – just the attention spans of MTV viewers, curiosity and sense of adventure of these quick-cut junkies. Do you think they would sit still for ‘The Shop Around the Corner’? Give them ten or 15 minutes of this and they would be lost.
Anyway, splendid choice.