
The Film:
Dracula (1979)
The Principals: Director John Badham, Frank Langella, Trevor Eve, Kate Nelligan, Donald Pleasance, Laurence Olivier, Jan Francis, Tony Haygarth.
The Premise: Hitting once again upon the fruitful mythos of Dracula, this late 1970s version changed things up a bit in terms of the characters, tightened the narrative and sought to bring back the romance to the legend. Frank Langella played the noted Count, who arrives in London and insinuates himself of the Sewards, Van Helsings and Jonathan Harker (Eve). When he sets his undead sights on both Mina Van Helsing (Francis) and ultimately, Lucy Seward (Nelligan), it falls to Harker and Van helsing (Olivier) to stop him before Lucy is lost to them forever.

Is It Good:
John Badham’s version is sort of the the overlooked middle child of the Draculaverse. It’s not as iconic as the original 1931 Bela Lugosi version, nor as stylish as the 1992 Francis Ford Coppola / Gary Oldman version. And Frank Langella’s titular count definitely echoes the ’70s influences apparent in his interpretation: the hair, the gigolo open shirt. Nevertheless, the 1979 Dracula is unique in its production value and does have several things in its favor.
First of all, the storyline is taken from the 1970s stage production rather than straight from Stoker’s original novel. Also taken from that production was Langella himself, who received a Tony nomination for his performance. The narrative in this version is tightened up, with all of the pre- and post-England Transylvania material excised, and the story taking off right from the crash of the Demeter. It’s also set in 1913 rather than the late 1800s and changed things up with the characters, particularly by switching the roles of Lucy and Mina. Along with the omission of all of the Transylvania material, Dracula’s Brides were also absent.

The film also features a score by John Williams that doesn’t get as much recognition as his more notable works, but delivers nonetheless. It was shot by iconic cinematographer, Gilbert Taylor, and featured supporting roles by Laurence Olivier and Donald Pleasance. Badham went with more of a noirish romance than outright horror for this film. A perfect example of this is that Langella’s Dracula never features neither wolfen eyes nor, surprisingly, fangs. So the Count’s mystery and darkness had to be carried solely by Langella himself; for the most part, I think he succeeded. Although his Count is a much bigger prick by far than either Lugosi’s or Oldman’s. The rest of cast was generally solid; and despite the lack of many big “monster moments” in the film, Dracula was sufficiently dark and moody. Although, there was one still effectively disturbing sequence featuring an undead Mina in the mines beneath her tomb. Scared the shit out of me as a kid.

Is It Worth A Look: I’ll take Coppola’s version over this every time, but this is still a pretty good, atmospheric interpretation from a different time. Williams’ score is rousing and eerie at times, the production design added very well to the film’s noir look and the locations served the film well. Plus, there’s laserlightvampiresex.
Also, there’s this whole substory on the look of the film. Apparently, Badham wanted to shoot in black and white, but Universal refused. So it was shot in Technicolor by Taylor, but Badham later desaturated the film’s vibrant colors for a rerelease on laserdisc, which is the version that is usually seen today. If you haven’t seen it, Dracula is definitely worth a look.
Random Anecdotes:
1979. A kid of almost seven years of age accompanies his mother and a friend to a nighttime showing of this movie. He thinks it’ll be cool to sit in the front row by himself. He’s quickly disabused of this notion and spends the next two hours watching the movie next to Mom from between the fingers of the hands he’s using to cover his eyes.





21 comments
I like the Spider-Man bit.
Cosign: I too was scared by Mina in the catacombs.
I'll take this one over Coppola's every time though, in all fairness, the fat man did cast Monica Bellucci. Yum. However these two films are cases in point of trying to much and failing (Keanu Reeves? The shoplifter girl? *vomit*) VS trying not so much and succeeding. Over all other Dracula/The Count films of cinema however, I find only the Hertzog NOSFERATU (and the Murnau original) work on the same level of creepiness as the source material – which is really not all that great and which no one I've ever met on the InterWeb has ever in fact read.
No shout-out to Christopher Lee? How dare you, sir.
This is the best Dracula IMO. Well, the one that resonates with me more than the others because of the same reason you David: scared the crap out of me as a kid and it's the only Dracula I remember growing up. The boat scene in the beginning and the undead in the tunnels beneath the castle all gave me the creeps.
In fact your post has kinda prompted me to watch it tonight on DVD, haven't seen it in awhile..
Actually I take it back, Salem's Lot was the scariest Vampire/Dracula-ish movie from the same era. But not sure if that counts.
I don't think anyone will ever be able to get a 100% faithful adaptation of the novel down on film, because it's basically just a series of letters and correspondence. The structure is a lot more experimental than it's usually given credit for. Herzog's NOSFERATU is the best take on it, even though Herzog was mainly homaging Murnau.
This was adapted from the broadway run they did with Langella, with the sets designed by Edward Gorey. God I would've loved to have seen that, as I am a huge Edward Gorey fan. I wish they had actually just let him design the sets for the movie too. FUN FACT: When I visited the Edward Gorey house, near Cape Cod, the tour guide told me that Langella and Gorey did not get along at all, which lead me to ask "Why?" Her reply: "NO ONE KNOWS!" How mysterious…
I got all excited when I misread the title and thought we were going over "Dracula A.D. 1972" with Lee & Cushing. That movie is the real swinging 70's Dracula movie. Although the George Hamilton disco dancing scene from "At First Bite" is pretty scary. Frank Langella is only scary if he's Nixon or Skeletor….
I just finished the book and thought it was great. Dracula is so in control and badass for most of it… it seems like the films have weakened him, or added a bunch of faggy operatic emotional shit, or just turned him into frig fodder for fat chicks. I believe a true adaptation would be absolutely possible. Despite the epistolary nature of the book its got a clear narrarative, you'd just want to make sure to capture that feeling of helplessness that the main charafters feel for the bulk of the story.
Next week: Love At First Bite
Coppola's Dracula is the essence of overrated. Oldman, one of my favorite actors, was scarier in 5 minutes of screentime in TRUE ROMANCE than he was in this entire snoozefest. Gimme Langella or Lee any day.
Turns out I hate Coppola's Dracula – it was on TV the other day and I'd totally forgotten how mind meltingly pretentious it was. Sadie Frost is also beyond terrible in it. But when it first came out I loved it.
"Bram Stoker's Dracula" is made worse by its usage of the author's name in the title. Making Dracula a tragic antihero shows zero knowledge of the source material. Hence, using the author's name lends the film to a different line of criticism.
The score for this film is one of my favorites from Williams. Interesting fact: Williams has been quoted as saying that he'd never seen a vampire movie in his life before getting this gig. He scored the film "cold" basically, without any influence from previous genre efforts. The best and most faithful adaptation of the book (which I read twice in my teens, SirVincealot) is actually the version that was made for BBC TV in 1977, with Louis Jourdan in the title role. Not the best production values (it has the typical look of British television in the '70's: videotaped interiors and filmed exteriors), but well worth seeking out. Frank Finlay makes a great Van Helsing, too.
Agree with David on all counts–I prefer Coppola's grand, operative vision (despite its flaws), but this was the first Dracula movie I really loved as a kid, and it will always hold a special place in my heart. I will say Renfield got a much better death in this version.
Coppola's version has aged as well as any other early 90's CD-ROM game. I can't even watch it anymore. This one has aged as well as my grandfather.
He's dead.
I saw the stage play (with Martin Landau in the lead, who, ironically, would later play Bela Lugosi in "Ed Wood") and loved it. This movie, not so much. I was in high school when it came out and I was bored stiff and drastically disappointed. Give me Chris Lee any day.
"with the sets designed by Edward Gorey. God I would've loved to have seen that"
Saw it as a kid as a touring show, blew me away and turned me on to Gorey's work. Awesome design, working a bat motif into just about EVERYTHING.
This version hasn't aged well but I still love the music. I think the intent was admirable but it lacked the budget to giving it that big lavish touch that it needed. Basing in on the play didn't help. I also loved the lazervampiresex effects. It's like they used Superman fx crew and transfered in on Dracula.
esta muy padre esta vercion y lo mejor son las imagenes,pz la verdad le faltaba algo de luugo para que le diera mas vida
No Christopher Lee or mention of Nosferatu, a bit shameful. Coppola's Dracula is awful.
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.