MovieChat Forums > Dracula (1958) Discussion > PLEASE...just ADMIT it was terrible scri...

PLEASE...just ADMIT it was terrible scripting! Just DO IT.

posted 12 years ago by FortySecondStreetFreak
6 replies | jump to latest

Harker walking away from Dracula and letting him wake up is a filthy great hole no amount of HD restoration can repair.
And you all know it. But won;t say it.
Even on the blu ray comm track they don't blame Hammer's script...oh no, they blame.......JONATHAN HARKER! They blame a fictional character as if he had sentient thought and actions.
"This is where Jonathan does something foolish".
NO...He's not a real person! This is where HAMMER does something foolish.

It's called *beep* scripting.
But everyone's too much of a slavish fanboy and movie snob to admit it.

It's simply awful writing.
They stupidly made Harker a vampire hunter, they then found the film was going to end 10 minutes after it started by having him stand over a helpless Dracula with a stake, so had him.....walk away!
They had him IGNORE the VERY REASON he was even there.

So it was crap writing (and messing with Stoker's perfectly plotted set-up) but they could have salvaged it by simply having the Bride wake up and stop him OR having Dracula sense he was there, wake up and stop him.
ANYTHING other than have him....walk away!

www.beardyfreak.com

[–] sunsetboulevard16 12 years ago

Agreed. I love the movie but Sangster's screenplay has some important inconsistencies (I never felt he was a very good writer anyway):

-After Harker wakes up and discovers he has been bitten, he is supposed to be several hours in his room doing something which we're not told about. "I've lost a day" says the voice over, "soon it will be dark." What on Earth has he been doing? Why has he waited until dark to kill Dracula?

-Later he decides to kill the girl first instead of Dracula (who is physically stronger, and more dangerous) when there's almost no time left.

Of course, this is to precipitate his fall. The basic problem is that, once one has the knowledge about him, Dracula is a pretty helpless character: he sleeps most of the time and anyone can destroy him without hurrying (so many hours to do it). So they forced the screenplay with Harker loosing one day just because.

More absurd things in the first act:

-Dracula gives him the key of the library and seconds later he locks Harker's room for no aparent reason. How was Harker supposed to react to this?

-Later when the girl asks for his help, just before bitting him, Harker still mentions that he is Dracula's guest and that he must honor that (after Dracula locked him up for no reason whatsoever).

The point of this is: what does Dracula really intend? He has a library with books all around that need to be indexed and he seemed serious about hiring Harker. But, he locks him up right after giving him the library's key (?).

-Harker behaviour with the girl is extremely naive for a vampire hunter. Perhaps Van Helsing discoveries listed in the gramophone recording were not available to him, since Van Helsing seems to be studying them as recent discoveries.

In spite of all this whining I really like the movie. And the "ineffectual male" theory is quite consistent with what one sees in the movie, no matter it was due to bad screenwriting. Clearly Van Helsing makes a difference. Cushing really carries the weight of the movie, so it mostly works.

[–] FortySecondStreetFreak 12 years ago

Good points.
Yeah...I liked it more (the new blu ray) on this viewing.

I always wondered too what Dracula knew, suspected or what his plans were. As he has these earlier moments but still would've ended up dead if Harker hadn't helpfully ignored him.

But its the fact no one mentions that, or those other faults, that annoy.
Like it's a sacred thing beyond the criticisms of mortal men.

Historically it's a landmark, a vital, amazingly influential, well spring....Still got some crap ass faults though.

This is a fairer view than just my topic here...
http://www.beardyfreak.com/rvdrac.php

www.beardyfreak.com

[–] sunsetboulevard16 12 years ago

I learned from one of my screenwriting teachers that in classical storytelling you could make something arbitrary happen in your story if it happened just before the second act. When the plot has started to develop (second and third act), everything should happen out of logic and not out of chance (otherwise the audience would feel cheated).

In this film, what happens during the first act is worse than chance: it is lazily stupid, so much so, that it becomes simply obvious that the world of the movie is false, because it doesn't have a minimum of internal logic. Such a thing can put the viewer against the movie (one might loose faith about the whole point of watching it, if it doesn't seem to make sense).

However, because of the way it is staged, shot, edited and performed, the beginning of Dracula is, in spite of the stupid screenplay, sometimes very effective. And for my money, the problems are only in the first act.

I must confess I was angry with the movie the first time I watched its beginning, but nowadays I forget about it because the rest of it is so good. I don't see major logic problems from when the plot really gets started until the end. In fact, I would say the movie seems quite tightly constructed, and edited. I think it works as a whole. Another saying from another teacher: "at the beginning of the movie, mistakes can be forgiven. When you pass the middle, and the story has to pay off, they won't allow you a single one."

(BTW I liked your review, we agree on everything, although I think I'm more in love with the film than you)

[–] TorontoJediMaster 12 years ago

This film and Dracula: Prince of Darkness were both really good movies, but BOTH had characters doing really, really stupid things just to advance the plot along.

It was like they wanted Van Helsing to have a personal reason to hunt down Dracula. So, they made Harker his associate and then had him act criminally stupid.

BTW, did anyone else find it strange that Harker didn't seem to even bring a crucifix with him to the castle?

[–] Bonzi_ru 12 years ago

Totally agree. The movies is terribly flawed.
Why the hell does Dracula stop speaking all of a sudden? He acts like a PERSON for about two and a half minutes and then doesn't say another word for the rest of the film. How come Lucy and Mina fall under the spell of some speechless creature so easily? Why do they protect him? Harker was also bitten, but he didn't seem to be affected by it at all.
Why is Dracula's resting place not even locked from the inside? Why is there no lid on his tomb? So anyone could come in and kill him?
At first Dracula's castle seems like some distant place, but by the end of the movie it turns out be just a few hours drive.

[–] Wuchakk 12 years ago

Re: "But everyone's too much of a slavish fanboy and movie snob to admit it."

Not me. I never thought this first installment was the best of the Hammer Dracula series and I never got everyone's fawning over it. It's decent, colorful and has a great score. Unfortunately, the whole first act is full of totally stupid holes, particularly the one you mention. Harker came there to get Dracula and he has him within his grasp to destroy, but, no, he goes to see what's in the other cement "coffin." And THEN inexplicably decides to destroy the lesser vampire first!

Plus, unlike Stoker's book, the screenplay changes Harker's purpose for going to Transylvania to finding and destroying the Count. So he's supposed to be a vampire slayer, yet everything he does (and thinks or writes in his journal) leads us to believe otherwise, that is, until he reveals the real reason he's there. For instance, before (and after) he meets Dracula in person he doesn't act like someone on a mission to destroy the king of vampires. He acts so nonchalant. I can see him putting on an act around Dracula and his bride, but he does this when he's alone, thinking and writing in his journal!

Also, as another thread effectively details Harker's clearly worst vampire hunter in history. He even shows a picture of his lovely fiance to the Count, needlessly putting her at the top of Drac's list of prey.

All this is eye-rolling to any intelligent viewer and takes him/her out of the film.

I prefer the next four in the series to this one; yes, even "AD 1972".