MovieChat Forums > Dracula (1958) Discussion > One of the greatest horror scores ever, ...

One of the greatest horror scores ever, but...

posted 6 years ago by Wuchak (8850)
8 replies | jump to latest

Hammer fans typically praise this first film in the series, Lee's first gig as Dracula, and it is a solid entry with the typical Hammer highlights: Lush Gothic ambiance, bright colors, Lee & Cushing and bodacious women. Lee's diabolical interpretation of the Count is another highpoint, not to mention one of the most stunning horror scores by James Bernard. Unfortunately, the abridged story loosely based on Stoker's novel is somehow unsatisfactory and there are too many 50's limitations IMHO.

Here's one curious abbreviation: In the book the story starts in Transylvania, switches to England with Dracula voyaging to London, but ends up back in Transylvania for the climax. Coppola's 1992 film adhered to this European globetrotting, but Hammer decided to simplify the geography where travel time is condensed to something akin to a European theme park rather than reality: The tale starts outside of Klausenburg, the capital of Transylvania in Central Romania at the time, with Drac's castle nearby; then switches to Karlstadt in South-Central Germany, which is roughly 750 miles from Klausenburg in reality, yet a mere carriage drive away in this film, perhaps 20 miles. Why Sure!

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 6 years ago

Nice post. The soundtrack is scary as is. Certainly do not want it playing in the background if staying at a castle in Transylvania even with bodacious women.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

They didn't have Coppola's budget.

[–] Wuchak (8850) 3 years ago

The practical answer and that's pretty much what it comes down to.

[–] strangenstein (683) 2 years ago

“They didn't have Coppola's budget.”

Agreed, but they still made a better and more satisfying movie. Coppola’s movie eventually collapses under all the artsy-fartsy silliness. Fisher’s movie grew stronger through its presentation.

[–] Wuchak (8850) 2 years ago

No they didn't make a better movie. It has it's highlights, but the abridged story loosely based on Stoker's novel is shallow -- unlike Coppola's version -- and somehow unsatisfactory, not to mention there are too many 50's limitations. The 1992 version, by contrast, adheres to the great distances of real-life geography and has way more depth.

[–] DoctorThirteen (15276) 2 years ago

Without question my favourite version.

[–] Wuchak (8850) 2 years ago

...with its eye-rolling Fantasyland take on Euro-geography. I love that killer score though.

I prefer Coppola's 1992 flick, "Scars of Dracula" and the Frank Langella version.

[–] DoctorThirteen (15276) 2 years ago

"...with its eye-rolling Fantasyland take on Euro-geography."

That's part of the charm. It's like those 'European' woods and moorland on the Universal backlot in the 30s and 40s.