MovieChat Forums > Dracula, Prince of Darkness (1966) Discussion > The Screenwriter is obviously lying

The Screenwriter is obviously lying

posted 14 years ago by CountVladDracula
16 replies | jump to latest

Christopher Lee has said he refused to speak in this film because the dialogue was so bad. The screen writer claims there was never any dialogue for Christopher Lee because vampires don't need to say much. The writer is obviously the liar here.

1. The scenes where Lee is present are awkward and feels almost like a forced silent movie. It's very apparent the muteness is something the film has to struggle with. There are very apparent moments where spoken words from him would have been a relief.

2. All of Dracula's minion speak.

3. Lee has dialogue in every other Hammer Horror Dracula movie he was in. So if it was something he didn't 'need' than why is this the only Dracula film where he doesn't talk? This doesn't happen again before or after Dracula Prince of Darkness.

4. Lee made them incorporate as much of the book dialogue as possible in the Hammer Horror films. Dracula can and does speak in the book.

5. What reason does Christopher Lee have to lie about this? If anyone has a reason to lie it would be the screen writer because Lee hated his dialogue. What does Lee have to gain from lying about it? It makes no sense.

[–] BuddyLove63 14 years ago

As I said in another post I actually kind of like the concept of Dracula saying nothing in this film. It's as if he feels such contempt for normal humans that he doesn't even lower himself to engage in dialogue with them.

A different concept for Dracula for once.

[–] CountVladDracula 14 years ago

If it was a stand alone movie that would be fine and would make sense but there's a continuity to the first few Hammer Dracula movies and he talks in Hammer of Dracula and Dracula as risen from the grave (directly after this one) so there's no logic to it.

[–] BuddyLove63 14 years ago

If it was a stand alone movie that would be fine and would make sense but there's a continuity to the first few Hammer Dracula movies and he talks in Hammer of Dracula and Dracula as risen from the grave (directly after this one) so there's no logic to it.

But he doesn't talk in Horror of Dracula when he is in vampire mode. In Horror of Dracula he only talks when he is trying to act normal in order for Harker to carry out his function.

In Prince of Darkness he is never trying to act normal. Ever. He is only in vampire mode in Prince of Darkness.

In Risen From The Grave to talks to people who he wishes to do something for him. Now, probably he is powerful enough to do that with mind suggestion without talking but then we the audience won't know exactly what he wants them to do, hence why he talks and gives them commands.

[–] CountVladDracula 14 years ago

[wuote]But he doesn't talk in Horror of Dracula when he is in vampire mode. In Horror of Dracula he only talks when he is trying to act normal in order for Harker to carry out his function. [/quote]

That's still talking and you said in Risen from the grave it's only to get people to do his bidding but he tries that in Prince of Darkness too and you have to guess what he wants.

[–] chongajuly 14 years ago

Neither Christopher Lee or Jimmy Sangster is actually "lying." The script as originally written by Anthony Hinds (whose writing pseudonym was John Elder) was conceived before Lee agreed to play Dracula for a second time, just like THE BRIDES OF DRACULA and THE KISS OF THE VAMPIRE, neither of which feature Dracula. Even after Sangster revised it for Lee, there never was any dialogue for him. Everyone who worked on the film confirms that Dracula had no scripted lines, and only Lee has insisted that there were, and that they were "unspeakable." Here, I believe that he has mistaken this film with TASTE THE BLOOD OF DRACULA, where he changed or eliminated entirely most of his scripted dialogue. The resulting film gives him the shortest lines of any in the Hammer series, and frequently features the King of Vampires talking to himself, a notion that makes one wish he did not speak at all. As to the others, Lee's Dracula apparently only speaks for two reasons, to issue orders or mislead his victims into a false sense of security. He did incorporate lines from the Stoker novel, but only in the two modern ones, DRACULA A.D.1972 ("you would pit your brains against mine, against me who has commanded nations?") and THE SATANIC RITES OF DRACULA ("my revenge has spread over centuries and has just begun!"). Unfortunately, both lines come just before his inevitable defeat at the hands of Van Helsing, making it seem as though Dracula's boasts are ill-timed and ultimately silly. No one is lying, but memories can be faulty after several decades, and so many sequels.

"I take pleasure in great beauty" - James Bond

[–] CountVladDracula 14 years ago

Your version of the events don't hold up under scrutiny. The continuity does not make sense in regard to the films. Try re-watching Dracula Prince of Darkness. You would almost swear Dracula has no tongue. He spoke in Horror of Dracula and he spoke in Dracula has risen from the grave. There is no reason for him not to speak at all in Dracula Prince of Darkness. The excuses given would be plausible if it was a stand alone film but it's not. It has a linear continuity to two films in which he speaks a great deal. Some of the scenes in Dracula Prince of Darkness are awkward because he is not speaking. He grunts and points to get his intents across as if he's playing The Mummy again. It FEELS awkward. It's not like a villain who is meant to remain silent and the statement that it's because vampires don't do a lot of 'chit chat' ignores that all of Dracula's minion and other vampires in the film do speak. It's just Dracula who does not.

[–] chongajuly 14 years ago

The events that transpire in DRACULA-PRINCE OF DARKNESS are patterned rather closely to those in HORROR OF DRACULA. Even Dracula's anger at Helen mirrors that with Valerie Gaunt, except here he has no blood on his lips. The climax is quite good, and the scene where he tries to get Suzan Farmer to drink his blood was taken from Stoker, but otherwise, very little was new. Even Jimmy Sangster has long forgotten which elements were there before he tackled the script, and Christopher Lee has less screen time than in any other Hammer Dracula, a mere 7 minutes (what could he have said anyway?). In TASTE THE BLOOD OF DRACULA, he had only 9 minutes, in DRACULA A.D.1972, 11 minutes, not well served. Plus, after saying goodnight to Jonathan Harker 15 minutes into 1958's HORROR OF DRACULA, Lee's Dracula does not speak again until 1968's DRACULA HAS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE. John Elder (Anthony Hinds) wrote the last three Gothic sequels, RISEN, TASTE THE BLOOD OF DRACULA, and SCARS OF DRACULA, while the only ones actually scripted for Lee were RISEN and SCARS (incidentally, my two favorite sequels without Peter Cushing).

"I take pleasure in great beauty" - James Bond

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin33 14 years ago

As Prince of Darkness being being written only 1 of those 2 films it ties in with could possibly have been in the writer's minds.

"SLaughter is the best medicine"

[–] 35541m 13 years ago

There are no lines for Dracula in the shooting script. That's a fact and a lot of people have seen it (the script). Whether there were lines in an earlier draft is open to debtae.

I think Lee has confused this film with both Taste the Blood of Dracula and Dracula AD 1972 when he did get dialogue taken out. The lines he complains of and which he claims were removed from DPOD ("I am the apocalypse" for example) were actually in the shooting script for Dracula AD 1972.

An easy mistake to make after 20-30 years (the first time he saw DPOD I think was when he did the laserdisc commentary). If you look at contemporary statements made by Lee he actually says he had no dialogue in DPOD at the time.

[–] death_jamm_productions 13 years ago

well at least he didn't count

http://www.mickey-rourke.com/

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin33 9 years ago

Ok, I want to know if that Laser Disk commentary can be found Online?

"It's made up of facts, that doesn't make it true"-Spencer Hastings

[–] CountVladDracula 8 years ago

I think Lee has confused this film with both Taste the Blood of Dracula and Dracula AD 1972 when he did get dialogue taken out. The lines he complains of and which he claims were removed from DPOD ("I am the apocalypse" for example) were actually in the shooting script for Dracula AD 1972.

Christopher Lee had a fantastic memory until the moment of death. Fischer not so much...

[–] dingduder 11 years ago

If he's prepared to speak on some Italian heavy metal opera , I don't see what his problem would be with this movie.

[–] CountVladDracula 8 years ago

If he's prepared to speak on some Italian heavy metal opera , I don't see what his problem would be with this movie.

You would be surprised how good some metal lyrics can be. Kamelot's Epica and Black Halo retell Goethe's Faust Parts 1 and 2 in English, which is considered the finest work of German literature.

[–] tbonesays 8 years ago

Christopher Lee has said he refused to speak in this film because the dialogue was so bad.

You can do that?

[–] CountVladDracula 8 years ago

Christopher Lee has said he refused to speak in this film because the dialogue was so bad.

You can do that?

Apparently when you're Hammer's biggest star who has been begged / Guilt trapped into doing several of their lesser-quality films, yes.