Very likely to be one of the luckiest things to happen in cult cinema history, When filming on 'Flesh for Frankenstein' got ahead of schedule, and it was realised that an entire second movie realistically could be shot using pretty much the same cast, locations and props as 'Flesh' Paul Morrissey rose to the challenge and delivered...BIZARRELY. a work that is somehow even BETTER than the film they were ACTUALLY originally sent to film.
While I personally will always lean more towards 'Flesh for Frankenstein' in terms of its totally mad performances and off the wall direction, cine and scripting. 'Blood for Dracula' feels like a much MUCH more focussed and crystalized iteration of Paul Morrisseys creative prowesse.
The plot? In essence, Dracula and his family are dying, they require virgins blood in order to maintain their lifeforce, anything less will weaken them, and if they dont find ANY blood, they'll be dead within weeks. So...the count takes it upon himself to head out to a small town in Italy to try and court an upper middle class family into parting with one of their daughters, so that the family may feast.
Little does he realise, but Italian culture is VERY different from his own Romanian living...and that the daughters he's trying to abduct are almost all DEFINITELY NOT virgins.
And...thats basically the plot. But its the execution of this that is honestly so mezmorising. The script, with less to process or explain than 'Flesh' feels SO much more foucussed and concise in telling its tale. Its a rock solid 3 acts with invisibly smooth gear changes between each act, tonally its much more paired back than 'Flesh' instead going for a kind of explosive intrusive dementedness, rather than 'Fleshes' out and out, bordering on the 'Tommy Waisau' levels of ultra campy over the topness.
Here, we just have unsettling weird awkwardness...But its played in such a way that its just...captivating. You're waiting on every single scene change to find out what Udo Kier is going to do next with the character, what utterly bizarre line of dialogue is going to come out of the casts mouth...what could POSSIBLY be just around the corner.
What IS nice about this film though is that it feels much more in line with 'traditional film making' values. 'Flesh' at times felt a little abstract, like the film makers were exploring the medium itself and trying to ram as much in as possible. Here, the script is just a rock solid attempt at telling a story, and the visuals and tones delivered in the performances are what really elevate it into something really quite special.
The direction is rich, vivid, sumptuous and crystal clear in its intentions, whereas 'Flesh' was a little looser on nailing down exactly what it wanted to do, this films almost militant in wanting to revel in the luxurious locations, the set spaces and the surrounding villages where the film was shot. Its gorgeous, and the recent Severin films 4k release REALLY brings out all the vivid and beautiful location work to their fullest. Theres a kind of genius in the way this film is presented that really does feel like lightning in a bottle.
Same goes for the direction of the cast, everyone barring Udo Kier is clearly instructed, given a little wiggle room to improvise and seems to be really seizing the opportunity to just do something that seems quite unrestricted and fun. Everyone seems to be in lock step about what they want to do, everyone seems to know what the brief is, its as close to perfect with this kind of film as its likely to get really.
Why did I omit Udo here? Because Udo Kier here is on another plain of reality. In what is arguably the greatest performance of his career, he's positively ethereal. Giving a performance that sincerely feels like a shapeshifting alien who isnt built to last on earth was shown a 5 minute video about early 70s culture, and then told to try and blend in seamlessly with humanity. Its unsettling, and he throws himself so totally into the role, that when you see him vomiting up blood and convulsing uncontrollably, you genuinely do begin to get a little worried that he isnt causing himself some harm of some kind. Its astounding honestly and easily one of the best performances of the era.
The cine is equally gorgeous, rich focussed. I've got no beef with it, shots are excellently composed, theres more than enough B-roll to go around, the sequences are expertly crafted, not one frame is badly handled. Its excellently executed.
While the cast really do nail the brief, and Udo is a force unto himself. I didnt *quite* enjoy the performances as much as 'Flesh' if im being totally honest. While theres nothing inherently wrong with the acting in this film. I personally do just like films that are a little more bombastic, and while this film trades in its subtlety excellently. If I had to be honest. it can get a little dry in places. Which is probably the worst thing I can say about this film really.
The scorings superb, better than 'Flesh'...Look. Subjectively, I can only admit that this film takes what lessons were learnt from 'Flesh' and it builds on that experience to produce something that in almost every technical level surpasses 'Flesh'.
HOWEVER; If I was asked which of the two i'd prefer to watch. I'd probably still go for 'Flesh'. It's imperfections give it the edge for me. But You'll honestly be hard pressed to find a better vampire movie of the 70s than this. Its a mind altering experience that absolutely has earned its place on my shelf...and even though I wont be watching regulalry. When I do get a taste for 'Blood for Dracula' the fact that it'll be within reach makes me feel SO much more comfortable.
Go watch this thing. Seriously.
source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/blood-for-dracula/
No comments:
Post a Comment