Now, let me say first that I actually liked this movie in many ways. If you look at it as an art project as much as a film, I have to nod and say, "Yes, they probably achieved what they set out to." Which is more than I can say for Vampire's Kiss or The Brotherhood, both which were likely aiming for "good" and missed. Blood for Dracula never aims for anything, it seems, other than what it achieves. It's wooden and campy and just bizarre, but it is always itself.
The first thing to know about this film is that it never really had a "script," per se. There was a vague plan made for it, but the director (Paul Morrissey) essentially made this film because Flesh for Frankenstein finished production/filming early and he still had the entire crew and cast. So he asked Udo Kier (who had just played Dr. Frankenstein) if he wanted to also do a Dracula film, and apparently Kier cut his hair and they started filming the same day Morrissey had pitched the idea.
So, if you keep that in mind, this film suddenly becomes more fascinating. The fact that it seems to have a coherent plot and the fact that Warhol/Morrissey end up making their (not at all subtle) metaphor about class and vampirism clear is pretty great.
The basic plot is that Dracula (Udo Kier) and his wives can't actually survive forever by drinking just any old blood; to achieve immortality, vampires must drink the blood of virgins. So Dracula and his trusty servant leave Romania in order to travel to Italy, where the religious culture will surely have caused a high virgin population.
Right from the start, Kier's Dracula is unique. For one, he doesn't really seem like a vampire. He can go out in the sun (he's just not a fan) and can eat food (he just finds animal products and garlic impure) and he's thin and weak. He just seems like a frail, whiny, rich kid. He decadently takes the time to put on make-up. He cherishes his fine and antique things. Then there's the amusing detail that, from the moment his servant pitches the idea of going to Italy, Dracula complains. He wants to bring his stuffed birds, it's too bright out, what will he eat, how will they carry the coffin? At one point, in the most petulant tone imaginable, Dracula asks, "Why can't you bring a virgin to meeee?" so that he doesn't have to travel. Kier is adorable in this role, and it's rather bizarre to have an "adorable" Dracula.
Kier's accent is thick, but he is not alone. I think a high majority of the cast is Eastern European or German. You have to really pay close attention to each actor to figure out what they are saying, especially since many don't use anything even resembling "acting" or "natural inflection." The one of the few characters who appears to be a naturally born English speaker is notably a farmhand on an Italian villa, Mario. And Mario isn't just an English speaker. He's a blunt American with a strong New York accent. He is very purposefully a walking stereotype. Mario is played by Joe Dallesandro, a model who attracted Warhol's and other artists' attentions because he looked like this:
This brings us to the metaphor of the movie: the whole story is about the aristocrats' fall from power and the triumph of the worker. The family in Italy who employs Mario is an old aristocratic family who thinks they deserve the best, but who have lost their fortune. Therefore, the daughters work in the fields with Mario, but still are aware of and brag about their "class."
Two of the daughters are in a twisted semi-poly relationship with Mario, each sleeping with him separately and also all together in the same room, but while also being fairly jealous of Mario's affections to the other. They use their status as a power play and sexual leverage, but Mario aggressively takes charge (often while talking about revolutions in Russia), and some of the sex seems to have questionable consent even from the film's beginning (*more on that later).
When Dracula comes to call on the family, the girls are horrified by the "ugly" and frail Dracula (although who would find young, make-up wearing Udo Kier ugly is beyond me!) but agree to attempt to marry him because he is from an old and rich family and "we belong with our kind." The two sisters also use this information to needle Mario, talking (during sex with the rugged farmhand) about what nice things they can buy after they marry Dracula. Mario's sex with the sisters gets continuously more aggressive, and at one point it is unquestionably a rape.
While as a feminist I couldn't help but find Mario a jerk (and that's the most polite term I can come up with) and these scenes disturbing, it does support Warhol and Morrissey's metaphor about the triumph of the worker. The female aristocrats' power and worth in the film comes from their virginity; their marriageability (they think, as they don't know Dracula just wants to drink their blood) comes from their sexuality. But Mario has taken that, occasionally without their consent. This is the first "triumph" of the Marxist worker.
 |
| Yes, Mario's wall has a hammer and sickle on it, in case the metaphor was too subtle for anyone. |
The rest of the film progresses fairly predictably after that. Dracula asks each daughter if they are virgins. The two sleeping with Mario each lie. Dracula bites them and finds out they are lying. He vomits up their blood uncontrollably because they are "impure," causing some scenes of hilarious grossness.
There is one "good" daughter who actually is a virgin, however. So what is the solution in this film to protect the final daughter from the "evil" clutches of Dracula? Mario rapes her. Seriously. That's the solution.
When Mario triumphantly kills Dracula after that, the metaphor is clearly fulfilled and the worker has triumphed over the "bloodsucking" aristocrat. (At one point, Mario says about Dracula: "He lives off other people! He's no good to anybody and he never was!")
However, it's impossible to feel good about said triumph. Dracula is a bloodsucker, but he never comes off as threatening. He is weak, whiny, and effeminate; his servant has to do most of the work throughout the film. Mario, on the other hand, is disturbingly aggressive and seems more "threatening" throughout the film. However, in the context of the film's narrative and tone, I still think we're supposed to view him as the hero.
All in all, an interesting piece of work, though not wholly enjoyable as a movie. The acting can be painfully bad, the lines difficult to understand, and, ultimately, the metaphor was almost painfully blunt, not to mention that Mario's victory left me feeling pretty sick to my stomach.
This was the start of Udo Kier's long list of vampire film appearances, however, and I have yet to see a Dracula who is quite so unique. If nothing else, I recommend watching the opening "putting on make-up" scene. It's really lovely and really sets the film's "not quite normal for a Dracula movie" tone:
Rating: 2 out of 5 bites
~ LK
No comments:
Post a Comment