The Phibes Philes: Drac To The Future – Some Thoughts On Dracula A.D. 1972

The Phibes Philes: Drac To The Future – Some Thoughts On Dracula A.D. 1972

While not the last of the famous Dracula series by Hammer Film Productions, “Dracula A.D. 1972” can be considered the beginning of the end. Hammer famously remade all of Universal’s classic monster movies with vibrant colors, ample bosoms, and blood you could use to paint a barn. They were unstoppable in the ’50s and ’60s, resurrecting every creature from Frankenstein, the Mummy, Phantom of the Opera, and, of course, Dracula. With two exceptions, the great Christopher Lee starred as Dracula in this long-running series. He never had much dialogue (he usually had maybe two lines and a few snarls), but his imposing presence made him one of the most feared and beloved actors to ever wear the fangs. Although Lee grew to resent the part, there’s no denying the black magic he and Hammer conjured in those movies. But the movies began in 1958, and this was the year 1972. “Psycho” popularized the idea of a disturbed killer in lieu of a traditional monster. The gore of a Hammer film seemed quaint after guys like Herschell Gordon Lewis hit the scene. “The Exorcist” and “The Texas Chain Saw Massacre” were about to be unleashed. Horror was changing, and Hammer had to reinvent itself in order to survive. Their solution? Hippies.

Is “Dracula A.D. 1972” a good movie? Well, the title of the movie is “Dracula A.D. 1972,” so I think the answer is a  resounding “no.” Roger Ebert gave it one star. Clyde Jeavons of The Monthly Film Bulletin called it “an abortive and totally unimaginative attempt to update the Bram Stoker legend to present-day Chelsea.” It wasn’t the first movie to bring a vampire to the late ’60s/early ’70s (“Count Yorga – Vampire” and “House of Dark Shadows” beat it to the punch.) I wouldn’t even call it the best “classic vampire in the modern world” movie of 1972. (“Blacula” forever!) All that said, I am actually quite fond of this silly little movie. Even with a wacky concept like this, Hammer had Gothic Horror down to a science and was incapable of making something truly lame. A bad Hammer film is still very much worth your time.

I think even the most ardent hater of “Dracula A.D. 1972” can admit that the opening is boss. Real boss, even. It’s the year 1872. Dracula and his arch nemesis Van Helsing battle to the death atop a runaway carriage in Hyde Park. The carriage crashes and Dracula is impaled by one of the wheels. Van Helsing manages to fully force the wheel through Dracula’s heart, staking him and ridding the world of his kind. Alas, brave Van Helsing succumbs to wounds received in the great conflict and dies himself. Good and evil both vanquished by the other. Though the battle has temporarily concluded, it’s clear that the war will continue, for one of Dracula’s followers collects the vampire’s remains and places them in a nearby church. And if you’ve ever seen a Hammer sequel, you know that a drop of blood on Drac’s remains is all it takes to revive the evil one.

Cool stuff, right? It’s the perfect finale for a later Hammer vampire flick… except all of that happens before the title card appears. The exact moment where the film either becomes irredeemable or a cheesy classic is when we cut to a then-modern airplane and hear a sound never before heard in a Hammer horror film: funk music. At that point, we are introduced to an idea of youth culture that was dated in 1972. A group of hip (by studio executive standards) youngsters are introduced with a wild party, rockin’ tunes, and good-natured debauchery. They are the link between the vampire victims of the past and the slasher casts of the future. I’d even argue that “Dracula A.D. 1972” feels more like a precursor to the “Friday the 13th” franchise than it does a traditional Dracula film. Though I very much love this movie, only three of the kids are notable: Jessica Van Helsing (Stephanie Beacham), Johnny Alucard (Christopher Neame), and Laura Bellows (Caroline Munro). The first two are relevant for plot reasons, if their names didn’t give that away. The second is memorable because he’s clearly trying to win the Malcolm McDowell look-alike contest and because “Johnny Alucard” is objectively the coolest name ever. The third is Caroline Munro. ‘Nuff said.

Shockingly, Johnny Alucard resembles the Dracula follower from 1872. He lures the hippies to the church where Dracula lies. A Black Mass ceremony is held, and Alucard performs a ritual of blood on Laura. Drac returns in a villain entrance for the books. It’s so cool, I don’t even want to spoil it. The only thing I’ll say is that this Drac is undeniably the man. He kills Laura, much to the dismay of “Starcrash” fans everywhere. Laura’s body is discovered, leading to a formal investigation. The police contact occult expert Lorrimer Van Helsing, grandfather of Jessica and the direct descendant of the Van Helsing we saw at the beginning.

Peter Cushing is Van Helsing, which isn’t surprising to most. The beloved actor played the character five times, and it is arguably his third most famous role. However, there is something significant in his presence here that is often neglected: this is only the second time he faced Lee’s Dracula. In “Bride of Dracula,” Van Helsing faces an entirely different vampire. The other sequels pitted Dracula against Van Helsing-like characters, but the main slayer himself was absent. The next installment, “The Satanic Rites of Dracula,” does indeed feature Cushing’s Van Helsing. It just happens to be one of the few Hammer films that isn’t fun. Cushing appears in “Seven Brothers Meet Dracula,” but Lee doesn’t. So, in a quiet way, this is an important film in the history of horror. It’s one of the few times we saw two iconic adversaries in combat.

And that leads me to the two reasons why I love this film. The first is that it’s actually a pretty darn good Van Helsing vs. Dracula film under all the layers of cheese. The other being the layers of cheese. I love its dated take on youth culture. I love the band “Stoneground” that plays at the party (“Alligator Man” is a banger). I even love the fact that Johnny Alucard is killed by a shower, a ridiculous play on the running water legend. This is a goofy movie, but I do think it mostly works as a proto-slasher vampire thriller. The one complaint I have will either be a sin or a virtue, depending on how you feel about B-movie cheese. That complaint being that Dracula never really interacts with the modern world. All of his scenes take place in a gloomy Gothic church, so he never really leaves his realm. Personally, I would’ve loved to see Dracula biting necks at an Alice Cooper concert or messing around at a drive-in theater.

If “Dracula A.D. 1972” is the nadir of the Hammer Dracula films as many claim, then we are lucky to have such a solid series of shockers. Tim Burton has called it one of his favorite movies on multiple occasions, so it has at least one powerful supporter. In my opinion, it has a significantly less powerful supporter. But I will always take an opportunity to introduce the film to friends, family, or just about anyone who will listen. If you haven’t already, swing into the Seventies with the Prince of Darkness.

ANTON PHIBES

More From WebIsJericho.com