taste the Blood of Dracula?

[Frederick Bergstrom]

It seems every monster movie book I have ever read has only good things to say about Taste the Blood of Dracula. Some books authors even place it 2nd to Horror of Dracula. What do i seem to be missing. I feel its not only the weakest of the hammer movies its not even Christopher Lees best Dracula performance. Usually even if the movie is weak the performance makes up for it. Dracula AD 1972 the perfect example. Every time Christopher Lee is on screen its awesome. It is even the only Hammer movie I can think of that he actually quotes the novel ..."You would play your wits against mine, me who has commanded nations" I dont know help me out..I dont like Taste at all does any one else think its overrated . I would rather watch a weak film like Dracula Ad or even Satanic Rites of Dracula just because the scenes with Dracula make it worth watching ..but Taste the blood?? I welcome andy comments I need to know if I am alone in this. I would rather watch Christopher Lee in the Stupids then sit through Tase the Blood ..BUt why does everyone Love it so much?? I consider myself agreat fan of Mr. Lee, Hammer and horror movies what am i missing I think its really weak. what do the members think?

[John Farrell]

Hi Fred,
I know what you're saying. Ironically, it seems the worse the Dracula movie, the more onscreen time Mr. Lee has. Take Scars of Dracula, where Mr. Lee probably has the most screen time as Dracula and actually does some cool things from the book--but the film itself it pretty bad.

The thing about Taste is that it really tried to break out of the mold. Mr. Lee's Dracula is less a vampire in that movie--and more an avenger--in a dark way almost "the good guy."

Reason I think the movie--as a movie judged on grounds apart from fans of Hammer or Mr. Lee--is one of the better is it has one of the best production designs, the largest cast--great scenes with tons of extras--they actually show a poor house in London with tons of paupers as the villains make their way to the brother. You could have written that scene out--but it dramatized the world outside of the story in a way that the other films never do.

Notice in the other films--like AD 72--the entire film is confined to the church and the hang outs of the kids--and Van Helsing's house. Never more than three or four people in a scene together. It comes across as low-budget.

I know what you're saying as far as Dracula is concerned, but those are just my thoughts on why a lot of critics give Taste the number 2 spot after the original.

[Jill]

Actually, what bothers me the most about Taste the Blood of Dracula is the fuzzy logic of the plot. I mean, let's look at some examples of weak plot points. The guy is terrified who witnesses Dracula's death by impalement on the cross of Dracula Rises From the Grave. Yet he hauls his cookies down the dangerous mountain path to get Dracula's cloak, signet ring, and a vial of his blood (he just happens to be carrying a crystal vial, hmmm). Then we cut to the three hypocrites. One is a tyrant who tries to forbid his daughter from seeing the young guy, Paul. That thread of the storyline unravels when we see the innocent Lucy made into a vampire then killed, yet the tyrant's daughter, who killed her father and wasn't even a vampire (I guess she was under his influence, but she's got an incredibly weak mind), basically gets away with her father's murder so we can have the sentimental love story. I felt the same way about the priest in Dracula Rises From the Grave; he didn't deserve to live, look how many people he murdered because of his weakness! The transformation of the Satanist into Dracula seems silly, a real Deus ex Machina, to bring Dracula back to life.

I liked Scars of Dracula. Parts of Scars was even used in Fright Night with Chris Sarandon as the vampire. In Scars, the deus ex machina are the bats, who pour blood into Dracula's mouth to revive him and kill Maria and the others in the church, and later on the priest. Truly spectacular things in this movie, though, include when Dracula punishes his henchman by firing up a sword and branding his back--an act truly worthy of the torturous evil of Dracula, something I didn't find in the other movies. Other moments of greatness: when Dracula climbs spiderlike up the caste wall, and when he is holding the iron bar and trying to impale the hero and is struck by lightning. That's a very possible thing to happen when it's storming out, plus the symbolism of God's wrath doubles its effectiveness.

[Maria Silbermann]

All of the critics and scholars I've ever read lambasted everything from Scars of Dracula on. I think the greatest draw of the later films (besides Joanna Lumley) is the teenage exploitation sentiment: "To the Devil with our parents!" Perhaps these films only LOOK classic in comparison to the entrails offered up today as "horror" cinema. Sorry, but I can't jump on the fan wagon! :bomb:

[Gerald Forkin]

'Taste' is an exception in the Hammer Dracula series.It has an entertaining late 60s generation gap allegory and a fantastic turn from Ralph Bates. I think its one of the few sequels that actually works, perhaps because Dracula is an incidental character (although the final two films work wonderfully well on a camp level). I always held Dracula Prince of Darkness as the most disappointing sequel mainly because Christopher Lee was so ill-served by the script. 'Taste' stands up better than most Hammer films of the period and would have been even more memorable if Vincent Price had played Geoffrey Keen's part as originally intended.

[Frederick Bergstrom]

thanks for the replys guys and gals..every one sees a movie differnetly...Jill the reasons you like Scars are pretty much the reasons I like it yet critics were against the brutality of it so much but isnt he the most evil man in the world wouldnt dracula torture his servants especially when the real Vlad dracula thrived on torturing people..Gerfor, its funny you think Prince is so disappointing as a sequel I feel its one of my favorites. Yeah I know Chris Lee isnt in it much but when he is its solid and that resurrection scene gets me still to this day excellant direction by Fisher...We should have the administrator hook up a poll on the hammer Draculas and see what the members feel about the sequels ..everyone has such different opinions..although i think we all agree Horror would be tops on everyones list

[John Farrell]

Gerfor wrote: 'Taste' stands up better than most Hammer films of the period and would have been even more memorable if Vincent Price had played Geoffrey Keen's part as originally intended.


I had no idea Price might have been up for that role. Wow--that makes it a completely different movie.

No offence to Geoffrey Keen, btw.

Best,

John F

[John Farrell]

Jill's point:

"That thread of the storyline unravels when we see the innocent Lucy made into a vampire then killed, yet the tyrant's daughter, who killed her father and wasn't even a vampire (I guess she was under his influence, but she's got an incredibly weak mind), basically gets away with her father's murder so we can have the sentimental love story. I felt the same way about the priest in Dracula Rises From the Grave; he didn't deserve to live, look how many people he murdered because of his weakness! The transformation of the Satanist into Dracula seems silly, a real Deus ex Machina, to bring Dracula back to life."

Well, sure. This is true--but none of the Dracula films, to be honest, are stong on logic. Even the first film is full of holes (How come Van Helsing gives Mina a blood transfusion, but doesn't bother with Lucy; how come Dracula welcomes Harker and gives him a key to the library--then audibly locks the guy in for the night; how come Harker is so dumb he stakes the woman before staking Dracula; how come he doesn't wear a crucifix when he takes on the job, etc.)

Taste broke new ground in the sense that it wasn't the typical formula, meaning: Dracula finds girl (or has someone procure her) and bites her until someone stops him. The storyline (and cripes, the title) of Taste could have been improved, but it was a definite twist away from the standard vampire pic.

Best,

John F

[Maria Silbermann]

I have watched and enjoyed these films, but I wouldn't call them great films, especially compared to Mr. Lee's other work. It isn't his performance in them that needed work, but the productions/scripts themselves. Somehow I don't think that a poll about this character would be welcomed .:erm: , but I'm always happy to toss in my 2 cents:here:

[Susan Pitcher]

Wow, you folks sure do get analytical. I'm going to throw in my two cents as well, and excuse me if I don't take my usual tack (though I'm too new to have a "usual tack", I guess). . . .

Since Mr. Lee often mentions the term "morality play" when referring to his films, take a look at the social mores that are blasted in this film with youngsters' hidden desires to "just kill" their awful parents gets the go-ahead from Dracula himself. Vampires probably don't give a darn about patricide, just as long as there's blood in it for them somewhere. The fact that each of the men who kill Dracula's servant has a teenager in the home is perfect for Drac: he gets the girls, who in turn work on the boys, they all exact his vengeance for him, and he hardly has to do a thing but show up when the killing is over and he's hungry (thirsty?) for a fix.

Heck, I cheered for the kids. They had such forked-tongued fathers I was glad to see them go; the payoff was a guilty pleasure. On the other hand, who'd want Dracula for a Dad?

Finally, I get a kick out of the one line of dialogue: "You do it! You drink it! You drink the FILTH!!!"

I like the film, and feel it has its own merits. Can't wait for the DVD (hint hint Anchor Bay :smilewink ).

[Frederick Bergstrom]

i think the only reason we analize these movies to much is we are so fond of these movies and the character that we have seen over 100 times. I im not fond of taste at all ..but other fans are and for that reason i wanted to know why people like it so much.Obviuosly farre gave his reasons and the next time i watch taste i will keep that in mind when watching it just because someone sees it different than I do. I really dont think Hammer tries to make these great statements with these movies they were just to entertain us..Only we have seen them so much we are not just casually viewing them anymore
As for Taste i think warner owns it ...i think anchor has released all the draculas they had rights to. I check the warner site often but so far no word on even Horror as of yet which to be honest is very strange ...maybe the mummy was released first to tie in with the big budget mummie movie release. Im sure Horror and Curse did more initial box office when released than the mummyI hope they are released on dvd soon
100 times.

[Rocky2001]

I think that by the time "Taste the Blood of Dracula" came along, the scripts were increasingly disillusioning Christopher Lee. He was angered by his inane dialogue in "Dracula Prince of Darkness" (AND BECAME MUTED) and by the 'pulling the stake out of his chest' segment in "Dracula Has Risen From the Grave; so, his discontentment had been there for a while.

Christopher Lee did intend not to appear in the film and I'm pretty sure that he was 'slotted into' the script at a very late stage because the distributors of the film wanted him in it! That is why he generally pops up at various intervals of the film and just snarls - his contribution was much enforced in "Scars of Dracula" and the modern-day Draculas!

Yes...Vincent Price was due to appear in "Taste the Blood of Dracula"' but other commitments ruled him out (I think he was shooting Cry of the Banshee for A.I.P. around the same time!).

The best part of the film is the climax in the church - very well-photographed and effectively executed. The events that precede it are laboured in comparison.

[dvxagent1]

well, i think its an ok movie, its always good when draculas on the screen, to this day, i do believe mr .lee is the best dracula.

It's been a while since I've seen or commented on "Taste the Blood of Dracula," but there was a time I ran that video often. I think it was brilliant in many respects -- from the well-played parents of Alice to the pathos of Secker; from the imaginative snow-globe scene in the carriage to the inventiveness of the secret brothel behind the soup kitchen -- and I enjoyed Christopher Lee's performance tremendously, from his charismatic arrogance throughout most of the film to his splendid final scene which let us see both Dracula and the Power he struggled with to Dracula's "end."

I was so struck with Christopher Lee bringing us not only Dracula but, in relief, God, that I wrote the following essay and posted it here at the Christopher Lee Website in January of 2000:

God as Uncredited Performer in "Taste the Blood of Dracula"

If the "D" word seems to encounter closed doors, consider the "G" word: The "G" word could not even get into a certain "D" movie -- at least not in a very reverent way -- well, at least not in English.

In "Taste the Blood of Dracula" (TTBOD), you hear the Pater Noster near the end of the movie, but there's a long way to go before we get there, and the filmmakers seem to go to great lengths to avoid a fundamental piece of Dracu-lore: the power of the almighty creator, without whom Dracula would be a simple physical threat -- a creature with no more moral significance than a hungry crocodile. Insert whatever disclaimers about God make you feel philosophically comfortable outside the context of the film, but God is definitely a player in TTBOD, despite the way his part is downplayed by the human protagonists in the story.

Was that downplay due to God's not joining the Screen Actors Guild? Were Hammer bean-counters afraid The Father would ask for a Really Big Salary and points? Doubtful. I think it's something that speaks to our lack of clarity about where the power is -- and a lack of courage to fit up the hero with faith, rather than romantic love and a bag of tricks.

In Coppola's "Bram Stoker's Dracula" (BS'sD), Anthony Hopkins' Van Helsing makes the importance of God to the God/Man/Dracula triangle quite explicit, from his early description of vampires as creatures that "live beyond the grace of God" (if there is such a state -- and by their own choice) to his declaration, "We are strong in the Lord and the power of his might!" In both films, the young romantic lead acknowledges God's standing -- Paul Paxton in TTBOD may have it written on his face in the church as he becomes acolyte and joins a battle that clearly no human can win, but in which even the most frail human person can instantly triumph by opening the heart's door for the almighty. In Coppola's BS'sD, young Jonathan Harker learns exactly what his position is from Van Helsing, who observes, "We have all become God's mad men." Young Harker, his hair already grayed overnight, is stunned as he realizes the truth of Van Helsing's statement -- and we know that moment will define Harker's core for the rest of his life.

Conversely, Secker -- the closest character to Van Helsing in TTBOD -- while bequeathing information about sacred objects to Paul Paxton, tells his young charge, "You have the courage to do what must be done and, above all, your love for Alice will act as your strength and your protection and, you must believe me, you must arm yourself with knowledge, Paul." If my mind were too clouded to help myself to God's help, and someone were doing battle for me, I would hope that person's strength were more than what he knew, together with romantic "love," which is really a self-indulgent and shakable feeling generated by hormones and fashioned around romantic ideas fabricated in a very recent century. I would hope my rescuer's strength would be God's. That would require in him the humility to admit the need for God and to ask God to handle the problem. True love would do that. Perhaps that was what young Paxton was doing after lighting the candles, with the sweet expression on his face, but the film makes it unclear whether we're seeing a soul calling on the almighty or a young man setting up pieces on a game board.

In the end, young Paxton prays the Pater Noster and, even though the cross instead of crucifix and lack of a host lead me to believe that this church is Protestant, we hear this prayer in Latin, so even the dear words "Our Father" are never uttered in English.

Forgive my ignorance of whether it's the norm for any Protestant church to pray in Latin, but I grew up in less formal Protestant churches before leaving church for many years, then was confirmed Roman Catholic in 1997. I don't really know if, say, Episcopalians or members of the Church of England or some other Protestant denomination use Latin in the liturgy, and I feel sure that if I satisfy myself on that point with an informal poll, someone will pop up to correct an oversight. However, Latin seems like the sort of thing Martin Luther would have found objectionable. It really doesn't matter whether The Lord's Prayer was said in Latin rather than English to avoid giving God direct attention, or because some may have considered it a sacrilege to speak the prayer in such recognizable form for the sake of art, or some other reason; it doesn't matter, because the soul knows what those words mean, no matter what language they're delivered in. And, even when the words were spoken in Latin, Dracula knew.

The Most Obvious Literary Objection
It's true that if you call on God, the horror story ends. Calling on God wakes dreamers from their nightmares -- both the sleeping and waking ones. One minute a child is facing a bully on the sand lot and, in the next, there's an army of a thousand adults standing between him and the bully. The bully is utterly powerless to pursue his program of terror -- he cannot even see the protagonist for the force standing between them. Perhaps it wouldn't be art if such a rescue were to come too quickly in a film. In real life, the protagonist often delays calling for help until he's bloodied enough to see his limitations. That delay may make for better stories -- just not better lives for the characters up until that point.

I would really bemoan the neglect of credit for God in TTBOD if Christopher Lee had not rescued the credit for him with his performance, giving God some of his due with eerie beauty. Of course, during the first part of the film, Christopher Lee graces the audience with a more sensual tantalization than the hope of a rousing spiritual victory at the end of the play. Mr. Lee's appearance, his voice, and his actions are riveting on a delightfully human level.

Performing Opposite God
When the Pater Noster begins, the camera shows the vault of evil now converted back into a house of God -- and Mr. Lee shows us the creature composed of evil meeting the creator of all good. I can't begin to speculate as to what Mr. Lee was thinking as he gave form and motion to the person of Dracula at that moment in the creature's existence -- I can only share what I got from his performance, seen through my own beliefs and expectations: a being composed almost entirely of selfishness, vengeance, destruction, and malice, beholding the God of love in objects and in human beings -- and the evil fled. Dracula's pathetic and sympathy-evoking final glance downward before he falls makes room for grace at the emptying of evil, and though there is beauty in his face, he is still separated from God -- which is the most horrible pain a soul can bear. He plunges downward and crashes onto the altar -- and reaches up toward heaven before his last gasp and the destruction of his "human" form. Then physical peace and, one must imagine, God embracing the soul that reached up to him.

The task of giving God something of his due in a script that seemed to trip on his name fell to the character who fought God most in the story. Christopher Lee's performance as Dracula showed the God opposite and above him as compellingly as if God had been cast in human form that everyone could see.

Granted...
Nobody goes to a Dracula film to make up for missing church. We (at least I) go to be thrilled and enticed. It's only in the end that I come around to, "Wait a minute -- he took Secker's son Jeremy and had him kill Secker -- that hurt!" From there on, Paul is welcome to start whittling stakes, as far as I'm concerned but, at that point, we'd better have the power of God in the story, because the power of man and some sharp sticks is never enough. I'm glad that Christopher Lee showed, with his reaction to the Pater Noster, not only the power of God -- but the power of God's love compared to romantic love and bravado. Romantic love is, by its very nature, selfish, which means it can be twisted to wrong ends. Selfish love doesn't scare Dracula away: Dracula's love for his servant is selfish; Alice's love for Dracula is selfish; even Paul's love for Alice is quite selfish -- especially as we see it near the beginning of the film. But God's love ends evil and brings peace. If Paul and Alice place -- and keep -- God's love at the center of their relationship, they will make the journey through life together well.

Mr. Lee, in facing the Great Love in battle, gave us a powerful glimpse of the unseen. No stakes, no running water, no sunlight, nor other tricks needed.

Thank you, Mr. Lee.

God bless you and yours.

--Rebecca Frances Rohan

[David Pecchia]

I personally love all of the Dracula films. The films that Christopher Lee didn't have alot of screen time, (Taste the Blood) ex, the Hammer atmosphere makes up for I believe. I really don't have much to say except....I love all of the Dracula films. I do however agree with Dracula Has Risen from the Grave. There just happened to be a curio shop owner watching him die and have a crystal vial ready to scoop up his blood......I would have taken the cape, ring and ran.....


Have a goods one...
David.