Cushing's contribution

Alex Bledsoe

The final scene of Dracula (1958)—better-known by its American title, Horror of Dracula—is, according to Jordan Buckner, 'truly incredible and has become legendary in itself. It's often regarded as one of the movie's best features. And here it is.

But did you know it wasn't the movie's original ending? It turns out the film's Van Helsing—Peter Cushing—greatly influenced the film's climax:

In the original script Van Helsing was sort of like a salesman for crucifixes. He was pulling them out of every pocket. He was giving them to children to protect themselves, and putting them in coffins and so on. At the end of the film, he pulled out another one, so I asked if we couldn't do something exciting instead. I remembered seeing a film years ago called Berkeley Square [1933] in which Leslie Howard was thought of as being the Devil by this frightened little man who suddenly grabbed two big candlesticks and made a sign of the cross with them. I remembered that this had impressed me enormously. I suggested the run along the refectory table to jump onto the curtains and hit Dracula square in the face with the sunlight. He would, of course, be trapped. Then I could come along like a hero, grab the two candlesticks and make the cross with them in his face. They agreed. Originally the candleabrae they had were the type with four candles on each base. You could tell what I was doing, but it didn't look like a cross, but they changed to the ones you see in the film. At least it wasn't another crucifix coming out of my pockets.¹

You can watch Berkeley Square, in its entirety, here—the scene which inspired Cushing begins at the 1:12:56 mark. Cushing's claim about the film's original ending correlates with Jimmy Sangster's 18 October 1957 final shooting script, in which Van Helsing locks Dracula in a room, and 'runs towards DRACULA taking a crucifix from his pocket.'²

Indeed, there's no mention of Van Helsing's 'run along the refectory table', no curtains are torn and Van Helsing merely forces Dracula further into the sunlight—which is streaming from a stained glass window—with his crucifix, after literally standing on his exit route.

It's likely Cushing's input inspired the 'improved cross' trope featured in other Hammer Dracula and vampire movies; from Van Helsing's manipulation of the burning windmill's blades in The brides of Dracula (1960), the blood-smeared cross on Gerald Harcourt's chest in The kiss of the vampire (1963) and Carl Ebhardt's cruciform dagger in The vampire lovers (1970), to note a few examples.

The trope found its way into many other books and movies, but perhaps nothing so overt as the 1996 film, From dusk till dawn. The following exchange takes place between Seth Gecko, Jacob and Scott Fuller, and Sex Machine while they're holed up in the Titty Twister:

Seth: Do you have a cross? 

Jacob: In the Winnebago. 

Seth: In other words, no. 

Scott Fuller: What are you talking about? We got crosses all over the place. All you gotta do is put two sticks together and you got a cross. 

Sex Machine: He's right. Peter Cushing does that all the time. 

Seth: Okay, I'll buy that.

Later, Jacob Fuller forms a cross out of a pump action shotgun and baseball bat in cruciform shape as an effective ward against the undead. The film's script goes into more detail on the effectiveness of impro-crosses:

SEX-MACHINE

He's right. Peter Cushing does that all the time.

SETH

I don't know about that. In order for it to have any power, I think it's gotta be an official crucifix.

JACOB

What's an official cross? Some piece of tin made in Taiwan? What makes that official? If a cross works against vampires, it's not the cross itself, it's what the cross represents. The cross is a symbol of holiness.

SETH

Okay, I'll buy that. So we got crosses covered, moving right along, what else?³

The script also differs in the film in that Jacob does, indeed, wield 'a cross made out of two sticks', while 'reciting appropriate verses from the Bible',⁴ rather than the shotgun/baseball bat combo. The improved cross—a major addition to vampire lore—also highlighted why the cross is effective against the undead, rejigging it as a channel of the wielder's faith, rather than a 'magical' item in its own right.

---

^{1. 'Peter Cushing', Dracula, A house that Hammer built special, May 1998, p. 7. The quote is derived from 'Little Shoppe Of Horrors #8, p. 61; interview by James Kravaal.'↩}

^{2. 'Jimmy Sangster', Dracula, A house that Hammer built special, May 1998, p. 20.↩}

^{3. Q Tarantino, From dusk till dawn, Faber and Faber, London, 1996, p. 67.↩}

^{4. ibid., p. 106↩}

Catch-up time

My entries on here can be fairly sporadic, as I don't feel compelled to write just for the hell of it but only when I've got something to say or find something particularly compelling. That said, I don't like to let this thing go dormant, either. So, occasionally, I'll do a little 'catch-up' time with my readers to see what I've been up to and whatnot.

Firstly, you may've noticed that I've reinstated LinkWithin after banishing it several months ago. Wow. October. Time flies! I brought it on the same day I wrote the previous post. What inspired me to do that? You might be surprised. 

The article's full of useful tips for getting your stuff 'out there', but here's another: quantity may be more important than quality, according to a study by The British Psychological Society. The theory's not without criticism, however.

---

I've noticed Hammer's interested in making another Dracula flick. They've already had a recent stab at the vampire genre with Beyond the rave (2008). Prior to that, Hammer tried 'keeping up' with the young'uns by adding more sadism, more boobs and more groovy theatrics in the flicks that (not coincidentally) served as the last gasps of their reign over British horror films. 

Yes, I'm talking about Dracula A.D. 1972 (1972), The Satanic rites of Dracula (1974) and, let's not forget, the kung-fu 'spectacular' that was The legend of the 7 golden vampires (1974). Christopher Lee patently refused to star in that one and was replaced by John Forbes-Robertson.

I'm a fan of the Hammer Dracula flicks. Taste the blood of Dracula (1970) is one of my favourite vampire movies and I also enjoy their non-Dracula effort, Vampire circus (1972). What I'm saying is, these guys knew how to do it 'right'. Mostly.

So I can't help wondering whether they're gonna 'update' Dracula like they did in the latter stages, only to compete with other hyper-modernisations of the vampire myth like the Blade and Underworld series. Hopefully, Beyond the rave's not a warning sign. Point is, that angle's been done.

The thing that worked best in the Hammer Dracula/vampire flicks, in my opinion, was their 'gothicness'. That angle's lost when you update the vampire too much. They just become run-of-the-mill leather-jacketed action antiheroes—with fangs. Boooooring. I'm so over it. And enough with the bloody ramping, already (see point 3)! This isn't the bloody Matrix. And get offa my lawn!

Anyhoo, if there's anything that demonstrates what an updating of Hammers' gothic Dracula would look like, it's this. That said, they were also smart enough to back Let the right one in, so I probably shouldn't be cutting 'em down just yet.

---

Robin Hood—and Highgate vampire—fans, for that matter, will get a kick out of Kai Roberts' recently-published, Grave concerns: the follies and folklore of Robin Hood's final resting place (2011). The 'resting place' is located on the Kirklees Hall Estate, Yorkshire. It was also the scene of Sean Manchester's second-most famous vampire case.

Roberts presents an objective overview of the case and—before I continue, I've gotta disclose that he's a mate of mine. But he's a mate as a result of the correspondence that place during the draft stages of the book.

You see, its sixth chapter, 'Vampire blues', deals with the Highgate vampire case, which I was asked to view before it was 'locked in' for publication. Kai was familiar with my other blog, Did a wampyr walk in Highgate? and thought I might be qualified to do so. I made forty-eight notes to it, but not many made the cut. Mind you, they weren't major alterations, more like expanding on points—with a few corrections—Kai made throughout the draft. There wasn't really much more I could add, as Kai did such a brilliant job of summarising the case.

Now, because I mentioned on Facebook that I helped 'edit' his chapter (before I'd seen the final copy, no less), Della Farrant, and her husband David, took it upon themselves to jump down my throat—with hilarious consequences! What I also find funny, is that Kai's criticism is much more brutal than mine, yet they compliment him. Bit of a Freudian slip there! That, or they don't want to muddy the waters with someone who's given 'em public exposure and knows how to cut down their 'work' a peg or two with utmost precision.

As if it wasn't sad enough, Dave's wife's now started writing weaksauce apologia and bitter diatribes on her husband's behalf. A real shame, because she's a very smart woman and a talented writer (cursive font to the contrary). Just goes to show how 'blind' love can be.

Apart from that, I've also dealt with the usual pitiful, passive-aggressive mind games the President of the Highgate Vampire Society likes to play.

Anyhoo, grab a copy of Kai's book. I've started reading the rest of it—keeping in mind I only saw one chapter, pre-publication—and it's proving to be a gripping read.

---

Speaking of reads, Bertena Varney sent me a copy of her book, Vampire news: tasty bits to sink your fangs into (2012), which I'll get round to reading properly when I have some time.

You might recall her as the author of Lure of the vampire: a pop culture reference book of lists, websites and "very telling personal essays" (2011). The same book also reveals the head of the Federal Vampire and Zombie Agency, which many people think is a legit government organisation.

If Vampire news is non-fictional—as my brief flick-through suggests it is—you may even see a review on this blog. Stay tuned! But let this also be a head's up to other authors/publishers: please don't send me movies or fictional works. I appreciate the effort, but I won't review them. If you've got vampire documentaries (like this one) or non-fiction vampire books, on the other hand...

In the meantime, I actually kinda dig the cover and you can download a copy of it free—yes, free—from its co-author, Stavros', website: Bite me really hard. Click on the cover to take you there.

---

Even though this isn't a movie review blog, I'll occasionally refer to vampire flicks I've seen, keeping in tune with the online 'diary' nature of blogs. So, in that spirit, I'll mention that I caught Lesbian vampire killers (for vampire content, honest!) on DVD. 

Despite the rash of negative reviews—and its co-star calling it 'a pile of shit'—I kinda liked it. It reminded me of a far-less gorier version of Død snø (2009), another enjoyably mindless horror-comedy released the same year. It's not Shaun of the dead, sure, but dumb fun, nonetheless. For another 'take', see what Andrew M. Boylan had to say about it.

---

Well, that's enough rambling and links to wade through, for today. We'll catch-up again soon. Oh, but before I forget, John Edgar Browning gave me a head's up on the release of his book, Bram Stoker's Dracula: the critical feast, an annotated reference of early reviews & reactions, 1897-1913 (2012). It's now available in paperback form on Amazon; there's a copy for the Kindle-inclined. Another addition to my wish list—and yours, too, I hope.

Dracula fan's Facebook page swiped

Just when you thought it was safe to go back on the internets, seems like the ghost of SOPA's still lingering about. Bertena Varney published a highly disturbing article today: 'Universal Studios claim Dracula fan's Facebook page'. What. The. Hell?!

The owner of the page is—full disclosure—a friend of mine, Charles E. Butler. He wrote The romance of Dracula: a personal journey of the Count on celluloid (2011). The article reveals that on January 20th, Facebook sent him the following message:

Hello,      

You may have noticed that you're no longer an admin of one of the Facebook Pages you used to manage. The Page was claimed by someone who proved that they're authorized to represent it.       

The Facebook Team

Wikipedia

Short, sweet and sucky. Varney adds, 'He then went to visit the website and it was under another admin that he found later was Univerisal Studios, the owner of the orginal Dracula movies.' Now, I don't know what 'proof' they offered—and neither does Butler, because five emails to 'The Facebook Team' have gone unanswered.

Proof is the key here, because even though Universal made the first (official)¹ Dracula movies after negotiations with Bram Stoker's widow, Florence Balcombe Stoker, they do not own Stoker's work or derivatives from it—unless, of course, it exploits their Dracula franchise, namely Dracula (1931), Dracula's daughter (1936), Abbot and Costello meet Frankenstein (1948), etc. 

As respected Dracula scholar, David J. Skal notes, 'due to a loophole in copyright law, Dracula was – and always had been – in the public domain in the United States. Although Stoker had been issued a copyright certificate in 1897, and his widow a renewed certificate in the 1920s, Stoker had never complied with the requirement that two copies of the work be deposited with the American copyright office.'² Therefore, Universal simply has no right to claim 'Dracula' from someone else.

Add your signature to a petition asking Universal to give Butler's page back. I've signed it; hope you do, too. Stand up for the 'little guy'!

---

^{1. F.W. Murnau's well-known Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens (1922) was an unauthorised rip-off.↩}

^{2. DJ Skal, Hollywood gothic: the tangled web of Dracula from novel to stage to screen, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1990, p. 180.↩}

On the feast front

I recently mentioned an upcoming book called Bram Stoker’s Dracula: the critical feast, an annotated reference of reviews and reactions, 1897-1920, which is compiled and edited by John Edgar Browning. John saw my post and shared further information, 'hot off the press', on the 18th via Facebook:

BRAM STOKER’S DRACULA: THE CRITICAL FEAST
An Annotated Reference of Early Reviews and Reactions, 1897-1913


Compiled and Annotated, with an Introduction, by
John Edgar Browning

Bibliographical Afterword by
J. Gordon Melton

PRAISE
“Both scholars and devoted fans will rejoice in Bram Stoker’s Dracula: The Critical Feast. This exhaustive compilation fulfills a long-standing need in the realm of Dracula studies and provides a valuable fresh perspective on the early popular and critical reception of Stoker’s masterpiece.”
—Dr. Margaret L. Carter, The Vampire in Literature: A Critical Bibliography and Different Blood: The Vampire as Alien

“This meticulously researched book puts to rest misconceptions long held by many Dracula scholars (myself included) about the reception of Stoker's novel. A superb achievement and a scholar’s delight!”
—Dr. Elizabeth Miller, Bram Stoker’s Dracula: A Documentary Journey into Vampire Country and the Dracula Phenomenon and Bram Stoker’s Notes for Dracula: A Facsimile Edition

“Dryden said of The Canterbury Tales that “here is God’s plenty,” and one might say the same thing about Bram Stoker’s Dracula: The Critical Feast. Browning has assembled an exhaustive collection of contemporary reviews of Dracula, reviews that put Stoker’s novel into context and demonstrate its almost instantaneous popularity. In addition, The Critical Feast includes copies of early covers and photographs of Stoker. This is a book that every student of Dracula will be proud to own…and pore over, a feast for the eyes and for the mind.”
—Dr. Carol A. Senf, Bram Stoker (Gothic Authors: Critical Revisions) and The Critical Response to Bram Stoker

SYNOPSIS
There is a common misconception that the early critical reception of Bram Stoker’s famed vampire novel, Dracula (1897), was “mixed.” This reference book sets out to dispel this myth en force by offering the most exhaustive collection of early critical responses to Stoker’s novel ever assembled, including some 91 reviews and reactions as well as 36 different press notices, many of which have not been seen in print since they appeared over 100 years ago. What these early critical responses reveal about Dracula’s writing is that it was predominantly seen by early reviewers and responders to parallel, even supersede the Gothic horror works of such canonical writers as Mary Shelley, Ann Radcliffe, and Edgar Allan Poe.

Accompanying the critical responses are annotations and an introduction by the editor, a bibliographical afterword by J. Gordon Melton, 32 illustrations, and a bibliography.

Sounds good! Personally speaking, I find it interesting to read contemporary views on the novel, long before it morphed into the Gothic legend it's become. Back when it was more 'grounded'. Anyhoo, John also kindly sent me the book's cover, today. Here tis:

Nifty, ain't it? He also let me know that 'with any luck, I'll be contracting my 9th and 10th book in the next 30 days'! Considering the first book he edited appeared in 2009—Draculas, vampires, and other undead forms: essays on gender, race, and culture—that's a hell of an achievement. Let's not forget his 'critical edition' to Montague Summers' The vampire in Europe (1929) is also due sometime this year.

In this capacity, John reminds me of Peter Haining (1940–2007), another prolific guy with a knack for turning up obscure goodies.

New Van Helsing flick?

It seems Sony Pictures is gearing up to make a flick tentatively titled Van Helsing and Dracula or Dracula and Van Helsing. Not the most inspiring titles.

Thankfully, it's not connected to the dreadful Van Helsing (2004) written and directed by Stephen Sommers, the poor man's Stephen Spielberg. 'Gabriel Van Helsing', indeed. Pfft.

You know what Van Helsing flick they should make? The proposed sequel to Francis Ford Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) they talked about years ago: 'A sequel, Van Helsing's Chronicles, will continue the story of the vampire hunter starring Anthony Hopkins.'¹ Now that would be awesome. I wouldn't even care if they didn't bring back Count Oldman; to see scenery-chewing Hopkins and his band of merry men (yes, even Keanu) go up against more vamps would be fantastic. The 'love story' sucked, anyway.

DVD beaver

Sony Pictures Entertainment even owns it: 'Columbia Pictures now forms part of the Columbia TriStar Motion Picture Group, owned by Sony Pictures Entertainment'. Maybe that's the flick they're proposing. I hope so.

So, bring back Coppola, Hopkins, hell, even James V. Hart. Dispense with the sub-par Blade/Underworld action theatrics of their imitators and let's have ourselves an operatic clusterfudge of a Van Helsing flick. Bring it on. Beat Dario Argento at his own game.

In the meantime, here's a great little DVD overview of the 1992 flick.Oh, and props to Vampire news for featuring the story.

---

^{1. JG Melton, The vampire book: the encyclopedia of the undead, Visible Ink Press, Detroit, 1994, p. 124.↩}

Dario Argento's Dracula

Horror maven, Dario Argento, has cast his hat into the lot of a long line of directors who've tackled Bram Stoker's Dracula. However, this is probably the first attempt rendered in 'stereoscopic 3D'.

A word of warning before viewing this 'Trailor': it's got a lotta gore, bad CGI and brief nudity at the 1:38 mark. It might also make you wonder, 'This guy directed Suspiria?'

Twilight, it ain't. As a change of pace, Rutger Hauer plays Van Helsing. His previous contributions to vampire flicks include Lothos (Buffy the vampire slayer, 1992) and Kurt Barlow (Salem's Lot, 2004). He also inspired Anne Rice, and was even considered for the role of Lestat de Lioncourt in an adaptation of Interview with the vampire. It went to Tom Cruise.

Watching the 'trailor' for this OTT adaptation reminds me of a Dracula project—by another horror auteur—unfortunately never realised.

The late Ken Russell (1927–2011), best-known in vampire circles for adapting Stoker's Lair of the white worm (1988), Russell wanted a crack at Drac, too. It 'was cancelled when it was felt that too many Dracula films were crowding the market. Among the proposed scenes was Jonathan Harker wrapping a rosary about his fist to "de-fang" a vampire bride!'

Nosferatu!

Man, I love the Internet archive. Yesterday, I found The Nineteenth Century's 18th volume, which contains the July 1885 issue. What's the big deal about that? It features Emily de Laszowska Gerard's  'Transylvanian superstitions' (pp. 130–50); a known source for Bram Stoker's Dracula (1897).¹

Internet archive

'More decidedly evil, however, is the vampire, or nosferatu, in whom every Roumenian [Romanian] peasant believes as firmly as he does in heaven or hell.'² Until recently, it was generally assumed Gerard 'invented' nosferatu, as attempts to antedate the word went nowhere. However, I uncovered a source preceding her usage—by twenty years. Thanks to Google books.

Gerard's nosferatu appears several times in Stoker's novel. 'Friend Arthur,' says Van Helsing, 'if you had met that kiss which you know of before poor Lucy die, or again, last night when you open your arms to her, you would in time, when you had died, have become nosferatu, as they call it in Eastern europe, and would for all time make more of those Un-Deads that so have filled us with horror.'

His blunt comments on what he intends to do once the vampirised Lucy Westenra is located—"I shall cut off her head and fill her mouth with garlic, and I shall drive a stake through her body"—clearly echo Gerard's prescription for 'very obstinate cases' of nosferatu visitations.

John Seward and Van Helsing even follow through with the gruesome deed: 'The Professor and I sawed the top off the stake, leaving the point of it in the body. Then we cut off the head and filled the mouth with garlic. We soldered up the leaden coffin, screwed on the coffin lid, and gathering up our belongings, came away.'

Later, he speaks of the vampire's pestilential nature—as does Gerard—and the great fight ahead: 'The nosferatu do not die like the bee when he sting once. He is only stronger, and being stronger, have yet more power to work evil.'

The word has resonated with us ever since. It is commonly recognised as a synonym for vampire. When F. W. Murnau wanted to distance his 1922 film from its obvious source—futilely, as it turned out—he used the word as its title.

---

^{1. B Stoker, Bram Stoker's notes for Dracula: a facsimile edition, annotated & transcribed by R Eighteen-Bisang & E Miller, McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, Jeffereson, N.C., 2008, p. 304. Appendix IV. The article's pagination is listed as '128–144'. A different edition of the magazine may've been used, or a standalone issue. Internet archive hosts a bound volume.↩}

^{2. E de Laszowska Gerard,  'Transylvanian superstitions', The Nineteenth Century, July 1885, p. 142.↩}

What the f—?

JackCentral

At first, I thought it was a misprint, but no, Amazon is actually selling a reprint of Bram Stoker's Dracula—with a bad case of Tourette's: 'The publishers, with the help of self styled authors have added the "F" word throughout the text, for a more enjoyable and modern read. Although altered, this book is suitable for book reports and other research.'

Something tells me that Stoker, who also wrote in favour of 'The censorship of fiction' (1908), wouldn't be too pleased with Matt R. Allen's revision of his work.

Nonetheless, the book's reviewers feel the repeated F-bombs help make the novel less 'dense',  with one noting, 'I had to read this for my lit class. I didn't want to, but it was for school, and I needed to. When I found this, it gave me a chuckle, but actually really helped me get through this book.'