Day 28: Blood for Dracula (1974)
“Blood for Dracula,” the second in our Paul Morrissey/Andy Warhol horror double feature (beginning with yesterday’s “Flesh for Frankenstein”), is a Gothic tale, which delivers a better mix of pathos and suspense than its predecessor, but, in doing so, softens the more satirical aspects of the plot- leaving us with a rather dull film that tries to gain the audience’s excitement through scenes of explicit sexuality. Shot on location in Italy, the film was partly improvised as the filming of “Frankenstein” had been quicker and less costly than expected and, because of this, the film does have that “spare change” sort of feel. Though there are aspects that can be mildly praised, generally this is the cinema equivalent to leftovers of an already bad meal.
In “Blood for Dracula,” the sickly and dying Count Dracula (Udo Kier) travels from Transylvania to Italy in search for the blood of a virgin, which will extend his life. After befriending the wealthy Marchese di Fiori (the famous Italian director Vittorio De Sica in a cameo appearance), the Count is invited to stay at the landowner’s lavish but in disrepair estate, where his four daughters also reside.
Seeing an opportunity for blood, Dracula takes di Fiori up on his invitation with the ruse that he may marry one of the daughters as long as she is truly a virgin. Though Di Fiori swears that all his offspring are pure, he is unaware that his two middle daughters have been doing the dirty with Mario, the estate’s Marxist handyman, for quite sometime and this soon leads to the Count growing sicker after consuming their blood. On the brink of death, Dracula must now consume the youngest virgin daughter if he plans to survive, but, to do this, he will have to go through Mario- now fully aware of who Dracula truly is.
“Blood for Dracula” fails because it lacks what at least made “Flesh for Frankenstein” fun- campiness. Without the cheese we are left with just plain old-fashioned bad acting that fails to satisfy in any way. Though, with the more serious tone, it can be said that the little bit of satire available does shine brighter then any in “Frankenstein” with one scene in particular standing out. At the very beginning of the film, as Dracula travels to Italy, we see his casket strapped to the hood of his car along with his bicycle. An ingenious and funny image that only serves to frustrate when the rest of the film never rises again to that level of wit.
What little good that can be said about the film stems from an interesting, and probably unintentional, choice of casting. In the role of Mario, Joe Dallesandro is completely the wrong man for the job. While portraying the Italian Marxist, Dallesandro never even tries to hide his thick New York accent and, as we search to give it context, we are struck with how appropriate this handyman is as the antagonist to Dracula. While the Count comes from the old-school in demeanor, livelihood, and intelligence, Mario represents the future- big and stupid. Whether it be his Marxist ways or his American accent, the big oaf not only towers over the sickly vampire but also his way of life and, after he rapes the youngest daughter himself, we see he is just a different, far dumber, version of evil.
“Blood for Dracula” is not a good movie, but that doesn’t mean its not worth a viewing. What goes on in this and “Flesh for Frankenstein” is an odd attempt at satirical art, which misses its mark so perfectly that you question if that may not have been the point all together. I can’t help but think of Andy Warhol sitting in the back of a theater giggling to himself as movie patrons walk out in dismay because they just “don’t get it.” Well I didn’t either, but the ride was, at the very least, amusing.
To learn more about “Blood for Dracula,” check out Criterion’s page here.
If you would like updated on all things Nathan and “The Criterion Summer,” check out our Facebook page here.