Director: Gregory Motton
Release date: 2020
Contains spoilers
This is the second of a trilogy of films, based around the novel of Dracula and quite ambitious in scope – this part, which takes us up to Lucy’s funeral, is shorter than part one and comes in around 1.5-hours.
This shorter running length should have helped the film but it did drag. I mentioned when I reviewed Part 1, the deceiver that it was tonally reminiscent of necrorealism. Not so this part, probably because of the parlour drama side, but the film suffered because of it.
 |
| Lucy and Mina |
This starts with the report of the shipwrecking of the Demeter – but we hear of it, not seeing anything. Clearly this was a choice born of budget and not wanting to add something in that looked poor, and so that is entirely understandable and forgivable. The film does make some specific changes in that we do have Mina (Charlotte Rogers) staying with Lucy (Olga Brook) but at the Westenra home, which is (conveniently) nestled between Carfax and the asylum.
 |
| Seward and Holmwood |
The presence of the asylum indicates, of course, that we have the inclusion of Seward (Edward Sharp) and we also get Holmwood (Gareth McChlery), unfortunately neither character added much with the writing and performances making them ciphers only. Quincy is MIA but Mrs Westenra (Rudi Davies) is present. The first act, of course, focuses on the women, the predation on Lucy, her sleepwalking etc.
 |
| Lucy and Dracula |
Unfortunately, this isn’t perfect. There are day for night shots that are obvious – something I never overly noticed in the first film but was glaring in this. Worst, I think, were the performances (possibly down to direction). The understated performances that were displayed by Harker (Brendan Kjellberg-Motton) and Dracula (Philip Blair) in the first film did work, but here the muted performances just slowed the film. Lucy, especially, was simply emo.
 |
| Mick Ford as Van Helsing |
Renfield (Kevin McMonagle) is present but, I’m sad to say, pointless with his presence neither a barometer or enabler. That said, when Van Helsing (Mick Ford) comes into the film the performance pushes the film’s overall pace up a gear. There are some interesting non-cannon moments. Firstly is Lucy’s attitude. At one point she suggests that they are all “God’s victims”. This viewpoint is very much in line with the philosophy Dracula espoused in the first film and indicates she has been entirely seduced to his cultish perspective. Counterpointed is the revelation at the end, when Van Helsing is told Dracula’s name, that Dracula killed his wife 30 years before and he has spent his life hunting him. Not original, but not commonly used as an idea, it will be interesting to see if this is exploited in film 3.
 |
| disciples of Dracula |
The biggest change is the actions of Mr Hawkins (Simon Usher). In the first film we see that he is a disciple of Dracula. In this Mina goes to visit him, unannounced, to ask of news of Jonathan. He seems reluctant but allows her in. Strange noises are dismissed as a servant who has burned themselves and he suggests he has company also. She leaves and he enters a ritual room, in there is a woman (Åslög Von Ros). There is a sequence, her bound to a table, him robed and veiled, but no substance or outcome. Later we see him in the woods, again robed with other robed disciples and a woman (again Åslög Von Ros) hanging by her arms from a tree and described as the daughter of Satan, so definitely the simple-minded prostitute from the first film brought to England, who will be used to give eternal life to the disciples. He tells them to use her roughly and she is carried off.
 |
| Renfield spies |
Perhaps it was to remain within the boundaries of the art film that a gory and definitive denouement to these scenes was avoided – but it leaves the scenes hanging, interesting (in their narrative direction) but unfulfilling as a part of the film. The film also has the same sound issues that the first part had – with dialogue lost at times but also the original songs that just didn’t fit within the artistic whole, being too modern, overpowering to the visuals often.
 |
| Lucy dying |
Again, I feel I am harsh – though less so as this had real issues within character direction/performance. It needed some umph that, eventually, Mick Ford added as Van Helsing. We will see how the third film goes, of course, but this one is definitely not standalone and for us who have seen part one, represents a dip in pace. That said it still has its interesting ideas, looks lovely (day for night shots notwithstanding) and is definitely a brave production given the scope it seeks to produce, and the film can be seen here. 4 out of 10.
At the time of writing there is not an IMDb page.
Edit 16/3/21. Since I have reviewed this film, the first film has been radically added to and recut into two movies (at the time of this edit only the first being released), this second film has been renamed as the third film and the series is now a quadrilogy entitled The Four Gospels of Dracula the Messiah.
2 comments:
I saw you had reviewed it but didnt have time to watch the film until now. I think its interesting that you liked this one less, and I think its to your credit in a way because this part two is the more conventional one of the two, and most critics would go the other way and prefer this one, and I myself preferred the first one too (though you didnt really like either) and I think its good if films that do try something unusual dont get slapped down, but I do think you are missing some real gems in this part, and I suspect this is a far bigger film than you are letting on. It is, as you say, a bit slow moving. More than a bit even. There are some great moments, Lucys death bed scene, and the follow up coffin scene, I think are both real tours des forces, and especially the two songs that accompany those bits, BOTH of which are masterpieces as songs, and I personally love the way the music is oblique to the film, being modern as it comes to us from another angle, which in my mind is abstract and complimentary but for you I think is contradictory. But the Goodbye Baby one, the coffin one, is undeniable and totally original as a song.
Also I think you are missing Renfields performance which I think is really accurate and weird and convincing. It would be a shame though if that turns out to be all we see of him. And by the way, the moment when Holmwood comes in and stands over Lucy's bed ( and the piano of the song starts, is about as subtle a piece of underacting as you can get, and I loved that bit, made my skin tingle. Day for night? Isn't Day for Night when they try to make day look like night? Here they don't seem to even try, This is just day – but when Lucy sleep-walks to the first meeting with Dracula, isnt that just after dawn, around 4 am? Its summer. Personally I like the way Dracula is up and about in day light, (its a bit like how in the first half, theres that great bit with Dracula showing an upside down crucifix at Jonathan Harker who has to turn away in disgust) Also, another moment when Mrs Westenra says, of Lucy,“she gets tired,- from sleeping”, the actress is great there, AND I challenge you to find a more convincing Dr Seward character, in what film would we find that? he is so often either conflated or just ridiculous. I love his rather awkward love for Lucy and his stilted professional manner. I like the discussion between Dr Seward and Van Helsing over Lucy's dying bed. You think the performances are wooden I think, and maybe they are a bit, but there is an undertow of reality that is rare to find. I quite like the way this part two suddenly sticks very close to the story and even the dialogue of the book,(something you as a Dracula connoisseur maybe know more about than me) after the last one was so much wilder. I like the back peddling, (as long as part three goes back to how part one is, we shall see) . But last of all, I was glad you paid attention to the Hawkins bits because those were what I really liked most, even if they were a bit short, and you are right, they dont go far enough, and seem just popped in, as an after thought, but like you say, there is a plot aspect to that girl being boxed up and sent to England, but for me, that bit in the woods, with her hanging from a tree, was surreal and beautiful and on another level, and I wish the whole of this part two left more space for that.
I can imagine you writing the opposite of what you say, even though I also think you really dont like this film at all, and maybe you are right, this isnt a real film, it doesnt pass muster and is inexpert, a like a truly great meal cooked by an amateur, and contrary, and I guess its best that we shall never see many more films like this, its old fashioned and like a film from the 1920s more than now. Its a parallel universe, of different cheaper films from a world that isnt our one, and doesnt share anything with us. Thats what I like it about but also why it tires me out, makes me want to turn it off. And then back on again for another viewing.
StevAlban - many thanks for the very thorough and interesting comments and counterviews - it is this sort of comment that adds so much value to the blog.
A lot to unpack and I may comment back short and then come back with a further more detailed reply having cogitated. You do may a good point that the sleepwalking scenes could have been early (and therefore light) AM but it wasn't telegraphed to the viewer at all.
I will say that it isn't that I don't like this/these film(s). This one was paced badly (Van Helsing's arrival did help in that regard), I don't like the musical choices (you do - and I think that is a matter of taste) but I do say I am probably being harsh in score. If you take a film like Rabid - as a piece of cinema I score it fairly low but I actually do put the film on from time to time as my rating of it within the grand scheme of cinema/vampire cinema and my enjoyment can be mutually exclusive. Yet when I have sat and watched, and wondered whether I should adjust the score, I find that in my mind the score remains the same...
In many respects its why I regret scoring my reviews and think I should have relied on commentary only. I find that, with scores, people can (and do) over score (or even under) without regard and that recipients of scores read the numbers and not the detail. On the other hand I have a friend who can watch a film at the same time as me and predict my score with alarming accuracy.
Possibly more later when I've cogitated, but again many, many thanks for the comment.
Post a Comment