The Satanic Rites of Dracula (

1973

) ½

Even at the height of their popularity Hammer Films always had a reputation for being a stodgy, old-fashioned relic of a distant past. Personally, I think nothing could be further from the truth; hell the mere act of making horror films under the censorious nanny state of postwar Great Britain was an act of no small daring. Hammer's horror films may have been conservative in style and tone, but for the 50s and 60s they were every bit as lurid and vile than their American counterparts, maybe even more so. Sure, the Hammer could never hope to compete with the salaciousness of their European rivals (least of all the Italians whose devotion to sleaze would go unrivaled until Japan and Hong Kong began to compete in earnest) but then again they didn't need to. They had their niche in stylish sophisticated re-imaginings of the classic Universal monster movies, and while it was tenable, Hammer was undoubtedly the master of it. Alas, horror is a genre that thrives on innovation and shocks and there's only so many times you can reuse the same stories, sets, and costumes before audiences begin to tire of it. In a perfect world Hammer would have gracefully retired, gradually diversifying into non-horror films as the 1970s wore in, while occasionally releasing the odd nostalgic throwback. Obviously, we don't live in a perfect world. Instead of a graceful decline we are instead treated to a great studio making a series of clumsy attempts to recapture the youth market. Today's film is just one example of Hammer's growing desperation, a crossbreeding of Hammer's venerable Dracula series with James Bond-style spy-jinks.

The count has risen once more, this time casting his shadow on the modern world (as demonstrated all too literally during the film's opening credits). Rather than occupying a desolate castle in the Carpathians or preying on hapless English society maidens Dracula is much more interested in genocide this time around. He has established himself in a remote English manor and drawn under his influence a number of powerful figures in government and society. Through them, he is gathering materials for a new weapon, a biological weapon that will eradicate all human life on earth. This is a radical break from the Dracula we knew in both the previous Hammer movies and the larger vampire mythos. Normally Dracula and his spawn are content to sulk in the shadows occasionally lashing out at unwitting prey. When they are not focused on mere predatory survival, vampires seek to dominate and control. They might be sadists, but no matter how much they enjoy killing I don't think I've ever seen a vampire that wanted to kill literally everyone before. It's particularly drastic as the destruction of mankind will also be the destruction of Dracula himself. Presumably the count won't last long without his food source. So why has Dracula had such a sudden change of heart and gone from seeking his continued survival to seeking nihilistic annihilation? Hell if I know. Seriously, the film even calls attention to the fact that Dracula is acting out of character during the climactic encounter but never bothers to answer its own pondering. Not that the vampire's plan will even work in the first place. Dracula obviously has spent far too much time as an immortal, blood-drinking corpse because he has no idea how infectious diseases work and spread. Dracula's new plague is a modified version of the black death that causes the victim's flesh to rot from the inside almost immediately after exposure. With almost no incubation period, Dracula would be lucky if he could infect an entire county before the disease burned itself out.

To act as a front for his nefarious activities, Dracula has put together an ersatz Hellfire Club that meets occasionally st his country estate to conduct satanic rituals (hence the title of the film, though nothing of any consequence comes from these occult rituals besides some gratuitous nudity and animal sacrifices). Fortunately the count's plot has been discovered by the Brits secret service who are in the process of reconnoitering the count's country home. Unfortunately, their top agent begins the film already captured and beaten half to death by the vampire's army of thugs (who all wear the same hideous looking fur-lined vest for ease of recognition). Some quick thinking and a rescue operation deliver the man to safety in time to explain the gravity of the situation to his superiors. To his credit, Colonel Mathews, the government spook in charge of the investigation, realize that battling with the forces of darkness is a bit above his pay-grade. So he cheerfully follows the advice of his subordinate, Inspector Murray, and enlists the help of none other than the famed Dr. Van Helsing, whose family have been battling Dracula about as regularly as the Belmonts.

Immediately, Van Helsing takes the lead of the investigation and the spies become his willing subordinates. This strains credulity a bit, these guys are supposed to be the regular British secret service, not The Bureau for Paranormal Research and Defense. I kept waiting for some scene, some snatch of dialogue where one of them would express a modicum of skepticism about the wacky academic who kept talking about vampires about demons. Yet it never came. Hell, at the film's opening the spies have no idea that they are even dealing with the supernatural at all, for all they know this is just a run of the mill cult, with a plan ti bring about Armageddon. But as soon as the vampires turn up they start reaching for the hammer and stakes without a second thought. To me this represents a lost opportunity, the magical/monstrous nature of the threat gives this film something to distinguish it from its standard spy movie-competition, while the action movie protagonists give it something that sets it apart from the scores of Dracula movies that have been popping up in cinemas since Nosferatu (1922). Sadly this doesn't work when the spies fail at being believable spies; there's nothing that distinguishes them from the forgettable protagonists of earlier Hammer Dracula movies. As a result, The Satanic Rites of Dracula squanders the uniqueness of its premise leaving us with a blase update of the same classic story. The modern setting adds nothing in the way of originality, even if this film hadn't been preceded by Dracula A.D. 1972 (1972). Modern vampire stories had been thick on the ground since the 1950s; hell the original Stoker novel was basically one of these only for the then-contemporary the late 19th century, featuring as it did an ancient evil taking up residence in the modern metropolis of London.

The two leads, Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee are excellent as Van Helsing and Dracula respectively. They should be, after all how could a thespian of either man's caliber fail to get the hang of a character after being called upon to play them so many times? Lee is particularly convincing at playing the bloodsucker cum operatic criminal mastermind that I suspect it may have helped him get a job playing a bonafide Bond villain the next year in The Man with the Golden Gun (1974). The two actors are able to momentarily make me forget all my misgivings with this film and get me invested in the struggle between Van Helsing and Dracula. It's a real shame then that the final confrontation between these two mortal enemies is so unforgivably dull and awkward. Dracula is undone by the fact that he absentmindedly stumbles into a thorn bush (which is holy because these are the same type of thrones used in Christ's famous crown). While he's stuck thrashing about on the ground Van Helsing has ample time to stumble over and stake him. Say what you will about the disappointing last battle in Horror of Dracula (1958), at least there it didn't feel like Dracula was undone by clumsiness and stupidity.

If I am too hard on The Satanic Rites of Dracula, it is because of my deep and abiding love for the classic Hammer films from which it is descended. I can't help but look on at the later Hammer movies with a bit of distaste. There is something innately unpleasant about watching such a venerable institution trying to stay relevant and hip in an ever-changing world. It's like listening to an elderly and beloved relative trying to use the latest slang in a misguided attempt to bond with their grandchildren. To be fair, some of these experiments with courting a younger audience were actually successful blends of Hammer's trademark class and a new rougher, sleazier subject matter. The Vampire Lovers (1970), The Twins of Evil (1971), and Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde (1971) all showcased the studio's remaining strengths. Alas, as the 1970s wore on it became increasingly obvious that these gems were the exception rather than the rule. There is a very real sensation of laziness and cynicism pervading The Satanic Rites of Dracula that taints whatever enjoyment the film could provide. The spy part of the movie feels halfhearted and more like a gimmick than a vital aspect of the story. The filmmakers obviously had no interest in making a spy movie and were only bothering with the attempt because the thought it would make money. Such a film inspires just as little passion in the audience.