Horror Classics: Dracula has Risen from the Grave (1968)

Christopher Lee's return to the role of Dracula in 1966's Dracula: Prince of Darkness was a nice surprise for audiences. With that said, Lee had lost interest in the role. He wanted to portray Bram Stoker's Count Dracula, and that wasn't what was being done. Of course, he still played the role, but that was mostly because he was practically blackmailed into doing the role.

"The process went like this: the telephone would ring and my agent would say, "Jimmy Carreras (President of Hammer Films) has been on the phone, they've got another Dracula for you." And I would say, "Forget it! I don't want to do another one." I'd get a call from Jimmy Carreras, in a state of hysteria. "What's all this about?!" "Jim, I don't want to do it, and I don't have to do it." "No, you have to do it!" And I said, "Why?" He replied, "Because I've already sold it to the American distributor with you playing the part. Think of all the people you know so well, that you will put out of work!" Emotional blackmail. That's the only reason I did them."

Okay, so Carreras sold the film to the American distributors BEFORE consulting with Lee and confirming his involvement...that's beyond reckless in my opinion!

That said, I couldn't find anything more on the production side of things. I did, however, find out that the film was made at Pinewood Studios instead of Bray Studios.

Dracula Has Risen from the Grave was originally released in November of 1968 and it was the first Hammer Dracula film that passed the Australian censors - although it was censored slightly before releasing (in Aussie land) in 1970. Despite a mixed reception, it was Hammer's highest grossing film of that year.

The Story

One year after the events of Dracula: Prince of Darkness, Dracula has been destroyed and is still on ice. When a monsignor (clergyman) arrives at the village, he offers to exorcise the castle in order to get the people comfortable going to church - the church sits in the castle's shadow. While he's working on the exorcism, the priest he's with falls and cracks his head.

The priest's blood revives the prince of darkness - obviously - and the Count returns to find he can't access the castle. Enraged, he declares vengeance and sets off to wreak havoc on the monsignor and his family.

What I Liked

The performances are absolutely fantastic. Rupert Davies does a great job as the monsignor he delivers a compelling performance as a religious man with strong opinions but with a deep sense of compassion. Veronica Carlson, apart from being absolutely GORGEOUS, is compelling as Maria - the monsignor's niece.

While he wasn't happy with being pulled back into the cape and coffin, Christopher Lee delivers an amazing performance. He has very little dialogue in the film, but it's not really necessary. A lot of his performance is done through his movements and facial expressions.

James Bernard's score is great as always, kicking in at just the right moments to emphasize a point. Freddie Francis' directing is also really good, he knows exactly where to put the camera to highlight specific points so that you know where you should be looking or what to focus on.

Things I Didn't Like

Barry Andrews plays Paul, the male love interest character and while his performance isn't bad, he has very little to actually do in the film. About the only thing interesting about this guy is his churchgoing status - which I'll talk about in a bit.

Christopher Lee also has very little to do. Unlike with the dialogue, this is kind of a problem, because you'd think if he's looking for revenge that he'd be more actively searching for the guy who barricaded his castle from him.

The guys at Hammer also changed the lore a little bit. Previously, you could just stake the vile bloodsucker and it would be done with. Now, however, you have to pray in order for it to work. My only question here is: who thought that was a good idea? I guess one could make the argument that it was meant to be a demonstration of faith for the audience - i.e. you can do anything if you believe you can do it. If that's the case, however, it falls miserably short. There is one aspect of this change that makes it interesting; Paul's religious beliefs.

Standout Scenes

Dinner with the Monsignor

Early on in the film, Paul joins the Monsignor's family for dinner and the topic of religion and church comes up. He tells the monsignor, very respectfully, that he is an atheist. Of course, this sends the cleric into a fit of anger.

My favorite bit about this scene is Paul's arrival where Barry Andrews is stumbling over his words trying to explain a bar game.

The Staking in the Cellar

After discovering that the priest from the beginning of the film is now a servant of the vampire count, he forces the man to lead him to Dracula's resting place. They open the coffin, and Paul puts this massive fence post of a stake through the vampire's chest. This is where the priest says he has to pray in order to kill Dracula for good.

Being an atheist, Paul doesn't believe in God and therefore cannot pray as he has no faith. This allows the now enraged Dracula to remove the stake and throw it across the room.

Maria's First Encounter with Dracula

Maria's first encounter with Dracula is another scene that stands out to me.

When Dracula first appears there's a bit of, for lack of a better word, foreplay before he sinks his fangs into her neck. Now, if you look at the above image, see the doll?

Well, after the bite, we see Maria's hand clutching at it for a moment before she knocks it off the bed. Now, and I can't remember where I saw this, there's a theory going around that this scene signifies a loss of innocence. There is a verse in the book of Corinthians in the New King James bible that goes in part:

"When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things."

- Corinthians, chapter 13, verses 11 - 12.

That's only a portion of the verse, but it's the most relevant part here. Maria is pure and innocent, when Dracula enters her bedroom and she experiences her sexual awakening - if you want to call it that - her mentality changes and the doll (a symbol of childish innocence) is abandoned.

Is this a Good Film?

So, is this a good film? Is it worth watching? Well...that depends. If you're looking for something fresh, new, and interesting, you'll be very disappointed. On the other hand, if you're looking for standard Hammer fare, this isn't a bad film.

My opinion on it is simple, it has a strong opening and a pretty good ending. The stuff in-between is a bit mixed and you can tell that there's a tonal shift which, for better and worse, stuck around all through the remainder of the series.

Ultimately, of course, it's up to you guys to watch it yourselves and draw your own conclusions. Which brings me to a question for everyone; did I miss something? If you've seen the film, feel free to share your interpretation(s) with me in the comments section - I love reading that sort of thing. If you haven't seen the film, are you likely to track it down and give it a watch?