Blood for Dracula (1974)

Official trailer

Blood for Dracula deserves its 6.5 as the weirdest, saddest, and most unexpectedly poignant Dracula film ever made, a 1974 oddity produced under Andy Warhol’s name and directed by Paul Morrissey that reimagines the Count as a dying, pathetic invalid. The film’s central joke is also its central tragedy. This Dracula can only drink the blood of virgins, and in the morally loosening Italy of the period he’s starving, because virgins have become impossible to find.

He’s a wasting, vomiting wreck, wheeled from place to place by his servant, desperately seeking the pure blood that no longer exists. It’s grotesque, slow, frequently tasteless, and somehow melancholy. I find this film hard to love and impossible to dismiss. Parts of it bored me stiff and parts of it turned my stomach, and I still couldn’t shake the image of Kier’s starving Count being wheeled around like luggage. That mix is exactly where a 6.5 belongs.

This is an art-house exploitation film, a strange category, and it won’t suit most viewers. It’s languidly paced, heavy with sex and gore, and deliberately seedy. Underneath the provocation is a real and unusual idea, the vampire as an obsolete aristocrat dying out in a changing world, and Udo Kier’s committed performance gives that idea a pathos it has no right to have.

Udo Kier’s Dying Count

Udo Kier plays Dracula as a frail, sickly, almost pitiable figure, and the performance is unlike any other screen Dracula. His Count is a dying man, pale and trembling, wracked by illness when he can’t feed and given to dramatic vomiting fits when he drinks the wrong blood. Kier commits completely to the wretchedness, too weak to hunt and fading from the world. I think it’s the bravest Dracula performance I know, and it’s what lifts the film above a 5 for me.

What makes the performance work is the real sadness Kier finds in it. His Dracula is the last of a dying breed, an aristocrat from a vanished age starving in a world that has no more use for his kind or his requirements. The virgin blood he needs is a metaphor as much as a plot device, a purity the modern world has abandoned, and Kier plays the Count’s desperation as the death throes of an entire way of being. He’s grotesque and ridiculous and also, unexpectedly, tragic.

The Obsolescence Theme

The film’s richest idea is its vision of Dracula as a dying aristocracy. The Count travels to Italy seeking virgins among the daughters of a decayed noble family, themselves clinging to faded gentility, while the family’s earthy Marxist handyman beds the daughters and rails against the parasitic aristocracy the Count represents. The film is, beneath its exploitation surface, a class allegory, with the literally parasitic vampire standing in for a dying aristocratic order being swept away by a coarser, more vital modern world.

This gives the film a thematic weight its grindhouse trappings wouldn’t suggest.

Joe Dallesandro plays the handyman with an anachronistic Brooklyn accent that somehow suits the film’s strangeness, and he stands for the new world that will replace the Count, virile, crude and unstoppable. That accent cracks me up, and I suspect the film knows it. The highbrow theme in the lowbrow package is the film’s defining tension, and I find it more interesting than satisfying.

The Provocations and the Pace

The film is, by any standard, slow and frequently tasteless. Morrissey lets scenes run long, the pacing is languid to the point of torpor, and the film is heavy with explicit sex and a notoriously gory finale that pushes well past most viewers’ comfort. The deliberate seediness, the sexual content, and the grotesque physical comedy of Dracula’s vomiting are all calculated to provoke, and they’ll alienate anyone not attuned to seventies art-house transgression.

The pacing is where the film loses me. I’d have cut a good twenty minutes of lingering without losing a single idea, and the gory finale goes past shocking into plain nasty.

These elements are inseparable from the film’s identity and intent, but they make it a difficult and limited recommendation.

The film is an acquired taste several times over, art-house pacing, exploitation content, deliberate bad taste, and a tonal strangeness that never settles. It’s interesting and singular and also hard to sit through, a film easier to admire and discuss than to enjoy. Its rewards are real but heavily gated behind its provocations.

Is Blood for Dracula worth watching?

Blood for Dracula deserves its 6.5 as a singular, strange, and unexpectedly poignant oddity, an art-house exploitation film that reimagines Dracula as a dying aristocrat starving in a changed world. Udo Kier’s committed, grotesque, sad performance and the film’s underlying class allegory give it real substance beneath the provocation. It loses points for languid pacing, deliberate tastelessness, explicit content, and a tonal strangeness that makes it a difficult watch.

It’s a 6.5 because Kier and the class allegory are worth the trip and almost everything around them tests my patience. I wouldn’t hand it to most people. For the adventurous, it’s the only Dracula film that makes you pity the Count for outliving his world, and that alone kept me from marking it lower.

Frequently Asked Questions