The Modern Dracula

The story of Dracula by Bram Stoker is a classic in the horror genre and one of its most famous depictions is that of Hammer Studio's Dracula (1958). The title role is played by Christopher Lee as a smooth, strong, and ultimately frightening character. Dracula was clearly the monster in the film and the entire plot revolved around the goal of the protagonists to destroy him. In 1993 Mexican director Guillermo del Toro envisioned a new spin on the classic tale of the undead bloodsucker called Cronos. This time the vampire character is played by Federico Luppi as a kindly old grandfather named Jesús Gris who only became undead by an unfortunate mishap.

Federico Luppi and Christopher Lee at their most disgusting vampire moments.

The first obvious difference between the two stories is the nature of the monster. The classic Dracula, as played by Lee, is a fusion monster. He is alive and dead at the same time which is counter-category and he has fangs, a trait typically associated with animals. He is clearly evil and enjoys the undead life. Nothing is revealed about his origin but it can be assumed it was probably some work of evil magic. Jesús Gris (Luppi), the modern vampire in del Toro's film, is treated more as a fusion monster would. The movie shows him as a sweet old man with an antique shop who loves his granddaughter. He discovers a device created by an evil alchemist designed to extend life in a vampire-like fashion. He accidentally uses the device and begins a horrible transformation into an undead creature. We see over the course of the film a man become a Carrollesqe disgusting monster with a thirst for blood and fear of the sun. However despite these changes Jesús remains caring toward his granddaughter Aurora and does not wish to hurt anyone.

The contradiction of a disgusting monster with a gentile personality blurs the lines of the traditional Carroll monster. The monster is not evil but only a victim of evil circumstances. This is especially manifested in the reaction of the other characters toward Jesús after he is reborn. Aurora, his granddaughter, and Mercedes, his wife, accept him without question and even his enemies Dieter and Angel de la Guardia do not flinch at his appearance and even mock him. It could be argued that the monster in this film exists in several people; physically in Jesús, intent in Dieter de la Guardia, and malicious will in the Alchemist who built the device. Noel Carroll would probably not accept this as a validation of a monster's being because the monster is the concept of using bizarre science to give everlasting life with examples of its effect in three different people rather than one individual like Dracula.

Another component of Cronos that sets it apart from Dracula is the amount of blood and violence that is depicted on screeen. In Dracula the blood is limited to the vampires' mouths and the puncture wounds on the necks of his victims and even still it looks very cartoonish and unrealistic. Also, when Dracula attacks the biting violence occurs off-screen or behind his cape and any fights that occur are limited to fist fights with no weapons. In Cronos there is a considerable amount of blood to grab Jesús' attention and he procures it from some very unorthodox places, i.e. the floor of a restroom. There are also many scenes involving the mutilation of a human body, usually Jesús', notably the peeling of his skin, the work done on him by the undertaker, and during the operation of the Cronos Device. Violence is also a key component of the story of the film, and del Toro is not afraid of giving us a front row seat. Jesús is beaten senseless by Angel de la Guardia more than once and several people are killed in horrible ways, including Jesús himself. These scenes increase the gross-out factor of the movie several fold and push it closer to the genre of the slasher films that were becoming popular at that time. One interesting thing that added humorous color to the film was Angel's relationship with his uncle and his fixation with the shape of his nose. He added some comic relief to what would otherwise be a very intense film as was Hammer's Dracula.

The changes Guillermo del Toro made to his take on the story of Dracula were made to adapt to a changing moviegoing marketplace. Audiences these days are not as creeped out by the idea of off camera carnage and directors must push the envelope to keep making movies interesting to them. They must also add new twists to stories in order to keep them fresh, such as turning Dracula from a monster to a victim. All of these changes to movies of the horror genre in general are causing the lines between sub genres. Monster stories, Carroll's true horror stories, might also be gore films, thrillers, science fiction, or might even delve into the realm of the fairy tale. The questions raised are: how far can directors go to captivate audiences, how far can they push the envelope to terrify them, and is it really moral to push those limits? At what point does horror stop being horror and turn into something like exploitation or pornography?