Klaus Kinski did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Renfield in Count Dracula.
This version is aggressively perfunctory as there is little to no inspiration in the adaptation or direction. I suppose you get to hear Christopher Lee as Dracula speak, but even that isn't something one should get too hopeful about. It largely is just bland and a "going through the motions" style adaptation where the filmmakers seemed to make the film because "why not" I guess. The only person who seems to be doing anything remotely inspired is Herr Kinski as Renfield. This version that follows closer to the novel as we find the character institutionalized as a collateral damage type of victim of Dracula. Kinski's performance though seems out of another movie, a better one as we see him as basically a mute in his locked room. Kinski's performance is remarkable in the physicality of it. This sort of mentally deranged state as he shy's away from human contact and seems fixated elsewhere in every movement. This as though his mind is indeed elsewhere. Well the film juxtaposes elements to draw it as though he's fixated on Dracula, frankly Kinski's performance could just be a man broken by trauma and guilt. This as there is such a palatable undercurrent of pain within his eyes as he writhes around in his cell, and looks out towards "something". Kinski's performance delivering of course his trademark intensity, that is well used in making Renfield not just some standard drone, but a man stripped of all sense of his own mind. Sadly the film doesn't really have much sense for his work, as his screentime is quite limited. Kinski's performance, which honestly he'd find a familiar road with when he himself took on the Count in Nosferatu, seeks to bring a very human reality to the fantastical horror story. This idea of Renfield as intended as this victim of Dracula, but given a greater substance in creating a tangible idea of how a real man would come to be from such abuse.
26 comments:
Damn that was quick.
Ratings and thoughts on the cast.
Louis, Although Kinski's a lock for Fitzcarraldo, will you review him for Woyzeck as well.
Confession: I gave up on this film halfway through and just skimmed through Kinskis’ scenes after that.
Glad that Tucker in Barquero was upgraded. Loved how he toyed with the guy he was keeping tied up.
Luke:
Not exactly the hardest film to "dissect"...
Lee - 3(I mean his voice is always good right...and...I mean this is such an uninspired version he just kind of goes around looking eerie and serious. Lee can do that well of course, but really this is far from his finest hour.)
Lom - 2.5(The least I've ever liked him I think. He honestly seemed mostly bored, still not terrible, but just again this film is bad.)
Williams - 2(Terribly forgettable in every way. Not actively bad, but that's the best I can say.)
Rohm - 2.5(Decent scared face, otherwise though like Williams.)
A year before this film, the same director (and star) made The Castle of Fu Manchu, arguably the worst film ever shown on MST3K.
Anonymous:
It's possible.
Bryan:
The right choice to make, even if you missed taxidermy of doom...seriously who thought that would be scary?
1. Warner
2. Plummer
3. Cribbins
4. Heston
5. Kinski
Is it too optimistic of me to think Paul Raci will be our Supporting Actor winner this year? I'm getting flashbacks to Ali's critics sweep for Moonlight. It's the same sort of "Oh he's great, but he'll never win and might not even get nominated" assumptions from those who are skeptical, yet the critics are uniformly uniting behind him.
Robert: I'm not predicting anybody until some of the industry awards, but right now he's as good a bet as anybody.
It's absolutely insane to me that Raci didn't even have a Wikipedia page until very recently. His work in Sound of Metal really does suggest a naturalistic veteran character actor, which is why I was rather surprised by his low profile.
Louis: not to seem overly obsessed with the thing or something, but i would like to refer back to the part of the interview i linked under the review of Oates, concerning stories as "something that unfolds". I'd just really like to know what you would have to say to that
Robert:
He has as good of a chance as any, as there isn't really isn't a super obvious industry beloved juggernaut waiting in the wings (Oldman in Darkest Hour type), Cohen (maybe), Kaluuya (maybe), Odom (maybe) or Boseman if they really want to reward Hopkins or Lindo in lead, but none seem at all guaranteed. He could maintain the momentum as long as they like the film, which is academy friendly as long as they watch it.
Tim:
I understand what Tarantino is saying, and usually my favorite films in a given year, or in general have that "unfolding" quality, Parasite being a great example last year. I think though what that really is though is more technique than necessarily content. A familiar story can reveal itself in a new way, therefore making it "unfold". Bad storytelling technique doesn't "unfold" because you can often see the strings, or see the path far to clear from the outset. There's nothing to keep you from noticing the obvious and nothing to create the investment to see "what happens next".
I would love to see Raci win.
On the subject of Kaluuya, I would say don’t be surprised if Lakeith Stanfield ends up making some noise and sneaking into the fifth spot for Lead. How that will all come into play will be seen.
Calvin:
Possibly, though I hope the reason they're waiting so long for critics to review it is a momentum thing.
Louis: Same. I must say the way this year’s awards season is playing out is very interesting with so many holdouts till so late. Never seen anything like it before frankly.
I agree about Christopher Lee, I was frankly surprised at how uninspired his performance felt in this film
I've heard a lot of people call Lee their favourite Dracula and I want to know which movie I should watch to see that, because the two that have been covered here seem to not use him very well.
If I win the round, I’m requesting Langella’s Dracula. I still feel he’s the best of the “traditional” takes on Dracula, even if his movie is just okay.
I think people say Lee is their favourite Dracula more because they like the idea of Lee being Dracula than anything else, if that makes sense.
Matt: Same here. I’m sure my mom would advocate for Langella, but she saw him on stage and got to meet him after the show so she’s probably biased.
I haven't seen Kinski here but I actually really loved Tom Waits as Renfield. I mean, talk about someone knowing exactly what kind of movie they're in.
Also Anonymous: I have a feeling he's a lock for Woyzeck.
Matt: Waits ruled.
Also, I watched Tenet. The sound wasn’t an issue for me, though I think they might have fixed it for rental release. Otherwise it was... *sigh*. It actually feels like Nolan didn’t care that much. It’s not as bad as Rises, but it feels lazy and honestly was kind of boring until about the last 30 minutes. If nothing else, I think it made me like Inception more.
One other point: It’s come out a voice actor who recently passed away, Brad Venable, was actually the voice of Venom and not Tom Hardy.
Luke, Aside from the requests, who do you think are locks for 79 Lead.
Anonymous:
Klaus Kinski - Woyzeck
Ken Ogata - Vengeance Is Mine
George C. Scott - Hardcore
Patrick Dewaere - Série Noire
Ogata, Scott and Dewaere all have 5 potential, could say the same for Kinski though it's more of a must review because he did the same for his 3 other Herzog collaborations.
Post a Comment