MovieChat Forums > Count Dracula (1978) Discussion > Louis Jordan - was he miscast?

Louis Jordan - was he miscast?


With controversy raging on the 'Count Dracula' message board over trifling plot details ("look over there!"), it's time to wheel out the big guns over this classic.

Was Louis Jourdan miscast as Dracula? Yes, he had matinee idol looks, he had suave sophistication, but did he send shivers down your spine? Could he create forboding and fear in the viewer? Personally, I didn't think he could.

Frank Finley made an arguably great Van Helsing, but who in the seventies would have made a good BBC Dracula?

Cast your votes (probably vote) here.

reply

I think Jourdan made an excellent Dracula.

He was very subtle in his menace. He didn't try for the more over-the-top theatrics of Gary Oldman, the animal savagery of Christopher Lee, or the stagey performance of Bela Lugosi.

The closest comparison to Louis Jourdan's performance was Frank Langella's in the 1979 film Dracula. He have a more romantic approach to the role.

Jourdan gave a more literate performance. He appeared normal, but always had something lurking underneith -such as when he effortlessly carries in Harker's heavy truck, or when he calmly drops the mirror out the window.

I think that Jourdan's performance was effective because he was so restrained and subtle. Whenever I read the novel, I visualize Jourdan as Dracula. I think he has given the best performance as Dracula to date. Admittedly, his is not the most well-known. (That distinction is still held by Bela Lugosi). However, he gave a performance closest to how the character comes across in the book.

reply

Ah, JediMaster, I knew you wouldn't let me down.

The only menacing bit from Jordan for me was when he was crawling down the wall and seemed to tilt his head slightly, as if sensing Jonathan was watching him.

reply

Yeah, that was a nice touch.

But, what about when he was suspended outside of Renfield's room, with his face lit so eerily? Or, the part when he's "playing cat-and-mouse" with Harker in the castle?

reply

[deleted]

Welcome to the treads.

I think that was the great distinction Jourdan brought to the role. He underplayed it so well.

Don't forget the two most memorable portrayals of the Count prior to Jourdan. There was Bela Lugosi and his somewhat hammy theatrics, or there was Christopher Lee playing the part as almost a silent, snarling animal. I think Jourdan wanted to play the role as much more subtle. He didn't want to try and repeat the earlier performances. He likely wanted to play it in his own style, and he did that by underplaying the role.

If you look at Frank Langella's performance -the most recent performance after Jourdan's- it's quite similar to Jourdan. He also played the role very subtly.

BTW, you said that the original airing of the film was right before Christmas. Do you have any idea why they would air the film? As great as it is, it's by no stretch of the imagination a Christmas movie. They should have waited, and aired it around Halloween. LOL I truly have to shake my head in wonderment at that decision by the BBC.

reply

[deleted]

Lugosi was taking his performance directly from his stage performance. Plus, he had troubles with the English language and couldn't capture many of the nuances of the language.

Lee might have been effective as a blood sucking vampire, but he certainly didn't have any of the social skills that would allow one to sit down at a table with him and talk. However, he seemed intent on always demonstrating his power and how evil he was.

Jourdan's Dracula had no need of that. He seemed to feel that such displays were pointless, as he already considered himself the apex predator in the food chain.

reply

Louis Jordan didn't exactly scare Harker, though. Hairy hand and no reflection in mirror=only mildly perturbed.

I remember that Frank Langella movie. Langella made a really cheesy entrance, swinging open some doors melodramatically. I half expected the soundtrack to go "DAN-DAN!" And what was with that psychedelic light show when he bit Lucy?

Can't compete with our Louis, miscast or not.

reply

I thought Harker seemed more shocked than terrified when he didn't see a reflection in the mirror. It was like he couldn't believe his own eyes, and was wondering if he was going crazy.

I liked the Langella version, despite some of the cheesiness. You have to bear something in mind: he originated his performance as Dracula on the stage. So, a lot of his mannerisms came from there, where it had to be dramatic for the audience. I heard they actually had to reshoot the scene where he confronts Van Helsing in the study because Langella was far too over the top. He was delivering his performance the way he'd done it on Broadway, which didn't suit film. John Badham actually waited until the very end of the shoot to redo the scene, where Langella had gotten more used to doing the character on film and could tone it down.

Jourdan had the advantage in that aspect, because he'd never played the role -thus, he was starting with it fresh. As well, with the close-ups allowed with the cameras, he could be more subtle.

reply

I thought that Jourdan was very good, he did look like a gentleman. I liked the way that he seemed very nice at first, but gradually he started to become rather unsettling.

I just saw this film, and the best bits IMHO were when it turns out that Dracula is the coach driver, and when Van Helsing cannot see Lucy in the mirror - they really surprised me.

R-T-C

I love Dracula, Lugosi of course, not that new chap.

reply

Yeah, it was great how you could tell he was the coach driver only by looking at the eyes.

reply

I thought that Jourdan was very good, he did look like a gentleman. I liked the way that he seemed very nice at first, but gradually he started to become rather unsettling.

Yeah his subtle transformations, balancing menace and sexy elegance, was a real actor's feat. I thought eliminating the theatrics was the best idea to come in decades. They didn't need it and it wouldn't have added anything; he sure scared the life out of me (no pun intended).
Jourdan was well up to task.

reply



Sir John Rossman

Knight Of The Jersey Shore

Owner and Proprietor Of The Laughing Loon Inn

Having literally just got this film on DVD and watched it tonight.....I'll chime. He was not miscast in my view at all. Subtle and suave, yes, but he did appear normal and genteel in his mannerism, and I did detect a kind of subtle menace that fits Dracula well. I find myself liking this film much more that the 1992 Coppola version, which up until now had been my favorite film rendition of the Dracula legend.

reply

Langella's performance also comes from his stage interpretation, so any theatrics may come from that. Actually, I think the role is suited to such grand gestures.

Has anyone seen the Jack Palance version from 1973? I saw it a long time ago and remember liking it, but few people ever mention it in connection with a Dracula discussion. Also, Lon Chaney Jr. played the role once in "Son of Dracula."

It's funny how many Dracula movies there were in the seventies. Palance, Lee, Langella, Jordan, George Hamilton, etc. Maybe audiences just got weary of all the Draculas. Now we need good vampires in movies again.

reply

That---& the scene where Dracula ordered the 3 female vampires to leave Harker alone, and points @ the satchel, which wriggled, to indicate their meal was in it.

Also, Jourdan wore no opera cape. Just a more traditional Romanian black tunic.

He's my favorite Dracula.

Carpe Noctem!

reply

[deleted]

I thought Jourdan was excellent and particulary agree with R T C about Jourdan's transformation from suave to unsettling. The first and only time I have seen "Count Dracula" was when it played on PBS in '77. I watched it with my wife (now ex-wife but I digress) and to this day whenever the subject of Dracula might come up (remake, Halloween, etc) she still will say that this was the best Dracula ever. And it's Dracula's appeal to women that gets his foot in the door (or in this case, window). The only two scenes I can remember from that viewing in '77 is Jourdan crawling down the wall and also when the Count pulls a baby out of a bag for a late night snack for his posse. Both very, very unsettling.

reply

I watched it for the first time on Halloween night, 1987. I thought it was awesome then. I think it's awesome now.

reply

Ok, this is the first time I have responded to a posting here, but, having watched the original airing on PBS, at age 22, and having been so affected by it, I feel I must put in my two cents worth. First, let me state that, for me, Louis Jourdan was perfectly cast in this 1977 version. He was completely, as was the entire movie, sexual. (As mentioned by wayne138, the orgasmic scream.) When Dracula tears open his shirt, slowly drags his finger across it and Miss Mina is forced to drink, well come on, you don't have to be Fellini to figure that one out do you? One has to remember this was 1977, not 1997. For this time period this was a very shocking film. Women did not go around in films on television draining a man to the point of Jourdan’s expressions in this version. I haven’t been able to see it since 77, and I still remember it very well. No, not who played Mina, or Jonathan or Van Helsing. I remember Louis Jourdan. He became Dracula forever for me that night. No one has come close since, and as you all know there have been many attempts. Sidebar: this is also the only film that had given me nightmares since I was a child, and that from the scene where Dracula lifts the baby out of the bag and holds it up for his ‘brides’ as their reward, at least this is the way I remember it. Again, don’t forget when this film was made, it was way ahead of its’ time. Louis Jourdan; suave, sophisticated, sinister, subtle, sexual and very unsettling. He brought the legend to a new intensity that has not been matched since.

reply

I agree with those who think that Louis Jourdan is well-cast here. Especially when compared with Gary Oldman (whom I like very much as a actor in other roles)and his rather blatant over-acting in Bram Stoker's Dracula. Jourdan gave the role a subtle sort of understatement that I think was very effective. The rest of the cast was superb as well, especially Frank Findlay (I hope the spelling is right) as van Helsing. This was by far the best of all the Draculas that I have seen, and that is quite a few.

reply

i really did enjoy louis jordan's performance but i do feel he was miscast here considering you get the feeling they were trying to stay very close to the book and then they pick him as dracula who looks nothing like the character in the book. i wish you could take christopher lee's dracula from bram stoker's count dracula and put him in it
that would have been awesome

reply

I can't agree with you more. I first saw this when I was 14. I instantly fell in love (or was it lust?!) You don't know how many times I wished I could fall prey to Louis Jourdan's Dracula. I love it still, and find him the most sensual vampire I have ever seen, although Frank Langella runs a close second.

reply

Are you insane? Louis Jordan was fantastic as Dracula: opening his eyes and taking the first breath of the night, crawling down the castle wall, the abject terror he inspired in Renfield (who was also excellent), the way he said, "Fools"... I haven't seen this since it first aired and it is still fresh in my memory. Lugosi was possessed, Lee owed a lot to prosthetics and make-up, Langella was grandstanding, and Oldman - please. Jourdan delivered a nuanced interpretation which ranks right behind Lugosi, in my opinion. The production as a whole was innovative (his face filling up and flooding the room) and compelling.

reply

[deleted]

I first saw this film in 1993 when I was only 8, it was the first Dracula film I'd ever seen, it's the best take on Dracula by absolute eons, i now have it on DVD I watch it all the time, Louis was brilliant as Dracula, but not as good as Lee it's a shame Lee wasn't put into better Dracula films.

reply

With all due respect to the many other fine versions of Bram Stoker's classic especially those starring Lugosi, Lee, and Langella, I will always cherish the Louis Jordan version as the best Dracula ever!!!

Pardon me if this is off topic, but nobody mentioned Jack Palance's portrayal of Dracula. I always thought Palance's Dracula managed to convey many of the multi-layered, and contrasting elements of Dracula's persona from the Stoker novel: the short-tempered, and predatory disposition of a warrior, the gentle and noble mannerisms of an Eastern European aristocrat, and the dreamy dialogue of a love-sick 19th century romantic hero. I am curious to know what other people thought of Palance as Dracula.

For those unfamiliar with this version, here it is:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070003/

Sincerely, S.B.

reply

I liked Palance as Dracula, I even liked the fact that Lucy was his long lost love as I think Palance made it sincere and believable, he was also believable as an evil vampire, I hate to do this but comparing Palance to Oldman I always laugh watching Gary Oldman trying to be evil in his portrayl of Dracula.

reply

I liked Palance as Dracula too. I also thought Gary Oldman's performance as Dracula was a bit hammy, not to mention forced, and silly, at times.

Sincerely, S.B.

reply

I'm sorry but I did not like Jack Palance as Dracula. I found his performance to lack any subtlety or attempt at empathy for the character. He never even seems to try to act normal around Jonathan, and every line seems to be growled out.

As well, there were ridiculous scenes like the brawl in the tavern.

Dan Curtis seemed to be trying to mesh together his two previous vampire outings -Dark Shadows and The Night Stalker. From Dark Shadows, the scenes involving Lucy were almost shot-for-shot from House of Dark Shadows. Then, the aforementioned brawl is like Janos Skorzeny's fight with the police officers in The Night Stalker; as well, Dracula's final staking is almost a shot-for-shot redoing of the climax of The Night Stalker. Palance's Dracula seemed to be more like Barry Atwater's Janos Skorzeny or Jonathan Frid's Barnabas Collins than any previous Dracula portrayal. He seemed to prefer crashing into rooms, throwing people around and snarling at them over any type of seduction.

I agree that Gary Oldman's performance was seriously overacted and forced.

Overall, I think that the two best Dracula's, after Louis Jourdan, are Bela Lugosi and Frank Langella.

reply

>Overall, I think that the two best Dracula's, after Louis Jourdan, are Bela Lugosi and Frank Langella.<

Christopher Lee is my favourite Count even more than Louis Jourdan, what do you think of him?

reply

My favorite Dracula's in order would be Louis Jourdan for first place, followed by Bela Lugosi for second place, followed by Christopher Lee for third place, followed by Jack Palance for fourth place, followed by Udo Kier, and John Carradine, running neck to neck for fifth place. Gary Oldman does not even make my list of favorite Dracula's. Max Shreck and Klaus Kinski both deserve honorable mentions as "Nosferatu." Both George Hamilton and Leslie Nielsen made funny Dracula's, and deserve some credit as well.

Sincerely, S.B.

reply

For me it would be,
1.Christopher Lee
2.Louis Jourdan
3.Frank Langella
4.Denholm Elliot
5.Bela Lugosi
6.Jack Palance
7.Max Shreck
I wouldn't put Gary Oldman into my favourites either, and I also liked John Carradine I think he looked most like Dracula should, it's a shame there aren't any copies of the 1958 NBC version of Dracula around.
my favourite to play Van Helsing would be
1.Frank Finlay
2.Sir Laurence Olivier
3.Peter Cushing

reply

Christopher Lee, to me, has always fallen into the Jack Palance category. He was never allowed to have any type of depth or nuance in the role. By Lee's own admission -in interviews- he usually just stood around snarling in between his first reel resurrection and final reel destruction. He had power in the role, but none of the elegant subtlety that the really good portrayals of the Count has always entailed.

For the record, this isn't so much a put-down of Lee as it is the screenwriters who gave him very little to work with. In any of his films, did he ever have more than a half-dozen lines? And even then, did he ever converse with any character (aside from his brief scene with Harker in Horror of Dracula), or did he just snarl out a word or two without waiting for an answer?

Was there ever any Lee film where you felt there was a true battle of wits between protagonist and antagonist? They never seemed to have any confrontation until the very last scene, and then it was just a physical fight. (There was no early scene of them confronting each other and exchangint words. etc).

You've seen the Denholm Elliot version?! Wow, I would truly love to see that one myself. Do you know if it's available anywhere?

As for your Van Helsing picks, I agree with them. However, I feel the need to stipulate that all three were excellent and only a few points separated each. Did you hear that in the new BBC version of Dracula the role of Van Helsing is being played by David Suchet -best known for his portrayal of Hercule Poirot.

reply

>You've seen the Denholm Elliot version?! Wow, I would truly love to see that one myself. Do you know if it's available anywhere?

As for your Van Helsing picks, I agree with them. However, I feel the need to stipulate that all three were excellent and only a few points separated each. Did you hear that in the new BBC version of Dracula the role of Van Helsing is being played by David Suchet -best known for his portrayal of Hercule Poirot.<

Torontojedimaster I have a copy of the Denholm Elliot Dracula on DVD it's very very rare I was lucky to get a copy, do you live in England or is that a real dumb question?

Yes I did know about the new Dracula and Van Helsing being played by Suchet I think I was the one to break this news to the IMD, I've never seen anything that he's in in fact I've not seen anything that any of the cast were in, have you?, if so what are they like?, do you think they'll pull it off? I'm not happy about the deviations from the novel I hoped very much that this was going to be a truly faithful adaption with a nice budget. it's also a let down that it's only 90 minutes long, what do you think?

kind regards,
Tim.

reply

I have seen the BBC Count Dracula two or three times, and like it a lot. It is definitely the most faithful to the original Stoker book of any version I've seen. I hope that it will become available soon for home viewing, after having virtually disappeared for years.

I really like Louis Jourdan as the Count. His smooth, polite manner, handsome appearance, combined with that barely concealed undercurrent of ironic superiority, is very close to the original character. The scenes of Dracula pretending to be a gracious host, while keeping Harker his prisoner, are brilliant. The quietly diabolical way he smiles at Renfield, sitting next to him and asking him why Renfield has not taken advantage of the opportunity to drink Mina's blood, somehow is more convincing as a picture of sheer evil, than almost anything else he does.

I like Jack Palance as Dracula, at least in the early Transylvania scenes with Harker and the three brides. He has a couple of scenes where he really captures the powerful and commanding presence of the Count, forcing Harker to write fake letters saying he is on his way safely home, locking Harker in his room, and revealing more of his true nature bit by bit. The movie isn't really good overall, but has some great moments nonetheless.

And when he crossed the bridge, the phantoms came to meet him

reply

My own opinion and no-one elses:

For me THE Count Dracula will always be Christopher Lee. Nobody has impressed me in the role as much as he did, especially in the first Hammer Dracula "Horror of Dracula". Also "Dracula Has Rise From The Grave" was excellent. And in "El Conde Dracula" he gets to have more Stoker faithfull looks, with the whole Dracula getting younger thing.

Other Draculas I like are Bela Lugosi because his performance is legend, Max Schreck who is probably most monstrous vampire, Jack Palance who I think did terrific job as really powerful Dracula, Klaus Kinski who is the most saddest Dracula, much more moving than Gary Oldman.

And I especially love Louis Jourdan and his subtle approach in the role. He is truly great, totally overshadowing Frank Langella and Gary Oldman who both I think are seriousely missing something. Jourdan was also scary. Like the scenes in which he appeared to Lucy out of the fog or when his boxes of earth were brought to Carfax and one of them is slightly open and we see his hand closing it. Creepy.

If I had to put Draculas in order I'd say Jourdan would come second only for Lee, but that is purely just my opinion.

Lucy: I love to be frightened.
Dracula: Do you?

reply

[deleted]

In a wonderful interview with Bill Kelley of Starlog Magazine, in a one shot magazine tie-in to "Bram Stoker's Dracula", published in 1992, Lee was quoted as saying (and I will paraphrase). The line was "I am the Apocalypse", which he thought was crap and proceeded to tell the writers so. He said all of the dialogue was already provided by Stoker himself, and if this is the best you can do I'd rather not speak at all. And he didn't throughout most of his Dracula performances. (As I said this is a paraphrase). Nonetheless this is the reason that his Dracula rarely spoke in the Hammer versions. It must have been a relief to Chris to finally speak as Dracula, as Stoker had intended for the character to do so in Jess Franco's "Count Dracula". Not a particulary good film but Lee was the only reason I own it because of his performance as Dracula. I would still rank Louis Jourdan first, however. Had he had the Oldman "oldman" Dracula, including the long moustache he would have perhaps been "perfect".

reply

I feel Louis Jourdan was quite excellent overall, but 2 key scenes fall flat to me. When the Count discovers the brides about to prey on Harker, Jourdan politely scolds them. In the book Dracula flew into a hellish rage, fangs bared and eyes blazing red. He even grabs one of the brides by the neck and hurls her across the room. The other scene that didn't work for me is the confrontation with the men at Dracula's house. Jourdan engages in a kind of philosophical debate with the men whereas in the book Dracula is in attack mode, snarling threats at the men and even lashing out at one point before leaping through the window. These 2 scenes could've used the hissing feral menace of the Lee/Hammer or the Dan Curtis/Jack Palance versions. This may not have been Jourdan's fault, but nevertheless these 2 scenes are my only real disappointment with the Jourdan version.

reply

I don't think Jourdan could have pulled off the snarling Dracula.

reply

I know it's a little late in the game to respond. But I thought this version truly SUCKED. I mean. COME ON. IT'S MASTERPIECE THEATRE. FOR CRISS'S SAKE!

This version was no more Stoker than an Ann Rice version (who couldn't write a vampire novel if a real one decended on her doorstep and forced her to write one).

Suchet was a major disappointment as Van Helsing.

They should have re-issued the Louis Jourdan version.

reply

[deleted]

Odd that you would mention Udo Kier. He normally wouldn't make most peoples top ten Dracula's list, though he seems to have been typecast as a vampire (or something similar since 1972). I don't necessarily disagree. However just how many people really saw "Andy Warhol's Dracula". After all when it was first released it was unfortunately tagged with the "infamous" "X" rating. And for many years afterwards, it appeared in video rental stores in the "adults only" back room, which further limited his (and pardon the pun) "exposure" to a more broad audience.

Interesting point though.

reply

I agree about Palance's Dracula -- although I enjoyed his performance(s) in the Dan Curtis version of Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

After Jourdan my favorite Dracula is Klaus Kinski in Nosferatu.

reply

He Was The Best Dracula Period

reply

I think Louis Jourdan was perfect for the role at the time. He was subtly wicked, charming, winking at Jonathan Harker's demised situation. He was cold yet having the charisma to beat Lucy and Mina's heart. I wish PBS would show this movie again. The last time I had seen this movie I was about twelve years old on Halloween Night.

reply

I remember watching it on PBS one Halloween night as well. I was hooked from the very first minute.

reply

I also remember watching the original broadcast around Halloween in the late 70s. I was supposed to be preparing for my college classes, but instead found myself riveted to the incredibly sexy Louis Jourdan and his lovely, menacing brides. I adored the understated manner of Jourdan's performance, which felt more frightening than some over-the-top ham-fisted star turn (Gary Oldman, whom I love otherwise, springs to mind in that regard.) All that ripe sensuality between the vampires and their victims reminded me so much of Christina Rossetti's Goblin Market, with the two sisters being enticed by the demons with their ripe, juice-laden, voluptuous fruits. When Mina discovers that black-shrouded figure enveloping Lucy in its sumptuous folds of fabric, I just melt. I remember the delicious anticipation of each subsequent holiday showing for a few years after the original airing. I recently purchased the DVD and am falling in love with the production all over again. I don't all of the other versions all that well, save for the Langella, Kinski and Lugosi ones. While Langella was a bit too much at times, I still found his version rather erotic. Lugosi was of course the classic count, while I must agree that Kinski's take on the role made me weep for his sorrow. Haven't seen the latest version. I normally like David Suchet, but even will have a hard time besting those more classic Van Helsings, such as Frank Finlay, Peter Cushing and Sir Laurence Olivier. There's no way Jourdan was miscast!

Put puppy mills out of business: never buy dogs from pet shops!

reply

Was Louis Jourdan miscast as Dracula? Yes, he had matinee idol looks, he had suave sophistication, but did he send shivers down your spine? Could he create forboding and fear in the viewer?

Imo, he wasn't, and did he scare me, no Dracula never really has, I just always find it fascinating more than scary watching him "take" his victims and having this hold over them which is what Louis Jourdan did in this, also doesn't hurt if you're in your 50's and still looking good!

"I promise you before I die, I'll surely come to your doorstep"

reply


Jourdan is my favorite, also. I saw the original broadcast. I loved his subtle, seductiveness.
Watching him crawl down the wall creeped me out. The hair in the palms, too---& the scene where he presented his female vampires with a snack--an infant.
I also loved the fact that he didn't dress in an opera cape, but a plain, Slavic looking garment.

Carpe Noctem

reply

[deleted]