In many ways, time and an abundance of adaptations have softened our perception of Dracula. Far from a crawling creature of the night (as he was in the original 1897 novel), our favorite vampire now appears on cereal boxes, PacSun T-shirts, and even the covers of picture books. In short, he’s become a symbol. So, too, has Andy Warhol. Active throughout the ’60s, ’70s, and ’80s, Warhol is best known for his pioneering usage of pop art, an art form in which culturally relevant items or people — such as Brillo pad ads or Marilyn Monroe — are turned into symbols through the replication and manual production of their images. (The best example of this might be those colorful Campbell’s tomato soup cans.) He was cutting-edge, risky, and counter cultural — and though we remember him as one of the first American artists to popularize pop, the commercialization of his work since his death can cause us to forget how truly alternative he was.
Warhol produced many controversial movies and artworks in his time, including Silver Car Crash (Double Disaster), which depicted, of course, a car crash, and Blow Job — a film containing exactly what you think. Warhol walked a fine line between subculture and mainstream culture. Who better, then, to inject a little wildness into two pop culture monster icons? Despite having only a small hand in their production, both Flesh for Frankenstein and Blood for Dracula were released under the master artist’s name in the 1970s. True to their titles, they’re some of the strangest versions of the classic tales put to film.
Andy Warhol’s ‘Flesh for Frankenstein’ Got an X-rating
Directed by frequent Warhol collaborator Paul Morrissey, Flesh for Frankenstein was rated X upon its release and it’s not hard to see why. Starring German actor Udo Kier as mad scientist Baron Von Frankenstein, the movie follows Frankenstein’s pursuit of the creation of a new “race” of human zombies. Far from living in a locked up in a lab, however, this Frankenstein has a wife, Katrin (Monique van Vooren) (okay, she’s also his sister), kids, and an assistant named Otto (Arno Juerging). But there is no domestic bliss to be found in this home. Frankenstein and Otto are singularly focused on finding a suitable head for their “male zombie,” ignoring Katrin and the kids. They need to find someone with a high sex drive so that their monster can mate with his female counterpart.
Unfortunately, the pair mistake an aspiring monk (Srdjan Zelenovic) for his libidinous friend, farmhand Nicholas (Joe Dallesandro), and things quickly go haywire. Katrin is killed, the female zombie is destroyed, and Frankenstein’s plan falls apart, with the movie ending with his wonderfully over-the-top death scene at the end of a spear. The film is filled with stilted dialogue, externalized organs, and naked bodies of both sexes. all of which is gratuitous, leery, and humorous in turn. At one point, Frankenstein has sex with the exposed wound of the female zombie. There’s also the fact that Otto and the doctor continually check their male zombie’s genitalia to see if he’s become aroused.
It’s campy horror to be sure, especially when we see bats on wires, but there’s also a layer of inspiration below the surface. There are beautiful shots and set design elements, especially the vat of liquid from which the female zombie rises. Filmed in Italy, the shoot employed several Italian creatives in its making, which explains Flesh‘s clearly giallo-inspired visual style. (Bright red blood, dark hallways.) A blend of giallo’s distinctive style and the heavy-handed world of English Hammer horror, Flesh for Frankenstein is a thoroughly weird and unique take on the classic cautionary tale. By focusing on the desire for death rather than the fear of it, the movie attempts to modernize and distort the message of the original story. And, though Warhol himself reportedly had little involvement in the film’s production, it was released in Germany as Andy Warhol’s Frankenstein. (It was also available in 3-D.) Just as Warhol utilized his factory as a collective art-making entity, the work of his collaborator, Morrissey, fell under his name. But the pair wouldn’t stop with Mary Shelley.
‘Blood for Dracula’ Takes Things Even Further
Filmed directly after Flesh for Frankenstein, Blood for Dracula, also released under the title Andy Warhol’s Dracula, is often cited, critically, as the weaker film. Less elaborate sets and costumes certainly contributed. Another thing that could have made the film less popular than its predecessor was its content. What could be more distasteful than having sex with a zombie, you ask? Probably the numerous allusions to sexual assault. If Flesh pushed the envelope, Blood does away with it completely. Once again starring Udo Keir as Count Dracula, the movie feels more introspective than the Warholian Frankenstein and strays farther from the source material. The film follows Dracula as he hunts for virgin blood, which is, in the 1920s, becoming increasingly hard to find. His assistant suggests traveling to Italy, a Catholic country, but the Count soon finds that things are much the same in the land of the Vatican. Arriving under the pretense of marrying one of an estate owner’s four daughters, Dracula continually becomes sick from drinking non-virgin blood, turning green and vomiting in an extremely exaggerated manner.
Eventually, he’s killed by a lowly land worker Mario (again played by Dallesandro) in a manner that must be seen to be believed. Stalking him methodically, Mario cuts off all of the Count’s limbs before finally staking him through the heart. It’s a strange turn of events because we don’t like Mario, even though he saves the day, because he assaults women. We don’t really like Dracula, even though he’s charismatic, because he kills women. The film lacks an entry point. It alienates us with its disturbing imagery, its focus on sensuality, and its normalization of the bizarre. In other words, it does what Warhol tried to do in much of his artwork. Whether that’s successful is up for debate, but there is one major bright spot. Udo Kier’s modernized, intense portrayal of Dracula — putting on makeup, shaking, gurgling on blood — is actually one of the more effective portrayals. With or without arms, Kier is captivating.
Over time, there have been several re-evaluations of both Flesh for Frankenstein and Blood for Dracula. In the decades since the release of both films, horror fans have seemed to find something fresh in Morrissey’s work — especially in the queer community. While vampirism was a metaphor for many fears of its time, including sexuality, Warhol’s own orientation is frequently suppressed.) Warhol may have put his name on the movie posters for promotion or notoriety (he once related that the extent of his involvement was going to parties and coming up with ideas with other artists from The Factory) but his imprint is clear. If Warhol attempted to both destabilize and pay tribute to popular culture with his works, these two movies are certainly following in his footsteps. No longer is Dracula dapper and seductive, he’s foul-mouthed and animalistic. No longer is Frankenstein a mad genius, but a man desperate for control. These characters are far from the ones you’d want to find on trick or treat buckets, just the way Andy Warhol would have liked it.
The Big Picture
- Andy Warhol was a groundbreaking artist known for his use of pop art, but the commercialization of his work can overshadow his alternative and counter cultural nature.
- Warhol’s takes on Frankenstein and Dracula show totally different sides to the characters.
- Warhol’s films Flesh for Frankenstein and Blood for Dracula pushed boundaries and are in turn controversial, but have been re-evaluated and appreciated by horror fans.
#Andy #Warhol #Helped #Wildest #Monster #Movies