Sometime in the 1920s. Count Dracula is sick and weak. And so is the rest of his family, who we never meet (or learn much about) except for his sister whom he seems to adore. Apparently, these vampires need virgin blood, all other blood is useless. And while there are contradictory statements about the availability of virgin blood in Romania, the film makes it clear that Dracula and his family are too well known to find it easy to feed in Romania, because people are too careful.

In their weakened state, all of the family need to rest in their coffins in the crypt – one assumes in some form of hibernation. Only Dracula himself is still able to exist in the outside world, even though he is so weak that he relies on a wheelchair from time to time.

On the insistence of his secretary Anton, Dracula travels to Italy to find a virgin. But that task turns out to be more difficult than anticipated.

Blood for Dracula was written and directed by Paul Morrissey. This film is often sold as Andy Warhol’s Dracula. Warhol was one of the film’s producers and it was created at the tail-end of an era in which Warhol had experimented with film. At this point in time, Warhol had no input and little interest in the films Morrissey was making for him. The film was censored upon release and so there are cuts of various length. The original length should have been somewhere between 102 and 106 minutes. My German DVD release is 97 minutes long; and nearly all of the “missing” minutes are near the film’s very end where whole scenes – violent and bloody – have been removed. This German DVD release also has only German audio; but more on that later.

For me, Blood for Dracula was a fairly disappointing film. Not that I expected much beforehand – but the film’s opening made me hope that there was at least something of value here. The opening scene is rather artful and theatrical and makes the utmost use of Udo Kier’s face.

The elaborate musical theme by Claudio Gizzi is also superb. And the premise is at least intriguing, as is the odd relationship between Dracula and his secretary – who seems devoted but is also bossing him around.

The problem is that the premise is never explained as thoroughly as one might wish for. If you invent lore and rules you need to explain them properly. Why virgin blood? Would a male virgin do? And what is the long-term plan? The pretence set up in Anton’s plan is that the Count is looking for a bride; but maybe that is really part of the plan: someone to take home to Dracula’s family, to help them out with virgin blood as well. But the film seems to suggest that feeding does only satiate a vampire’s hunger for a short while, and that the bite turns the victim into a vampire almost instantly. So where is the long-term plan, here? How does this even justify a long journey abroad?

Speaking of rules: Dracula avoids the sun, but is not killed by it. Dracula dislikes crosses and religious symbols, but is not stopped by them. It is also mentioned that he does not like garlic, although we do not learn what effect it has on him.

Strange foods are mentioned with regards to the Count: cheese, salad, grapes. It seems he can eat these foods, even though they do not nourish him. At any rate, he is sticking to a strictly vegetarian diet. It is suggested that animal flesh (and blood?) to him is “impure”. So is it the same to him as non-virgin blood? Because the latter has a very unfortunate effect on him: he vomits violently as if his body is trying to rid itself of poison.

Given the strong dependence on virgin blood and the violent reaction to non-virgin blood it seems like a tragic evolutionary oversight that these vampires possess absolutely no mystical ability to tell virgins and non-virgins apart. Instead, they have to rely on awkward conversations, guesswork, and hearsay.

But back to the plot: Anton is hoping to find Dracula a bride from an aristocratic family. His argument is that such a family would value the Count’s title and be open to a marriage proposal. And it is also his belief that these families, because suitable matches are so important to them, would put high value (and effort) into an upbringing that guarantees their daughters’ virginity.

After some travels, Dracula and Anton learn of the Di Fiore family. The have four daughters, and – as luck would have it – are so poor that they would certainly welcome a marriage proposal. Anton claims that Dracula is rich and owns a lot of land as well as four castles.

It turns out that the Marchese Di Fiore is not only a very eccentric man, he also gambled his money away. Whether that remark refers to actual gambling or to poor investments is unclear. The palazzo of the Di Fiore has been stripped of most of its furniture and is in a state of decay. There is also barely any staff left – with the Marchesa having to do the cooking and cleaning and the daughters having to do the gardening.

As planned, Dracula and Anton are invited to stay at the crumbling palazzo as honoured guests.

While only about half of the story seems to involve Dracula and Anton, the other half involves the Marchese’s daughters and the only servant left, the young and hunky Mario. Apparently borrowing from Lady Chatterley, Morrissey tells this half of the story without giving anyone’s actions any motivation or reason. There is a lot of sex and nudity involved, but we never get to know the characters nearly well enough to understand what is going on in their heads. Other films might use poor excuses to get a female character to drop her clothes. This film does not even need a cheap excuse, there simply is no excuse given: character disrobe wholly or in part simply because Morrissey needs them to do that at this point.

Admittedly, the characters of Dracula and Anton are not very well developed either. But at least with them there is very little doubt about their motivation (although I would have loved for the film to explore Anton’s motivation and background further). Vampirism coming with its own well-known, pre-defined cultural background does help in that respect.

It is also rather unclear what the film is trying to achieve. It feels like it is trying to convey a message, but what that message might be is anyone’s guess. Mario’s interest in the girls and the Count’s interest in their virgin blood are most certainly at odds, and so the whole drama is heading towards an inevitable showdown. But is this a film about virginity or chastity? Hardly. Although the whole virgin blood angle does lead to many an uncomfortable discussion or remark in connection with young girls. And the virginity issue, combined with Dracula’s hunger, also means that Dracula does come across as a sexual predator. But Mario is a sexual predator in his own right. Is this the message? That the young female characters in this film can merely chose one sexual predator over the other?

Not only is sexuality in this film portrayed as primarily predatory, it is also portrayed as mostly depraved. It would be tempting to say that Morrissey is trying to portray the aristocracy as morally corrupt, were it not for the fact that Mario is not one bit better than them.

At any rate, there is a fair bit of political talk in this film. Mario despises the class system and dreams of a Russian style revolution. “That’s the way it is with all that rich trash,” he says. “They’re all sick and rotten. The only future’s in socialism.” But Mario has few ideas of his own and mostly seems to regurgitate political phrases he read in books. He is not politically active, instead he is passive and nurturing the giant chip on his shoulder. The Marchese’s daughters, most of whom are even less intelligent than Mario, don’t waste any thought on politics or social justice and think that Mario is simply a silly boy. Again, Mario is set in contrast to Dracula, who (just as in common interpretations of Bram Stoker’s novel) represents an old, feudal order. But the aristocracy is not just represented by the sickly Count, but also by the Marchese, who is a very ineffectual pater familias and whose eccentricities are portrayed as making him unfit to contribute anything useful to society. The loss of his money and the crumbling palazzo add their own emphasis to these issues. And yet, with Mario being the alternative, a man who does not seem to really think for himself and who does not seem to be politically active himself (preferring to “wait” for the inevitable new order), there is no hope for the future, be it socialist or otherwise.

So the vibe of this film is not political, and certainly not erotic; rather, the dominant vibe is that of stagnation, of silent despair, as well as of a certain nihilism. The Marchese’s detachment from reality, his wife’s hopeless dreams of a better life, his daughters’ depravity, Mario’s anarchic inaction, and Dracula’s ennui – it all comes together to create this atmosphere of dragging nihilism.

Since the plot and the narrative do not really amount to much and the atmosphere is somewhat confusing, the film’s strengths are its locations, its score, and its cast. Curiously though, the effect of the characters and the acting differs between the German and the English version. Udo Kier is an excellent choice for this weakened, sickly Dracula character suffering from twentieth century blues. His performance is very good, although he is guilty of more than a little overacting whenever Dracula has one of his attacks of ill health or has to vomit. You can clearly tell from these scenes, however, that this was the Morrissey’s choice, not Kier’s. Arno Jürging, meanwhile, plays Anton in a delightful mix of sycophancy and arrogance. Both performances, however, suffer greatly from the actors’ accents in the English version, while the German dub meshes perfectly with the performances and eliminates almost all negative aspects. (I do not know Kier’s voice well enough and don’t know Jürging’s voice at all, so it is difficult for me to say if these actors dubbed their own voices in the German version or not.)

Vittorio De Sica, who would die not long after the film’s release, is highly enjoyable as the eccentric Marchese. With his filmography and directorial successes, De Sica is no doubt the biggest name in the cast list. Joe Dallesandro’s Mario is bourish and has barely more than one facial expression – but then, this is who Mario is, so it is probably on purpose that Morrissey directed Dallesandro this way. The female cast members are all talented, which is especially evident in the case of the Maxime McKendry (as the Marchesa) and Milena Vukotic (as the eldest daughter), but none of them get much to work with character-wise.

De Sica’s accent in the English version is very charming, while that of his three younger daughters is grating and distracting. It is also clear that delivering their dialogue in English is hampering these actresses’ performances. Vukotic, on the other hand, has no trouble with the dialogue, and has barely any accent. Maybe the fact that the English dialogue was no burden for her contributed to her good performance?

In the German dub, De Sica has no accent, but his eccentricities are transported just as well and the performance does neither suffer nor is it enhanced by the dub. Likewise, for Vukotic and McKendry there is little difference in the effect of the performance in the German dub as compared to the English original. The performance of the actresses playing the three younger daughters (Dominique Darel, Stefania Casini, and Silvia Dionisio) benefits from the German dub as the distracting accent is eliminated.

Apart from Dracula and Anton, Mario is the character with the biggest difference between the two versions. His American accent seems out of place, but apart from that the English original is the better version. Mario talks with more variation and comes across as modestly intelligent. In the German dub, he comes across as far more dull and monotonous.

Blood of Dracula is a confusing and not very enjoyable film with some artistic ambitions. In the end, the few positive aspects do not outweigh the lack of vision and the many questionable choices. I recommend, however, that everyone listen to Gizzi’s theme tune.

Rating: 3.5 to 4.0 out of 10