DRACULA: DEAD AND LOVING IT (dir. Mel Brooks). A solid parody of vampire films

Written by Piotr Zymelka.
After parodying Kevin Costner’s Robin Hood, Mel Brooks, one of the greatest satirists in cinematic history, decided to tackle the vampire genre—a subject recently approached by another cinematic giant, Francis Ford Coppola. It seemed that motifs associated with bloodsuckers, filtered through the humor of the already-legendary Brooks, were bound to result in a film that would guarantee endless laughs and instantly join the ranks of classic comedy. Especially since Brooks’ earlier foray into the horror genre, Young Frankenstein, released twenty years prior, remains as entertaining and beloved as ever. In Dracula: Dead and Loving It, Brooks lampoons most of the well-known vampire films, from the oldest silent films like Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror, to British Hammer Film Productions starring Christopher Lee, and even the most recent (at the time) adaptation by Coppola.
The humor is classic Brooks: anyone familiar with his other works will feel right at home. The film offers a mix of bawdy jokes revolving around sexual themes, clever wordplay, and even slapstick. One standout scene features Dracula (Leslie Nielsen) and Van Helsing (Brooks) bickering like children in a fictional ancient Moldavian language. All the foreign words were improvised by the actors, who clearly had a great time on set. Additionally, the film pokes fun at universal human flaws, such as contrived (and hypocritical) morality, as well as Victorian-era societal norms, the setting of both the film and Bram Stoker’s novel.
The screen is populated by a gallery of hilariously eccentric characters. It could hardly be otherwise, given the filmmakers’ guiding principle: “All the women must be beautiful, and all the men must be idiots.” Leslie Nielsen clearly parodies Bela Lugosi, delivering his lines with a distinctive accent that underscores the foreignness of the Transylvanian count. However, unlike Lugosi’s Dracula, who exuded an aura of terror and majesty, Nielsen’s vampire is a half-competent buffoon. Joining him on-screen are Brooks himself and his friend and collaborator Harvey Korman (Blazing Saddles), with Peter MacNicol shining in the role of Dracula’s servant, Renfield. Had Marty Feldman been alive at the time of production, he would likely have taken this role, but MacNicol does a fantastic job, contributing to many of the film’s gags. Brooks decided to cast him after watching his performance in Ghostbusters II. Fans of the TV show Wings will also enjoy spotting Steven Weber in a supporting role.
During the planning stages, Brooks and his co-writers (who also worked on Life Stinks, five years earlier) considered shooting the film in black and white, similar to Young Frankenstein. This would have been a tribute to the 1931 Dracula. Ultimately, however, they decided the movie would look better in color—especially since they planned to spill hectoliters of blood on set and wanted to showcase it in its natural hue rather than in shades of gray.
Upon its release, the film received a lukewarm reception from critics and audiences alike. It was also a box office failure and is regarded as the black sheep in Brooks’ otherwise highly successful filmography, which notably consists of only eleven directed titles. Years later, I revisited the movie with fresh eyes and low expectations—and I found that Dracula: Dead and Loving It can indeed be a lot of fun. Admittedly, the satirical edge of Brooks’ legendary wit is somewhat dulled here, and his earlier Robin Hood: Men in Tights is a sharper spoof with more memorable gags. However, even a lesser Brooks film is still a solid, and at times even very solid, comedy. As with most parodies, it helps to be familiar with the material being mocked—namely Stoker’s novel and earlier films, especially the 1931 Dracula and Coppola’s version—since this significantly enhances the viewing experience. This familiarity (or lack thereof) likely contributed to the movie’s failure; in 1995, relatively few viewers still remembered the 1930s production. Nevertheless, it’s worth giving this final (to date) Brooks-directed film a chance.