Dracula (1931 to 43)

Dracula

Real estate agent Renfield travels to the desolate wilderness of Transylvania in search of his client, Count Dracula, ignoring all the warnings along the way. A pleasant host at first, Dracula quickly shows to have malevolent interests at heart, and snaps Renfield's mind, forcing him to help the monster journey to England, where he might feast on new victims...

Dracula was a game-changer upon its release, impressing with its iconic visuals, inspiring the wave of horror films that followed, and giving new life to Bela Lugosi's career (in ways beneficial and unwanted for the man).

The film has some amazing qualities to it, but as a movie it's a little so-so. Part of this is its own doing, but a lot of it was out of their hands. At only 70 minutes long it really can't hope to capture the breadth of the book, and so it never really tries. What we get instead is just a lot of people talking in the same two rooms, before running up a flight of stars next door and staking Dracula.

Now this isn't to say the movie is boring. It's far too short for that, for a start. The whole first act in the Carpathian mountains is great. It's faithful enough. transposing Harker with Renfield in a believable way that lets us get to know him before his descent into madness. The spookiness builds gradually, from the fearful villagers, to the creepy coachmen, deadly and adorable animals (even the bees get their own mini-coffins!), and vampire brides.

Dr. Seward's psychiatric clinic is a location with great potential, but despite the film having an insane asylum as a major setting, it is not only very calm, but unoccupied! It feels like just an ordinary house.

Count Dracula is a superb villain. Evil yet charming. He has the qualities of a ferocious animal in the body of a debonair aristocrat. I like the cat and mouse game when he's found out. He speaks almost openly, as if to dare his enemies on, flaunting his power and influence if they're up for the challenge.

One change I liked was replacing Johnathan with Renfield as the real estate agent at Dracula's. It lets us see more of the man, what he was like before and how he was driven crazy. Mina meanwhile is made to be Dr. Seward's daughter, which on one hand is a nice streamlining, though the movie doesn't really feature them long enough for us to get much of a connection.

Poor Johnathan Harker gets shafted, barely appearing, and gets none of his character's personality from the book. He's just Mina's fiancee and that's it. Though at least he fares better than Arthur and Quincey, both of whom are adapted out entirely (which is understandable given they are the 'dead weight' of the book, but I still miss their inclusion). As for John's character, he's unremarkable in all ways except in being a lunkhead! He staunchly refused to believe in the supernatural despite the evidence of his eyes, and insists Mina leave Van Helsing's care, despite her not wanting to go, nor her father, or the advising doctor. Thankfully Johnathan sees reason, though not enough to notice when she very obviously becomes hypnotised later on, helping her escape. She even tries drinking his blood and he gets angry at Van Helsing for scaring her when he comes to his rescue!

Lucy is great at first, but almost immediately disappears, and is barely mentioned again. In the book her fate is more prolonged, as she grows weaker and weaker, protections are placed in her room until Dracula foils them, before finally taking her life for good. Here though he just attacks her once, then she's dead in the next scene and isn't mentioned for another half hour or so, not even by her supposed best friend! The film sets up her becoming a vampire, but this is completely forgotten and never concluded.

The dialogue here is wonderful. From Lucy's morbid toast and Dracula's follow-up "To be dead, truly dead, that must be glorious", to Renfield's hilarious "Isn't this a strange conversation for people who aren't crazy?".

The cast in Dracula do great jobs, with the standout being Lugosi, delivering an unforgettable performance. Another highlight is Dwight Frye's crazed performance as Renfield. Edward van Sloan is a good Van Helsing, bringing a worldy sense of knowledge to the part. The rest all do decently.

One of the strangest things about Dracula is its complete lack of a score! The only piece of music in the entire film is a somewhat ill-fitting rendition of Swan Lake at the start, and that's it. Otherwise, pure silence hums through the rest of the movie, and this is a quintessential horror that really could have done with a spooky soundtrack!

 

The visuals here are wonderful, from Dracula's crumbling cobweb-strewn castle, to the towering Carfax Abbey. Even if the camera doesn't unlock their full potential, they're still a marvel to behold. The Transylvanian landscape is neat too, brought to life convincingly. One of the weirder scenes is when Dracula and his brides emerge from their coffins, followed by various other critters, including a bee with his own coffin! Mystifying but adorable.

Dracula is a mixed bag. On one hand it's a little too stagey, and leaves out too much of the book to really satisfy. But as one of the first adaptions, it gets a lot right, such as the tone, and the lead actor. Bela Lugosi only played Dracula once (sort-of, not really), but it really counted. Almost 100 years later, he is still immediately the first thing that comes to mind when anyone thinks of a vampire, Dracula or otherwise. His performance has become as immortal as the Count himself.

Dracula's Daughter

After the climactic events of the previous film, Professor Van Helsing is arrested under the suspicion of murder. He decides the one man who can help him is his old student Dr. Jeffrey Garth. Around the same time, the mysterious Countess Zaleska arrives in town, also seeking the doctor's help, asking questions about a strange condition, and how she can be rid of it once and for all..

Dracula's Daughter is a much superior film to ts predecessor, and crafts an intriguing tale of the supernatural that still holds up today. It presents interesting themes, from a few different angles, and has become well regarded as the first lesbian vampire film (in a way).

Ultimately though the biggest issue that drags Dracula's Daughter down is its connection with the first movie. This isn't a Dracula film at all, and he plays zero role in the plot, nor do we really learn much about Zaleska's connection with him. The plot here has so little connection to anything that it feels like it could easily have been a standalone vampire movie and have lost nothing. The biggest holdover is Van Helsing and his murder trial, but as interesting as that sounds, it's really more of an afterthought (though it is hilarious watching the dope try and explain his case to the police like it's the most normal thing in the world).

The majority of the film takes place in merry old England, and it's nice, helping the classic Gothic feel. For the last act we fly back to Transylvania. This does break up the action from the character point of view a bit, but it's a welcome change of scenery, and I'm glad we return to Dracula's homeland for the final encounter.

Countess Zaleska is a very effective antagonist. Sympathetic and well-written, you feel for her and her struggle, and in a way she's very nearly the protagonist. But her vampiric nature ultimately seals her fate as the monster of the piece. Though her inevitable death perhaps isn't as tragically ironic as it could have been. I was expecting Zaleska to succeed in becoming cured, only for her spurned henchman to kill her.

Her henchman Sandor is likewise interesting, namely in that he's a creepy bastard! Usually the henchmen in these films are hunchbacked wimps going "Yes, master!" or "Don't beat me, master, I'm sorry I burnt your dinner!", but Sandor is totally confident, and gives far too much backtalk! I'm frankly surprised Zaleska hasn't chopped off his head! But this attitude is what's interesting about him. Who is he, that a 'mere' servant holds such power? What does it say about his character? And about the Countesses?

Dracula's Daughter was one of the first sequels to come out of Universal's horror library, and it gives a great impression...

Son of Dracula

Katherine Caldwell is the heir to a southern plantation, and will receive it and a fortune upon her father's death. This event is soon hastened by the arrival of a mysterious stranger, Count Alucard from Transylvania. It becomes clear that Katherine is in league with this sinister man, and will manipulate her family and friends in order to get everything she could ever want, in this life and the next...

Son of Dracula is a strange follow-up, and a success in most! The film has an almost noir-ish quality, with its gothic southern setting adding a unique charm to it (even if none of these people sound like southerners!).

Where Son of Dracula lies in the series is a point of contention. The title says it's the Count's son, yet nothing is made of that in the movie. It just acts like he's the original. Except he's gained a few pounds, a few feet, and an American accent.

The story is very interesting! Local girl Katherine seems at first to be a protagonist and love interest, but we soon discover she invited Dracula to America, as part of a diabolical plan to achieve immortality. She acts like a femme fatale in a way, playing all angles, and proving to be a pretty formidable villain.

One drawback to this however is that because the main thrust of the plot is Kay's plan, it means Alucard himself doesn't have much agency of his own. He's doing typical vampire stuff, and is certainly the bigger physical threat, but he doesn't actually have much greater motive than wanton killing. Which would be fine, if not for the supporting villain having more of a plan than the titular one

There's a lot going on through the fairly brief runtime, and the film tries juggling it all. Valiantly, and it does manage the minimum, though it doesn't feel as good as it could've been if it was a bit smaller and more focused. Still, the pacing is never bad, nor boring.

The film's tone is serious throughout, and the dialogue has a mix of dark romanticism, and villainous menace, but also some humour in places, with one standout line being-"Gentleman, the farther we go, the crazier you sound!".

The direction by Robert Siodmak is superb here! Shots are composed beautifully, and there's a great use of light and shadows, which are complemented well by the black and white.

The cast do a good job here, from Louise Allbritton as Katherine, to Robert Paige as the fraying hero, and J. Edward Bromberg in a surprisingly straight and heroic role! It's also great seeing him play someone of his old culture. Universal stalwart Evelyn Ankers also appears. Lon Chaney Jr.'s role is interesting. He gives a good performance,with great moments! But at no point does it feel like this is the old Dracula.

The soundtrack to Son of Dracula is particularly strange. It's all good, but how shall we say, it sounded a lot better when I heard it in Sherlock Holmes! I guess this was Universal cost-cutting through recycling music.

Son of Dracula has some serious issues, but these don't get much in the way of what's otherwise a surprisingly good picture! It's worth checking out, even if it feels a bit distant from the rest of the series.

Spanish Dracula

The mysterious Conde Dracula is seeking a change of scenery, and enlists the help of a real estate agent to purchase a property in England. After breaking the mind of his new servant, the count travels to this new world, full of fresh blood...

Back in the day, before dubbing films was commonplace, and when American studios were still too lazy to make subtitles, it was the norm to see foreign versions of films. The main version would be shot in the day, then the foreign cast and crew would work on the same sets during the night, creating basically the same film, just with a face lift. Such is the case with Dracula.

Spanish Dracula is often touted as superior to the original, and in some ways it is, but in other aspects it pales in comparison. The first improvement is the direction, with the camera actually moving here, filming the sets in much more elaborate ways, creating a much more evocative atmosphere. The film also has an increased runtime of about 20 minutes, allowing the story greater freedom to stretch its legs.

As for the negatives? Well there's no Bela Lugosi, plain and simple! The film does a lot right, but when it's missing the most iconic Dracula actor of all, it is bound to suffer.

The film may be longer, but it's still using the same script. There are no alternate or extra scenes to flesh things out, or give more detail. Instead we just have all the original scenes, only slightly longer.

The 'biggest' addition has got to be the Vampire Lucy plot, which the English version sets up, but then ignores entirely. Spanish Dracula does include it, though very disappointingly. After more than half an hour since the one and only mention of a female vampire roaming about, we suddenly hear a scream and see Van Helsing and Juan emerging from the cemetery saying it had to be done. Huh? It's one thing for the plotline to be abandoned, but instead of threading it through the film properly, Spanish Dracula just seems to randomly remember it 10 minutes before the end, and wraps it up as quick as it possible can, leading to a pretty unsatisfying scene.

The cringiest scene has gotta be the mirror smashing, which is prolonged way further than in the original, and contains 10 times the amount of silly facial expressions. The cross unveiling isn't as good either. In the original Bela recoils then the cross is revealed, hiding behind his cape. But here the process is so laborious and drawn out, and Dracula even covers his face with his cape and asks Van Helsing if he disposed of the cross, which the Doc says yes, all while brandishing it at the ready. And once again, their reactions are hardly the stuff of nightmares

The acting is decent for the most part, though the biggest roles aren't anywhere near as good as their English counterparts. Carlos Villarías certainly looks the part as Dracula, but his facial expressions often look too goofy, and he's more hammy than spooky. Pablo Alvarez Rubio is also a decent Renfield, even if not as great as Dwight Frye was in the role. Lupita Tovar is a dear, even if she tends to overdo it in a few scenes.

Overall, Spanish Dracula is a great curio, and definitely worth checking out, but preferably not right after watching the original, otherwise the familiarity might drag down the experience for you. But it's still a neat watch!...

Overall

Dracula is a strange series in the Universal library. Not only was it one of the shortest, at only 3 entries, but none of them have any major connections. The first movie stands on its own, while the first sequel does continue from where it left off, and feature one or two recurring elements, but otherwise has a completely new cast. Son of Dracula meanwhile is totally different. Were it not for a few bits of lip service, there'd be nothing telling us this even is Dracula. It is a problem that the movie feels so divorced from the original, but also a pleasant surprise in a way. Both follow-ups are examples of good sequels. One continues and builds on from where the first left off, while the other tells a completely new story with this character. Both infinitely better than rehashing the same story again and again. So while it may be a bit weird going from one film to the other that are so different, at least we can be happy they're not exactly the same...