Dracula

Dracula is a figure that is known by virtually all and can be credited in large part to this 1931 classic. Bela Lugosi who plays Count Dracula is horrifyingly creepy and finding a better Dracula would be nearly impossible. From the first encounter between Renfield and Dracula to the closing scene, the audience is on the edge of their seats and don't know what to expect, which is an essential part of most horror movies. I was a big fan of this film not only because it is an American classic but because it is a true horror film. In my opinion, too often in horror films today, the story itself isn't scary at all. The experience of going to the movie theatre with a huge screen and incredibly loud speakers help scare audiences by having things pop out when you are least expecting it. I believe that anyone can make a movie like that and is completely insignificant. The story behind Dracula is truly creepy and horrifying. A great story like this makes this one of the most significant horror films in history.

Bela Lugosi forever captures the role of a certain undead Transylvanian count who takes a trip to London in the first legitimate version of the classic Bram Stoker novel. Despite many attempts by many talented film makers, I believe this version, directed by Tod Browning, remains the definitive take on the often-filmed novel. But why? Is it simply nostalgia? Granted, I do fondly remember staying up late as a child watching this film on Ghost Host theater and finding myself suitably frightened. However, if I were the same age today, would I find the film as effective? Would a steady diet of more modern and explicit horror films made me too jaded to enjoy the more subtle charms of this film? I hope not, but I could see how it might. The film is slow, and its slowness is further emphasized by the absence of an under score. It is stagey - being as it was more influenced by the stage play than the novel itself. Also, the story plays itself out too quickly. Van Helsing manages to figure everything out and dispatch the count in about two seconds. There simply isn't much suspense - and even less gore or violence. Yet it remains the champ. Why? The main reason is Lugosi himself. He gives the performance of a lifetime. He truly inhabits the role and is genuinely creepy. The rest of the cast, particularly Edward Van Sloan as Van Helsing and Dwight Frye as Renfield, support him admirably. However, when I watch the old Universal horror films nowadays, I find myself really enjoying the atmospheric sets and lighting. Yes, there is still much to love about Dracula today. (As long as you avoid the optional Philip Glass score on the DVD!)

This is an immensely enjoyable version of 'Dracula'. It is not perfect, as I will explain in a minute, but the acting is excellent throughout. Lugosi, who of course plays the eponymous count, gives a performance that is equally cultured and creepy (as far as I know he pioneered this interpretation), and I also liked Helen Chandler as Mina, David Manners as Harker and Dwight Frye as Renfield. The story has been changed from Bram Stoker's novel, in part quite substantially so, but the changes work well. My one quibble in this context is that the ending of the film is abrupt and unconvincing. In want to avoid spoilers, so I won't tell, but at 1 hour 15 minutes I would have thought that a few minutes more to wrap up things and provide an explanation for one person's miraculous recovery/survival should have been possible. The photography is excellent, especially the scenes in Transylvania. I was initially startled to find an opossum and an armadillo in the Carpathians, but after all, vampire bats are from South America, too, so why not? Speaking of bats: director Tod Browning judiciously decided not to use special effects (for example to show how Dracula transforms into diverse creepy animals), but he did include bats flapping about, and they don't work. They really don't. They look like Tutulla the bat in 'Kleiner König Kalle Wirsch' by the 'Augsburger Puppenkiste' theatre that was on the TV when I was a kid (check it here: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0184133/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0; https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0184133/mediaviewer/rm2171260161/). Bad idea, but still: Great acting, the plot works mostly well, and very good photography with a few limitations. In sum: a very good film.

... and that explains all of the differences, such as Renfield being the person to visit Dracula in Transylvania to seal a real estate deal rather than Jonathan Harker.

I imagine this was quite the spectacle in 1931. Visually it still is - sweeping staircases, ruined old castles covered in dust, moonlight illuminating giant spiderwebs, coffins with limbs hanging out of them, rats scurrying about. And Bela Lugosi, who starred in the Broadway play, was dying to play the lead. But director Tod Browning was set on Lon Chaney, a frequent collaborator, playing both Dracula and Van Helsiing.

It's not true that everybody is replaceable, but it IS true that eventually an irreplaceable person will no longer be around and a perhaps less than ideal work-around must be found. This was the situation with Chaney - a unique actor who could convince you he was anybody. He died before Dracula was filmed. Lugosi successfully lobbied for the part, although he did so at a cut rate. Today his old world hypnotic presence is synonymous with the role.

But I have to admit I have an unpopular opinion. To me Dracula seems very slow and very much "early talkie" in personality when compared to the film Frankenstein of just a year later. Also, like many early talking films that were not musicals, there is no score.

And I have to wonder about director Tod Browning. Although this was Browning's biggest hit, his other enduring works all starred Lon Chaney. He only directed a few more films and disappeared from the industry for a quarter of a century until his death. He had a disappearing act worthy of Universal Horror.

Things to watch for - Armadillos in Transylvania? Probably far too cold for them there. David Manners and Helen Chandler as young lovers Jonathan Harker and Mina - They have all of the chemistry of two cardboard boxes. Why did they keep pairing these two in films? Dwight Frye as Renfield - did Frye EVER get to play a normal person? And why would he want to be sent away? He gets to wander in and out of the lush living quarters of the superintendent f the mental facility. He wouldn't get that freedom anywhere else. And last but not least, Carla Laemmle, unrecognizable as a tourist, reading from a Transylvania tour guide.

The 1931 `Dracula' casts an imposing shadow over the horror genre. It is, after all, the movie that launched the classic Universal horror cycle of the 1930s and 1940s. It is also a tremendous influence on the look and atmosphere of horror movies in general (and vampire movies in particular). It gave Dracula a look and a voice, and created a legend.

Okay, so we know it was influential. But how does it work as a movie? Well… the first time I watched it, I was underwhelmed. The pace is slow. While Bela Lugosi's Dracula is menacing, the rest of the cast is colorless to the point of transparency. There are some good gliding camera shots here and there (thank you, Karl Freund!), but the majority of the film is locked into stationary medium and long shots. The film is tightly bound to its theatrical origins – director Browning has his characters look at things out of frame and describe them rather than just showing us, which would be much more effective.

Fortunately, `Dracula' improves with repeated viewings. The glacial pace and lack of sound in many places gives the movie a nightmarish sense of menace. In fact, `Dracula' is somewhere between a nightmare and a piece of classical music – everything proceeds at its own pace, gliding through the motions, gradually building suspense and momentum until the piece reaches climax. The end result is a flawed but haunting, hypnotic masterpiece, and one of the greatest vampire films ever made.