Dracula (1931)

 

Dracula (1931)

Director- Tod Browning

Cast- Bela Lugosi, Edward Van Sloan, Dwight Frye, Helen Chandler, David Manners, Herbert Bunston, Frances Dade

            

    This is the grand-daddy of Dracula films. It wasn’t the first vampire film, not even the first Dracula film (Nosferatu is just Stoker’s Dracula with a different name and there are two other “lost” silent Dracula films), but this is the film that cemented Dracula into the global popular subconscious.

            

    Watched purely on its technical merits, the film is lacking. It was adapted from a stage play and it feels like it. It doesn’t feel like a movie in many places, it feels like someone filmed a stage production. Neither Lugosi nor Todd Browning had a career that prepared them for this. Browning, whose career had been in “silent films” had not yet learned how to take advantage of this new medium. Lugosi, who had been mostly a stage actor (and had, in fact, been playing the Count for four years on the stage) did not have a style which leant itself to the subtlety that talking films allowed.

           

 

   In terms of faithfulness to the book, it fairs about as well as most other adaptations. Some characters are left out and others play different roles (for instance swapping Harker for Renfield at the beginning of the film). The story also ends in England, in Carfax abbey and never returns back to Castle Dracula.  Even though a lot was left out, what was left in was maybe more important, at least in terms of developing the Dracula mythos. It’s a testament to this film’s importance that everything that appears in this film makes its way into most other adaptations; Dracula becoming aroused at the site of blood then repulsed by the crucifix, his missing reflection in the mirror, the cool line about “Children of night” and of course, Dracula’s sexiness. It can’t be overstated that the idea of Dracula as sexy comes from this movie and not from the book where Dracula is depicted as rather ghoulish.

            

    However, this film succeeds artistically, if not technically. It is a very creepy film. The long chunks without any musical score increase the tension. Dracula’s castle, with its impossibly wide staircase, cobwebs, and dark corners, are the stuff that gothic nightmares are made of. It also has a morbid sensibility. As Dracula says to Lucy and Mina, “To die, to be really dead, that must be glorious…There are far worse things, awaiting man, than death.”

            

    And of course, there is Lugosi himself. Lugosi IS Dracula. And why not? He had basically lived the role for years before this film. Has any actor ever had so much time to get into the mind of a character? Lugosi doesn’t look like the Count of the book, but then again, no movie version Dracula ever has (though perhaps Max Shreck’s version was close). Lugosi’s interpretation, urbane, sophisticated, and detached, became the archetypal mold that all other movie vampires would be cast in for the next 50 years. It wasn’t until the 1980s, with films like Lost Boys and Near Dark, that less aristocratic vampires began to appear. Everyone who has played Dracula, or will play Dracula, is measured against Lugosi. Are they scarier or less? Sexier or less? More convincing or less? The image of Lugosi, slicked back hair, tuxedo and black cape, IS the image of Dracula in our mind. Whether it’s The Count on Sesame Street or Count Chocula on a cereal box, Lugosi still dominates the central position in our minds when we think of Dracula. People who have never seen a Dracula movie know who Dracula is, and that’s all thanks to Lugosi.

           

    In addition to Lugosi’s iconic performance there are two other performances worth noting. Edward Van Sloan, as Dracula’s nemesis, Van Helsing, was charismatic and able to hold his own opposite of Lugosi (however, the definitive Van Helsing would come from Peter Cushing, a few decades later). Dwight Frye’s Renfield was thoroughly psychotic. I imagine he was quite unsettling to a 1930’s audience that hadn’t seen films like Psycho or Silence of the Lambs.

            

     For a modern viewer, it is probably impossible to understand the impact of this film. After all, we have had a century of vampire films. But in 1931, “talkies” had only been around for a few years, and silent films wouldn’t be phased out for a few years still. No doubt, there were some people for whom Dracula was the first “talking picture” they had ever seen. Also, it was also only 34 years after the novel was first published. For us today, Dracula is a part of our cultural and literary landscape, like Tom Sawyer or Hamlet. But in 1931 there would have been people seeing the film who had read the book when it first came out. Imagine being one of the first people to read the book AND see the film!         

      

    The 1931 version is the not the most entertaining, not the sexiest, not the scariest and not the most faithful version of the story. But any serious horror fan who wishes to understand the vampire genre, has to start with this film.

Fun fact - During the communist witch hunts of the early Cold War, Dorothy Tree (one of Dracula’s Brides) was blacklisted by the House Un-American Activities Committee and forced out of Hollywood. She went on to become a voice teacher and published four books on the subject.

 

 

Dracula (Spanish version)

1931

Director- George Melford

Cast- Carlos Villarías, Eduardo Arozamena, Lupita Tovar, Carmen Guerrero, Pablo Alvarez Rubio, José Soriano Viosca, Barry Norton

         

      In those early days it was not uncommon to shoot alternate language versions of the same film. Using the same sets and some of the same costumes, the Spanish version was shot alongside the more famous English version. The English cast would shoot during the day and then the Spanish cast would come in and shoot at night. It should be noted that the director, George Melford, a New York born son of German immigrants, didn’t speak Spanish. Direction occurred through the use of an interpreter.

           

   The film was thought to be lost until the 1970s when it was rediscovered and restored. Since then, it has received a lot of critical examination and many people consider it to be a better film than the Browning version (though personally I disagree).

           

   From a technical point of view, the film is better. The Spanish crew had the advantage of seeing the English dailies, so they could make decisions about how to change certain shots. George Metford seemed more adept at taking advantage of the “talking film” than Todd Browning (though maybe he took too much advantage, when some of the doors open it sounds like two giant ships rubbing up against each other).

            

Lupita Tovar played Eva (normally called Mina)

   From an artistic point of view it also has advantages. With a 20 minute longer run time, it has more time to develop character and mood. It’s hard for me to gauge the individual performances. Since I’m not a native Spanish speaker, I don’t know that I’m really qualified to compare their performances to the English cast. Eduardo Arozamena’s Van Helsing doesn’t seems as charismatic as Edward Van Sloan. He also looks a lot younger (though in fact was older than Van Sloan by a few years) so that probably hinders his ability to sell Van Helsing as Dracula’s opposite number. Pablo Alvarez Rubio’s Renfield seemed more energetic but less deranged than Dwight Frye’s.

            

    All of the women, even the extras, seem younger and sexier. The two leading ladies , Lupita Tovar and Carmen Guerrero, are sexier than their English speaking counterparts. Their dresses are MUCH  more revealing and their hair and make-up much vampier (no pun intended). Lupita (called Eva instead of Mina for some reason) especially seems more vivacious, tragic and seductive.

           

    Of course, the real question is, how does Carlos Villarías compare to Lugosi? Well, it’s not really a fair question. That’s like asking someone else to paint the Mona Lisa and then comparing it to Davinci’s. Villarias is a more wild eyed Dracula than Lugosi and (like the rest of the Spanish cast) less reserved. When he knocks the mirrored box from Van Helsing’s hand, it shatters into a hundred pieces! Had his performance been made in a more distinct way, I think it could be appreciated on its own merits. But when it’s shot on the same sets, in the same costumes, with the same script, well, you can’t help but compare him to Lugosi. And Lugosi IS the secret ingredient that makes the English version so good. Without him, even with the Spanish version’s artistic and technical merits, I don’t see how someone can say this version is “better.”

            

      Unlike the Todd Browning version, I don’t see this as “mandatory viewing.” However, from the point of view of understanding the art of film making, it is interesting to compare the two versions. 

   

The Brides in the Spanish Version. Who were they?

 

Fun fact #2- The same 3 actresses (Dorothy Tree, Geraldine Dvorak, Cornelia Thaw) appeared as Dracula’s brides in both the English and Spanish language versions. Footage of them in the catacombs beneath Castle Dracula was used in the Spanish version. However, during the scene where the Brides prey upon Renfield, an obviously different trio of young women was used. Who these women were is unknown to me. I can’t find their names anywhere. Perhaps they have been lost to time.