Dracula (1931)
As America transitioned with the newly discovered sound era, as well as the first two years of the historic Great Depression, one of Universal’s executives, Carl Laemmle Jr decided to start producing a series of horror pictures for this new age of talking pictures. Based on his own love and admiration for the horror classics of the previous decade (The Phantom of the Opera, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, The Man Who Laughs, etc) Jr. Laemmle was confident in the potential Universal’s horror genre had for the new decade. Though this would not be the first time Bram Stoker’s chilling mystery would be adapted to the medium of film. In 1922, German expressionist filmmaker F.W. Murnau had adapted Dracula into the now well-known Nosferatu: A symphony of Horror. Because he did not obtain the rights legally from Stoker’s widow, she successfully sued Murnau and ordered all copies of the film be destroyed. This time, Jr. Laemmle decided to adapt it, and unlike Murnau, he successfully (and legally) acquired the rights. Thus began the starting point of an iconic era in American cinema.
Much like in Bram Stoker’s novel, Count Dracula lives in his aging castle in the almost barren wasteland of Transylvania. He looks to travel from his home country to a more life-filled location, namely London England. He manipulates a traveling realtor named Renfield (Frye), and partially turns him into a crazed foul thing of the night like himself. Dracula and Renfield travel back to London and begin wreaking havoc in the London streets. Praying on the two female leads of the film; Mina Harker (Chandler) and Lucy Weston (Dade), turning them both into Vampires like himself. Dracula is combated by a small group of scientists led by Professor Van Helsing (Van Sloan). He begins investigating the strange occurrences with the help of Dr. Seward (Bunstan) and Jonathan Harker (Manners). Throughout the film, they uncover new clues as to who this Count Dracula really is and what they can do to prevent him from continuing to terrorize the living.
The first being Bella Lugosi as Dracula. Which makes up 95% of the strength of the film. Lugosi originated the role on stage when it was a stage play on Broadway in the 1920s. Both in the play and in the film, he utilizes his Hungarian accent to give authenticity to the count. A trait that not many other actors who played him would do in future installments. But, it wasn’t just Lugosi’s accent that helped him embody this role, he would also take long pauses in between deliveries, giving him a weird and unsettling vibe in his dialogue. And of course, Lugosi’s facial expressions coupled with Karl Freund’s close up shots gave the Count’s horrific stares an added layer of intimidation and hypnosis. [Side Note] The cinematography, by Karl Freund mesmerizing in a way that pulls you closer and closer into the dark yet vast chasms of Transyvania. This movie truly encapsulated the transitional period of the 1920s silent cinema into the 1930s “talkie” era, just as Jr. Laemmle wanted.
Speaking of creepy closeups, I remember the one shot that horrified me the most when I first saw this movie was The “below deck shot” where he looks up directly to the camera with his wide, beady eyes. Owed once again to Freund’s cinematography but especially to Dwight Fry’s performance as Renfield. Though I’m more use to seeing Renfield portrayed as a more crazy and over the top lunatic in other adaptations, Fry played it more subtly in this version. His insanity brings a touch of both humor and unsettling horror to the character. Fry had built his acting career on the Broadway stage during the 20s, which is interesting since his performance is so “tamed.” You’d think that an actor with a more theatrical background would be able to be more animated with his craziness.
Dracula is an absolute classic not just in horror cinema but in American cinema in general. It was well received upon its original release. Since then it has spawned many sequels/reboots and has stood the test of time as an iconic figure in American pop culture. It has been hailed by film critics, studied by film historians and talked about by film buffs like myself. You can imagine how hard it would be for me to say anything new about this movie that so many other critics, film historians, and fans haven’t said about it already. That being said, I can sum up three major elements that I love about this movie.
 |
| Bella Lugosi in Dracula (1931) |
The first being Bella Lugosi as Dracula. Which makes up 95% of the strength of the film. Lugosi originated the role on stage when it was a stage play on Broadway in the 1920s. Both in the play and in the film, he utilizes his Hungarian accent to give authenticity to the count. A trait that not many other actors who played him would do in future installments. But, it wasn’t just Lugosi’s accent that helped him embody this role, he would also take long pauses in between deliveries, giving him a weird and unsettling vibe in his dialogue. And of course, Lugosi’s facial expressions coupled with Karl Freund’s close up shots gave the Count’s horrific stares an added layer of intimidation and hypnosis. [Side Note] The cinematography, by Karl Freund mesmerizing in a way that pulls you closer and closer into the dark yet vast chasms of Transyvania. This movie truly encapsulated the transitional period of the 1920s silent cinema into the 1930s “talkie” era, just as Jr. Laemmle wanted.
 |
| Dwight Fry in Dracula (1931) |
Apart from performances by Lugosi and Fry, my third favorite part of this movie was the music. Back when I first watched this, at the end of the 90s, Universal released a collection of special edition VHS tapes to home video. Dracula’s edition had a cut featuring newly composed music by Phillip Glass and performed by Kronos Quartet. For the longest time, I did not realize how different this score was from the original cut until I bought a copy of the collectors box set years later. In that box set, it featured both the Philip Glass cut as well as the original. When I finally watched the original cut, I realized it had very little background music. The only times you hear music in the film is at the very beginning during the opening credits, and the theme they used was the finale to Tchaikovsky’s Swan Lake. I’ve noticed, since then, that same theme from the original cut is used everywhere as the official theme to Dracula. The question I’m sure you’re wondering is, “Which version is better, the original cut or the Philip Glass cut?” Honestly, as nice as it was to see the original cut in it’s authenticity, the score by Glass certainly adds to the experience of the movie. This was the version I originally watched, and that was part of the reason it had a big impact on me. Long-story-short, I’d recommend that version.
Naturally, with all this praise I’m giving Dracula is a flawless movie. Normally I would say yes, but when I bought that dvd box set, I noticed that there was another version of it that was also released in 1931. This was a Spanish Language version. While watching it, I quickly realized that this version was slightly superior than the English version, on a technical level. Meaning that it was shot more like a movie. Which brings me to the only criticism I have for it. The movie doesn't always feel like a movie. Not fully at least. When Todd Browning and Carl Laemmle Jr. were producing this, they were adapting the stage play from the 1920s, not so much from Stoker’s original novel. Because of this, the movie is very“talk-heavy.” Not much is visually seen outside the setting of the current scene. When something is happening, and one of the characters happens to see it, they start describing what's happening to the other characters and (more importantly) the audience. Because this movie is based on a stage play, it makes sense. However, as a piece of cinema, it’s weaker in the visual story aspects where the Spanish version is more superior. This by no means discourages my love and admiration for the movie as a whole, though. It just shows that even the best of classic cinema has small flaws here and there.
Dracula still holds its own as a game-changing piece of cinema. Perfect amount of dark gothic imagery that would inspire many other films of the genre and filmmakers in the business for years to come. If you haven’t watched it yet, and you happen to find a dvd copy of it, I highly recommend watching the cut with the Philip Glass score. Not only will you get to experience a gem of classic horror cinema but after witnessing Dracula, you will indeed believe that there are such things.
Movie Fun Facts:
Comments
Post a Comment