Dracula
There is no denying the campiness of many of the classic Universal ‘Monster Movies,’ and Dracula (1931, dir. Tod Browning) is certainly no exception. (Don’t even get me started on the possums and armadillos…) I was probably first introduced to this film sometime in elementary school, as I went through a spell where I watched as many of the classic monster movies as I could get my hands on! This was most likely sparked by my introduction to Bela Lugosi as Count Dracula in the Bud Abbott and Lou Costello horror comedy film, Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948, dir. Charles Barton), which features several of the early Universal monsters, including Glenn Strange as Frankenstein’s monster and Lon Chaney Jr. as the Wolf Man. Needless to say, it has been quite a while since I’ve watched this version of “Dracula,” and while it is sometimes hard to keep a straight face as yet another artificial ‘bat’ flaps across the screen, that corniness is actually what makes the film enjoyable.
You can forgive the film its primitiveness, particularly when compared to recent technological and special effect advancements seen throughout modern additions to the horror genre, and still appreciate what the filmmakers were able to accomplish given the limited resources the studios had to work with in the 1930s at the start of the Great Depression. While it might be easy to simply dismiss the technical qualities of the film, there are still plenty of moments that are visually striking, and have become iconic within the genre. The ‘mesmerizing’ lighting that focuses on Dracula’s eyes whenever he is ‘enchanting’ his victim, the illusion of the Count passing through cobwebs without disturbing them, and his appearing as if out of thin air having presumably shape-shifted just outside of the camera lens’ reach, are all visual tropes that many films have replicated and paid homage to over the years.
One aspect of the film that I really did not remember was how stilted Bela Lugosi’s performance is, in his role as the titular Count. I realize that his interpretation and performance as Dracula has become iconic, and to which all others are typically compared, but I really had a hard time finding any aspects that were truly ‘great’ about his performance. Lugosi’s accent and deliberate speech patterns can be attributed to English being a second language for the actor, but nothing was particularly spooky, nor frightening, about his presence on screen (I also don’t know why women would have been ‘swooning’ over his performance back in the day…). All in all, Lugosi is not really what drives the film or makes it at all memorable in my book.
The true standout performance, within Dracula, is that of Dwight Frye as Renfield. This character’s descent into madness, and increasingly erratic mannerisms, is truly haunting. When you think about how meek, yet cheerfully naive, Renfield first appears when he pops up to Counts Dracula’s Transylvanian castle at the start of the film, versus his swift transition into the Count’s simpering henchmen, the character’s narrative arc is truly disconcerting. From the last shot aboard the shipwreck, with Renfield maniacally smiling from the bottom of the staircase to his mannerism a bit later within the asylum, especially when creeping across the floor or whining about not being allowed to eat a spider, the character steals every scene he is in.
My one complaint about the film, and what truly dates it, is the lackluster and one-dimensional female characters. The women within the film are treated as disposable ‘damsels in distress,’ and if one of them appears to be more assertive, like Lucy, who is fascinated with Count Dracula after she meets him at the theater, she is swiftly killed. Even Dracula’s three ‘wives’ (a scandalous pre-code thought) are not given much of a substantial role, nor all that much screen time… Moreover, the film really lets itself down with its anti-climactic ending, when Harker finds and ‘saves’ Mina, and we have that final shot of them going up the stairs, back to their ‘normal’ lives. The film’s rather abrupt ending does not really provide all that much closure, nor does it feel fitting given the tone of the rest of the film. If anything, I found myself wishing that Universal had left viewers with a more ambiguous ending, breaking from Bram Stoker’s novel, by perhaps having us another bat flapping across the screen into the night…
Love the classic Universal ‘monster’ horror films, or find them too campy, there is no denying how iconic these films have become, and their many contributions to the horror genre. As far as adaptations go, Dracula isn’t half bad, although I did find myself drawn into the storylines of the film’s secondary characters, and was far less impressed with the Count than my younger self… If you truly want a good scare, get yourself a copy of Nosferatu (1922, dir. F. W. Murnau) instead! Nevertheless, Dracula is sure to remain a Halloween staple, which I will gladly revisit from time to time. – Sarah 🕸🍷🕷
Self-proclaimed “scaredy-cat” as I may be, I am always game to watch a classic vampire film. Vampires are some of my favorite villains because their charisma, in my opinion, often outweighs their threat. Sure, they’ll kill you where you stand, but they’re so dang charming. That said, I have a history of being creeped out by older horror movies, particularly Carl Theodor Dreyer’s Vampyr (1932). With Dracula released just one year prior, did this film similarly chill me to the bone?
Shamefully, I must admit that I’ve never read Bram Stoker’s original story, but I have always assumed I knew the broad strokes of the plot. In reality, I was only familiar with the first quarter of the story, where solicitor-turned-manservant Renfield (Harker in the novel) is at Castle Dracula. I was surprised, and a bit disappointed, that the film moves on so quickly from Dracula’s home turf to England, but it seems that this is in keeping with the book. There appears to be a lot of the story that was cut for the screenplay. The majority of the film is dedicated to Dracula standing outside of windows and Van Helsing finding an unnecessary amount of proof that Dracula is a Vampire. I can’t help but wonder how much spookier the film would have been if we stayed in the castle with just Renfield and Dracula, more closely witnessing Renfield’s descent into madness.
Bela Lugosi’s take as Count Dracula set the standard for the portrayal of vampires throughout film history to this day. Perhaps this is part of the reason that I have no real fear of vampires. Lugosi’s performance in this film is engaging, yes, charming, obviously, but terrifying? Not even close. Dracula’s charm is his overpowering feature, and that may be enough for a monster to entrance a person and suck their blood, but I would never be able to call him “scary.” “Spooky” is a stretch, to be honest, and that’s saying a lot, coming from me. The oft-utilized closeup of Lugosi with his “trance” face made me laugh the first time, and each subsequent time it just got funnier and funnier. At first, I didn’t realize he was entrancing people. I thought he was just very confused. I was, however, significantly creeped out by Renfield, portrayed by Dwight Frye. While amiably naïve in the opening of the film, Frye’s performance turns unhinged and chaotic, with his wide eyes and sinister laugh making up for the horror that the count was lacking. Renfield’s character left me with the same unease I felt while watching Vampyr, wherein the vampirism overtakes one as a form of madness, contrasting greatly with Dracula’s composure. The rest of the cast was, frankly, rather bland and unforgettable (perhaps with the exception of Edward Van Sloan as Van Helsing, but he had the benefit of being the only character who knew what the heck was happening).
I’d be remiss if I didn’t give a shout out to the movie’s mise-en-scene and visual style which were appealing in several ways. The grand sets, German Expressionist techniques, and costume and makeup on the characters, especially Dracula himself, all fulfilled my expectations of a 1930s horror film. The only truly lacking element in the visuals of the film was the effect of Dracula’s “bat form,” a faux bat on a string bouncing up and down with extremely limited blocking in any given scene. I don’t see how even in 1931 this effect could have been convincing or satisfying for audiences. The standout element of the film was the direction (excepting the overuse of the trance closeup) and the use of space, particularly in the final scene of the film, which takes place with a wide shot on a large staircase that was nothing short of impressive.
While not the scariest, Dracula is still a great film to enjoy during the spooky season. The performances are entertaining, the overall look of the film is quite satisfying, and there are even a few unintentional laughs along the way. If you’re a horror aficionado, you’ll probably want to see it to check it off the list of classics. If you’re looking for a genuine scare, you should probably look elsewhere. Luckily, humanity is in no short supply of vampire movies. — Bailey 🦇🤣
What did you think about Dracula? How do you think Bela Lugosi’s performance has aged over the years? Share your thoughts in the comments below, and be sure to check back soon for our November Film Club Pick!
Happy Halloween!!!
Copyright © 2021 Sarah Crane & Bailey Lizotte
