Dracula (1931)When you think of a stereotypical vampire, what comes to mind? Fangs...cape...turns into a bat...drinks blood...killed by sunlight and steaks (sorry, stakes). Let's go further. A heavy Eastern European accent, maybe? Slicked back black hair? Casts no reflection and an aversion to the crucifix? Check. And there are so many more idiosyncrasies associated with vampires that this list could go on much longer. But most--if not all--of these originated with Bram Stoker's novel, "Dracula", adapted for the screen (officially) in 1931, and featuring the most iconic depiction of a vampire of all time by Bela Lugosi as the eponymous Count Dracula.
|
|
It's almost impossible to watch Dracula anymore without some degree of awareness as to how it has influenced horror movies ever since. And what's interesting is how Dracula wasn't even the first adaptation of Stoker's novel out of the gate, if you count the unauthorized 1922 film by F. W. Murnau, Nosferatu. However this "officially licensed" film borrows from Nosferatu even, notably the scene where Renfield (Dwight Frye) slices his thumb and Dracula creeps closer after getting a whiff of his favorite Bordeaux, if you will. There is a great deal of theatricality to Dracula, befitting the age in which it was made...an era when Hollywood was still figuring out the difference between stage production and film production. However, Dracula was also made in a time when "talking" motion pictures were in vogue, and this film is (for its age) highly technically accomplished. There are few dubbing issues--one with vampire hunter Van Helsing (Edward Van Sloan) later in the film comes to mind, though--so it has this immersive quality which must have been hypnotic to filmgoers in 1931. Bela Lugosi's Dracula is unparalleled as a force of evil. His entrance is regal, and his persistent sneer--the fangs contribute, I'm sure--make him always appear to be scheming some new dreaded deed. Following loosely from the source material, he eventually casts his "two red eyes" on Mina Seward (Helen Chandler), daughter (in this film) of sanitarium administrator, Doctor Seward (Herbert Bunston); her beloved is the dapper John Harker (David Manners). Dracula simplifies the story of the titular bloodsucker by eliminating some ancillary characters, like Quincy Morris, yet Mina's best friend, Lucy "Weston" (Frances Dade) remains a key part of the story. Here, Lucy fancies Dracula when she meets him at the opera, and she becomes his first victim (of a vampire bite, at least) on English soil. There is a plot thread about her running around giving chocolate to kids and biting them...and then she's promptly ignored for the rest of the film. This suggests that the filmmakers--like director Tod Browning--placed a premium on The Count and his escapades rather than on supporting characters. And they appeared to have been right, because what is best remembered above all else in this film is The Count.
What a different experience watching Dracula must have been nearly a century ago. After all, Count Dracula became one of several iconic "Universal Monsters", named after the studio (Universal Studios) which produced the films, alongside Frankenstein and The Mummy. These were not just attempts to cash in on a fad of monster movies (they were also that, though), but a serious effort to thrill audiences with the marvels of (then) modern movie magic. Although some of the "special effects" in Dracula have aged poorly--even to comic effect, like the flapping bat on a string--the drama and suggestion of undead monstrosities creeping into your bedroom at night to drain your blood and turn you into one of them must have resulted in more people sleeping with their windows closed, or springs of wolfsbane (I guess garlic was not in fashion in 1931) around their beds. There are some clever bits of cinematography, the best example of which being when Van Helsing opens a cigar case with a mirror inside (not sure if this is an affection for the film's benefit or if people actually had these) and sees that Dracula casts no reflection, confirming his suspicions about him. Incidentally, I love how Dracula knocks the cigar case from Van Helsing's hands; it made me recall that he "doesn't drink...wine" (with that essential and loaded beat). One might get the impression from his reluctance to partake in smoking or drinking--not to mention is three "brides"--that he, I dunno, might be...Mormon? (Just kidding.) Anyway, despite the subject matter, Dracula is largely a bloodless affair. That is to say that there is no outright depictions of blood or violence, which is surprising for a horror movie these days. (For those keeping track, the infamous "Hays Code" which prohibited depictions of sexuality and profanity and also censored "gruesomeness" didn't come into effect until 1934.) I suspect that the reason for this was to keep audience's terror in check. One might say that these days, we are desensitized to the level of violence in horror movies, among other things. I suppose it was different in an era when movies like The Great Train Robbery and it's infamous "parting shot" had audiences flee the theater in terror. So the question becomes, "is Dracula scary?" Well, that brings up another question about whether horror is subjective; the consensus is that it is. Additionally, horror has much to do with the way that its presented--the direction, the staging, the music, and so on. For example, a movie like The Night of the Living Dead is scary, whereas The Return of the Living Dead is a comedy, yet both have zombies eating human flesh. So is Dracula scary? Even if by "today's" standards this might be debatable, it certainly is creepy. After all, vampires lurking in abandoned castles, sleeping in coffins, and Renfield's iconic, sinister snickering--that shot of him in the cabin below when the Vesta lands in England is horrifying--all are designed to get under your skin...not unlike a vampire.
Recommended for: Fans of vampire movies and especially those who are interested in seeing how horror movies have progressed over the years. Dracula is an iconic monster/horror movie, although for those who have seen vampire movies before, it may be difficult to watch it with a straight face, as so many of the tropes it established have since been parodied at length. (Dracula: Dead and Loving It, anyone?)
What a different experience watching Dracula must have been nearly a century ago. After all, Count Dracula became one of several iconic "Universal Monsters", named after the studio (Universal Studios) which produced the films, alongside Frankenstein and The Mummy. These were not just attempts to cash in on a fad of monster movies (they were also that, though), but a serious effort to thrill audiences with the marvels of (then) modern movie magic. Although some of the "special effects" in Dracula have aged poorly--even to comic effect, like the flapping bat on a string--the drama and suggestion of undead monstrosities creeping into your bedroom at night to drain your blood and turn you into one of them must have resulted in more people sleeping with their windows closed, or springs of wolfsbane (I guess garlic was not in fashion in 1931) around their beds. There are some clever bits of cinematography, the best example of which being when Van Helsing opens a cigar case with a mirror inside (not sure if this is an affection for the film's benefit or if people actually had these) and sees that Dracula casts no reflection, confirming his suspicions about him. Incidentally, I love how Dracula knocks the cigar case from Van Helsing's hands; it made me recall that he "doesn't drink...wine" (with that essential and loaded beat). One might get the impression from his reluctance to partake in smoking or drinking--not to mention is three "brides"--that he, I dunno, might be...Mormon? (Just kidding.) Anyway, despite the subject matter, Dracula is largely a bloodless affair. That is to say that there is no outright depictions of blood or violence, which is surprising for a horror movie these days. (For those keeping track, the infamous "Hays Code" which prohibited depictions of sexuality and profanity and also censored "gruesomeness" didn't come into effect until 1934.) I suspect that the reason for this was to keep audience's terror in check. One might say that these days, we are desensitized to the level of violence in horror movies, among other things. I suppose it was different in an era when movies like The Great Train Robbery and it's infamous "parting shot" had audiences flee the theater in terror. So the question becomes, "is Dracula scary?" Well, that brings up another question about whether horror is subjective; the consensus is that it is. Additionally, horror has much to do with the way that its presented--the direction, the staging, the music, and so on. For example, a movie like The Night of the Living Dead is scary, whereas The Return of the Living Dead is a comedy, yet both have zombies eating human flesh. So is Dracula scary? Even if by "today's" standards this might be debatable, it certainly is creepy. After all, vampires lurking in abandoned castles, sleeping in coffins, and Renfield's iconic, sinister snickering--that shot of him in the cabin below when the Vesta lands in England is horrifying--all are designed to get under your skin...not unlike a vampire.
Recommended for: Fans of vampire movies and especially those who are interested in seeing how horror movies have progressed over the years. Dracula is an iconic monster/horror movie, although for those who have seen vampire movies before, it may be difficult to watch it with a straight face, as so many of the tropes it established have since been parodied at length. (Dracula: Dead and Loving It, anyone?)