Sunday, October 26, 2008

Film Review: Dracula

"Dracula" *** (out of ****)

As Halloween approaches, I only have a few more days left to review some classic horror films. Of course, since I reviewed both the original "Frankenstein" and one of its sequels, I have to review "Dracula".

Both "Frankenstein" and "Dracula" were made in 1931 and produced by the same man, Carl Laemmle Jr. Even the some of the cast is the same. Edward van Sloan appeared in both films, here he is Professor Van Helsing. Dwight Frye was Dr. Frankenstein's assissant and here plays Count Dracula's slave, Renfield.

Among horror film fans there use to be a competition between which character was scarier and which film was better.

In one way I'd hate to add to the debate but on the other hand, I love to stir people up and upset them. I usually like things which are outside of the mainstream.

Of the two films, "Dracula" is the more effective. It is a scarier film. Keep in mind neither one will keep you up at night with bad dreams but "Dracula" is the more eerie of the two. Dracula, as a character, is the more sinister one. The "Frankenstein" series tried to represent the monster as a misunderstood child. There was a level of innocence to him. With Dracula he is pure evil. There is no other side to him. He is out for blood not friendship, unlike the monster who wanted a bride.

"Dracula" takes place in the mountains of Transylvania. A stage coach, which is carrying several visitors, including Renfield, who is something of a real estate agent, sent to deliver a property lease to Count Dracula (Bela Lugosi). When they arrive at the mountains the townspeople (who are actually Hungarian. We hear them speak and pray in Hungarian) warn Renfield about the legend of Dracula. The local Hungarians feel Dracula is really a vampire. He is unable to roam around the village during the morning and at night turns into a bat. He lives off of the blood of others by biting their necks, leaving two marks, while draining them of their blood.

So much of "Dracula" is effective. The sets and costume design, plus the cinematography, which makes plenty use of shadows. "Dracula" is a "dark" film. Dracula lives in the shadows constantly trying to lure people into the darkness.

Dracula eventually finds himself in London, where his castle neighbors a sanitarium headed by a Dr. Seward (Herbert Bunston). His daughter Mina (Helen Chandler) has fallen victim to Dracula. Because of Dr. Seward's inexperience with vampires Van Helsing is brought in to help. Much of the film now is a showdown between Dracula and Van Helsing.

Bela Lugosi was a Hungarian actor, known mostly for his stage work. "Dracula" while based on a novel written by Bram Stoker, was adapted into a play, where Lugosi first played the part. He was not the original choice for the lead however, Lon Chaney was. But Chaney died before the film went into production so the part was given to Lugosi.

Lugosi is known to the world over as Count Dracula. His performance may be the best thing about the movie. His presence is both dominating and endearing. He was a better actor than most people give him credit for and was able to out act the entire cast here. When he is not on-screen the film feels slow, Lugosi livens the movie up.

The film was directed by Tod Browning. Some of his credits including the truly disturbing 1932 film, "Freaks" filmed with actually freaks. He also directed Lon Chaney in "The Unknown" and directed one more vampire film with Lugosi, "Mark of the Vampire", where Lugosi played Count Mora.

I said in my review for "Frankenstein" that I don't think it would scare people by today's standards but did admit the make-up used to create the monster (by the way Lugosi was the original choice for the monster) was brilliant. But with "Dracula" while it may not scare adults I think some child may be frightened by it. When I was younger I was.

Many people might not know there was a Spanish version of this film shot at the same time as this. The Spanish version is actually very good. Most of the performances are actually better in that film except for the Dracula character who simply isn't as convincing as Lugosi. But the Spanish version has more sexuality to it. Surprisingly the American version has very little. It was made before the production code so I don't understand why. If you rent "Dracula" on DVD the Spanish version is included.