Film Review: Dracula's Daughter

"Dracula's Daughter"  *** (out of ****)

The lady is a vamp in "Dracula's Daughter" (1936).

Watching and re-watching all of the Universal Monster movies of the 1930s and 40s, I am astonished how quickly things went south for the series. Sure, things started off good with "Dracula" (1931), "Frankenstein" (1931) and "The Mummy" (1932) but whether it was due to a greedy thirst for more money or simply bad creative decisions, Universal made several unnecessary sequels and reboots to its series of wonderful Monsters, hurting the brand they had created. In fact, Universal would eventually assign its horror movies to their "B" division.

"Dracula's Daughter" was made one year after "Bride of Frankenstein" (1935), the sequel to the original "Frankenstein" and a movie that some argue was not only better than the original but was the best of all the Universal Monster movies. It is not a sentiment I share but mention it to bring up the point, Universal, very early on, wanted to cash in on these characters, regardless of the quality of the script.

In all honesty, I can't say "Dracula's Daughter" is a bad movie or an embarrassment to the "Dracula" franchise, Universal would later stick the stake in the heart of all its Monsters, but I'd be lying if I said it is a truly effective horror movie. Though I'd rather watch this again than see Tom Cruise in "The Mummy" (2017). Yet again, another example of Universal cashing in on these characters.

Although Dracula (Bela Lugosi) "dies" at the end of the original movie (I'm sorry if you consider that a "spoiler"), "Dracula's Daughter" begins with Dr. Von Helsing (Edward Van Sloan, reprising his role, though originally named Van Helsing) chasing after Dracula and killing him again, while London police officers discover what he has done and the dead body of Renfield. Von Helsing tries to explain to the men he has killed a vampire, by sticking a stake through his heart. The policemen however take Von Helsing to Scotland Yard, wanting to charge him for murder.

What no one seems to know is Dracula's daughter, a countess named Marya Zaleska (Gloria Holden), is also in London, of course there was absolutely no mention, whatsoever, of Dracula having a daughter in the original movie. Dracula arrived in London by himself. She steals his body to perform a ritual, while cremating him. We discover Countess Zaleska is a tortured soul, wanting to rid herself of vampire-ism. She believed by burning her father's body, this would free her soul.

Of course it doesn't. Desperate to find a "release" she turns to Dr. Garth (Otto Kruger), a psychiatrist. The Countess doesn't  tell the doctor she is a vampire but speaks of someone from the grave that influences her impulses. The doctor tells her, her feelings can all be overcome by will power. Fighting her impulses will help her find her release.

Many modern film historians interpret these "impulses" the Countess speaks of as a not so subtle reference to lesbianism. It doesn't help when one of the victims of the Countess is a beautiful woman, who was tricked into entering a studio to be a model for an artist. Naturally before the Countess can drain the woman of her blood she needs to take off her shirt.

As dead bodies start piling up, each with two tiny puncture marks on their necks, Scotland Yard soon begins to believe Von Helsing about the existence of vampires. But how do they find out who it is?

Directed by Lambert Hillyer, whose career dates back to the silent era and mainly directed Westerns, "Dracula's Daughter" has a "B" movie vibe to it and lacks the impressive visual aesthetic of "Dracula", which was inspired by German Expressionism. "Dracula's Daughter" doesn't have such high standards. As was the case with most of Universal's later horror films, each scene is shot the same way, usually with dim lighting. Creating a lighting contrast could have helped create mood and create tension in the more "scary" scenes. Unfortunately, nearly every scene looks the same.

The best moments in the movie are in the beginning. The most visually impressive scene takes place fairly early in the movie as the Countess is performing a ritual over the body of her father. This scene has a sinister look to it as the Countess holds up a cross, praying the evil spirits release her father.

"Dracula's Daughter" doesn't feel like a sequel. It feels like its own movie, telling it own story. There really wasn't much room left after the end of the original "Dracula" to continue the story. The main character dies. "Dracula's Daughter" does try to have some fun with its story, attempting to recall elements of the first movie. There is a scene where the Countess is at a dinner party and is offered a drink, a glass of wine. She replies, I never drink...wine. The movie even changes locations going back to Transylvania, taking us back to the castle Dracula sold.

The Countess however, unlike her father, never comes across as a scary figure. Dracula was a character of pure evil. A charming, seductive character out for blood. You can make the case the Countess is never meant to be scary. She fights inner demons. Fine. Then why attach the name "Dracula" to the movie, outside of exploitative reasons, merely to boost box office?

It would seem the Countess shares more in common with the Wolfman character than Dracula. Although most of the public is familiar with Universal's "The Wolf Man" (1941), Universal had released "Werewolf of London" (1935) prior to the release of "Dracula's Daughter". The Countess and the Wolfman character (whomever is playing it) are innocent bystanders that had evil thrusted upon them. They each seek moral redemption. In "The Wolf Man" the character spoke to the duality of man. I'm not sure what the Countess speaks to. The movie toys with the same theme however it doesn't state it as effectively as "The Wolf Man" or heck, even the Incredible Hulk.

If we look at "Dracula's Daughter" in a larger context, yes, it is not better than "Dracula", it is better than what Universal would release afterwards including movies such as "House of Frankenstein" (1944), its reboot of "The Mummy" franchise, "The Mummy's Hand" (1940) and "The Ghost of Frankenstein" (1942). Keeping that in mind, I'd recommend "Dracula's Daughter". It doesn't do much for the Dracaula franchise but it is, at times, interesting, and is able to stand on its own.

Some may find it interesting to note another offspring of Dracula was given a movie, "Son of Dracula" (1943) with Lon Chaney, Jr. playing the title role.