"Son of Dracula" *** (out of ****)
Like father, like son.
Universal Pictures' "Son of Dracula" (1943), like "Dracula's Daughter" (1936), was another unnecessary sequel to the original "Dracula" (1931).
"Son of Dracula" bears a distinction from the previous two movies. In this movie Dracula finds his way in America, at a small southern plantation. Given that the movie was released in 1943, during World War II, there is part of me that believes this was a commentary on the war and the threat of foreign invaders entering the country. Remember, the "official" position of the U.S. government was the war was considered a war of ideology. Americans were fighting the spread of Fascism. We had to "fight them over there" so they don't enter America. It also "helps" that much is made of Dracula being Hungarian. Again, remember, Hungary fought against America (sadly) during the war. They were "the enemy".
It would be a mistake to compare "Son of Dracula" to "Dracula". This sequel would be on the losing end of that comparison. I'm willing to bet a majority of movie fans would agree. As its "own" movie, it is somewhat successful. It fares much better than "Dracula's Daughter" but doesn't provide enough, if any, scares. It does a decent job making an effort to create atmosphere however. There is also the issue of the "B" movie production values. A little more money spent on production designs would have greatly improved the movie.
But, I suppose the biggest problem with "Son of Dracula" is the casting of Lon Chaney Jr. (billed as Lon Chaney) in the title role. Lon Chaney Jr. could be a bit of a ham. He does give a good performance in "The Wolf Man" (1941) and believe it or not "Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man" (1943) but here he is a bit stiff. He doesn't portray Dracula as a menacing figure. Given that Dracula is supposed to be Hungarian, Chaney doesn't even go to the trouble to speak with a Hungarian accent, instead using his natural voice. What is interesting to note is Lon Chaney (the father) was reportedly considered to originally play Dracula instead of Bela Lugosi. It also makes Lon Chaney Jr. one of the few actors that can say he played Dracula, the Wolf Man, the Mummy and Frankenstein's Monster.
In "Son of Dracula" we follow the Hungarian Count Alucard (Dracula spelled backwards, played by Lon Chaney, Jr.). He has arrived in America, New Orleans to be exact, to meet Katherine, (Louise Allbritton), the daughter of the wealthy plantation owner, Colonel Caldwell (George Irving). Katherine met the Count in Budapest and it appears has fallen in love with him. At least that is what Katherine's childhood sweetheart Frank (Robert Paige) believes and fears she will call off their wedding. In seems ever since she visited Budapest she has developed a morbid personality and interest in the occult (as a Hungarian, thanks a lot!), which may have led to her fascination with Count Alucard.
Lacking a Van Helsing character, the local doctor and friend of the Caldwell family, Dr. Brewster (Frank Craven) becomes suspicious of Count Alucard when he discovers the Count's name is Dracula spelled backwards. The good doctor contacts a Hungarian professor living in Memphis (!) Prof. Lazlo (J. Edward Bromberg, who was actually born in Romania, in the town now known as Timisoara). Also worth mentioning is Lazlo is not a common surname in Hungarian culture. It is more commonly used as a first name. Prof. Lazlo informs Dr. Brewster about Dracula and vampires in general. The two team up to reveal Alucard's true identity and ultimately destroy him.
On a few occasions it is mentioned Dracula's homeland is a country of dry soil, filled with the blood of 100 nations. Dracula has decided to come to a "younger" country, one more "powerful" and "virile". Hence my belief this all has something to do with WW2 and America being a powerful country capable of fighting enemies abroad. Frank also tells Katherine that she is foolish to believe superstitions of foreign countries. Americans are much smarter and pay no attention to such nonsense. This is similar to a theme found in the classic horror movie, "The Cat People" (1942).
There is also never any mention of Count Alucard being the son of Dracula but rather Dracula himself. Prof. Lazlo states the last known Dracula was believed to have died in the 19th century but none of the characters in the move ever come to the conclusion they are fighting Dracula's son.
The movie was directed by Robert Siodmak, who was nominated for a best director Academy Award for his direction of "The Killers" (1946) and was also behind "The Spiral Staircase" (1946) and "Criss Cross" (1949), from a story by Robert's brother, Curt, who wrote several horror films, including "I Walked With A Zombie" (1943). Robert really makes the most out of what he has been given. Despite the small budget he is able to maximize the surrounding production values and create some atmosphere in ways I can't say other Universal horror movies of the 40s did.
Of course the original "Dracula" was directed by Tod Browning (a well established filmmaker in silent era, known for a thematic interest in the macabre) and inspired by German Expressionism, which makes it a more ambitious movie and more influential. It demonstrates what "Son of Dracula" could have been, under the right circumstances.
"Son of Dracula" is not a bad movie but far from a classic. At its root, it is a good "B" movie with a stiff performance from Chaney but makes modest attempts at creating an eerie atmosphere. It's conflict between Dracula and Katherine isn't played out completely, leaving some questions to be answered, but, what it does it does well within its limited scope.
Posts
