Film Review: The Return of the Vampire

 "The Return of the Vampire"  

** (out of ****)

If it wasn't obvious to someone prior to watching Columbia Picture's "The Return of the Vampire" (1943) we see how inextricably linked actor Bela Lugosi was to his performance as the immortal vampire, Count Dracula in Universal's classic horror movie, "Dracula" (1931).

That connection along with the possibility it could translate into financial box-office success accounts for the existence of "The Return of the Vampire". This movie however isn't the only movie guilty of this greedy cinematic sin. There was "Mark of the Vampire" (1935) and "Vampire Over London" (1952). Lugosi didn't even have to necessarily play a vampire. He merely needed to appear in formal wear and our imagination did the rest. In "White Zombie" (1932) for instance, Lugosi isn't playing a vampire but he sure looks like one and by gum, he even sounds like Dracula (!).

And so here we have a horror movie starring Bela Lugosi with the title, "The Return of the Vampire". Did you notice what Columbia Pictures did there? The Return of the Vampire. Lugosi is in the movie once again playing a vampire. The vampire returns! When you think of a vampire, you think Lugosi (well, at least at one time you did).Yes, narratively the title fits in with the movie's plot but surely someone could see the marketing potential given the star and the title. Columbia Pictures couldn't flat out call the movie "The Return of Dracula" so this was the next best thing.

"The Return of the Vampire" is also indicative of what happened to horror movies in the 1930s and 40s. After Universal Pictures introduced audiences to these Monsters they quickly ruined them. Yes, the original "Dracula", "Frankenstein" (1931), "The Mummy" (1932) and "The Wolf Man" (1941) are all classics and each a cinematic treat in their own way but the movies were soon shoved aside by Universal and downgraded to "B" movie productions. How many of you know of the seemingly endless unnecessary sequels created? To name a few there was "Dracula's Daughter" (1936), "Son of Dracula" (1943), "She-Wolf of London" (1946), a complete do over of the Mummy, creating a new series of movies beginning with "The Mummy's Hand" (1940). Universal even began combining multiple monsters into one movie - "Frankenstein Meets The Wolf Man" (1943) and "House of Frankenstein" (1944). Universal even fed the Monsters to Abbott & Costello - "Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein" (1948) and  "Abbott & Costello Meet The Mummy" (1955)! Yet despite Universal's best efforts, the legacy of these Monsters continues.

I mention all of this to provide context. It was within this environment "The Return of the Vampire" was released. Horror movies were on the down swing. No movie studio, not just Universal, were treating horror movies with their proper respect. Everyone followed Universal's example and yet all horror movies from this era will be compared against Universal's, as the ultimate Gold Standard. As such "The Return of the Vampire" doesn't quite make a lasting impression. In fact much of the movie's plot reminds me of "Dracula's Daughter" and "Son of Dracula". 

Our story takes place in London near the end of World War 1 as an off-screen voice reads from what we assume is a diary of Professor Walter Saunders (Gilbert Emery) as he details his encounter with a vampire! Professor Saunders is brought to a clinic run by Lady Jane Ainsley (Frieda Inescort) to help with a patient that seems to be in a trance and has lost a lot of blood. There are also two puncture wounds on the patient's neck, which no one pays attention to. Unable to help the patient, Prof. Saunders begins to read the work of Armand Tesla, a man who has studied vampires and became one. The Professor convinces Lady Jane the patient was the victim of a vampire and together they must find it and kill it.

It's not a spoiler to reveal they do kill Armand and through a series of events I won't disclose, the vampire eventually returns (hence the title). Suspiciously the return happens 23 years later, during World War II. This aspect of the movie reminds me of "Son of Dracula" which was also a contemporary story of a vampire coming back in modern times. The difference is "Son of Dracula" takes place in America during WW II. Both movies can be interpreted as symbolically tying the vampire to Germany and Nazis in particular. That most certainly was the implication in "Son of Dracula" - a commentary on the threat of foreign invaders entering the country. It says a lot that "The Return of the Vampire" tells its story using both World Wars as its backdrop. "The Return of the Vampire" however doesn't make this connection strong enough. At it's best the movie becomes something of a morale booster claiming good will always triumph over evil. Does that mean Germany won't win the war?

Outside of the WW II references, "The Return of the Vampire" is practically a rehash of "Dracula" with similar plot beats. There's no Lucy and Mina characters but there is Nicki (Nina Foch) and John (Roland Varno). Nicki was Prof. Saunders' granddaughter and for that reason Armand sets his sights (or teeth) on her. John is Lady Lane's son and for that reason another potential victim. There's no Renfield but there is Andreas (Matt Willis), Armand's werewolf looking slave. Interactions between Andreas and Armand are unintentionally funny. The sight of a werewolf speaking with a perfect British accent made me smile. To a degree that makes Lady Jane our Professor Van Helsing. There are no other surprises here.

By the time Lugosi appeared in this movie he was more than 60 years old. As much as I love Lugosi (did I mention we are both Hungarian?) he was too old to play a suave, ageless vampire able to lure young women into allowing him to bite their necks. He looks old and tired here. Around this point in his career, Lugosi's best performances came from playing colorful supporting characters - Ygor in "Son of Frankenstein" (1939) and Joseph in "The Body Snatcher" (1945) - his final pairing with Boris Karloff. Nothing here inspires fear in the viewer. I understand to today's movie fans a movie like "Dracula" wouldn't scare you. I mean not one person is dismembered by a chainsaw in vivid detail on-screen! But watch Lugosi in "Dracula". He has a commanding presence on-screen and gives the best performance of the movie. You can't say that here and truly compliment the performance.

The rest of the cast seems incapable of creating dramatic tension. Lines are said in a matter-of-fact kind of way. The only time when actors deviate from their blandless delivery of lines is to attempt humor usually by becoming aghast at the mention of vampires and werewolves.  

If that weren't enough little is done to create a proper scary atmosphere. Initially I thought an early sequence in a cemetery with a heavy fog showed promise but than I noticed that was the only trick the movie hand up its sleeve. No creative use of cinematography. No use of shadows. Too many things are shot in long shots when a close-up or medium shot may have been more effective. And while it is nice lighting is played around with to create darkness, too much is dark not creating a contrast. "Scary" scenes and non-scary scenes are shot the same way. This may have a lot to do with the fact the people behind the movie had no real experience working on horror movies. In fact, some worked on Three Stooges comedies, which were also released by Columbia Pictures. The movie's producer was Sam White, brother of Jules White, who directed tons of Stooge comedies. One of the two credited cinematographers, John  Stumar shot a few Stooge comedies - "Nutty But Nice (1940), "Boobs in Arms" (1940) and "Three Little Twirps" (1943). The other cinematographer, L. William O' Connell shot the classic, "I'll Never Heil Again" (1941). 

The movie's director, Lew Landers, wasn't all that more experienced with the horror genre either though he did direct "The Raven" (1935) with Lugosi and Karloff and his final movie was "Terrified" (1963). The screenwriter however worked for Universal, Griffin Jay, and was behind those awful Mummy do overs from the 40s. At Columbia he wrote "Cry of the Werewolf" (1944) taking the Wolf-Man story but centering it around a woman instead (they were even woke back than!). I don't exactly consider it horror as it functions more like a mystery or detective story.

"The Return of the Vampire" was an unnecessary movie. It feels like a cheap attempt to cash in on Lugosi and his association with Dracula. If Columbia threw a little more money into production and put more creative and talented people behind it, it could have worked. Nothing here though feels inspired. At 69 minutes a lot feels edited out but at the same time the movie feels kind of long. There's not much here to sink your teeth into!