"
House of Dracula"
** (out of ****)
Universal Pictures' "House of Dracula" (1945) made me ask myself what is horror? Here is a movie about tortured men and damaged souls instead of jump scares and sounds that go bump in the night. Is that what we expect a horror movie to be? Does that sound scary to you?
The classic Universal horror movies - "Dracula" (1931), "Frankenstein" (1931), "The Mummy" (1932), and "The Wolf Man" (1941) - were on some level addressing these very same inner conflicts. In one way or another these men were cursed. From a psychological perspective the conflicts these men confronted were horrific. Characters such as Frankenstein's Monster and the Wolf Man are almost sympathetic figures. The Monster didn't ask to be created and Larry Talbot didn't ask to be bitten by a wolf, having an unfortunate fate placed upon him. Talbot in particular had to find a way to deal with the duality within him - man and beast, good and evil. However this description may make "House of Dracula" sound like an interesting, worthwhile movie. Lets dispense with the niceties before we go any further, "House of Dracula" is a bad movie!
"House of Dracula" treats this material in a melodramatic fashion to the point I found the movie to be dull and was actually bored. I fully understand walking into any 1940s horror movie I am not going to be scared but I am still capable of enjoying the movies and appreciating the eerie atmosphere they created. "Dracula" and "Frankenstein" were visually ambitious movies drawing inspiration from German Expressionism. They set a creepy and macabre tone. You watch "Frankenstein" and you can almost feel a chill in the air. "House of Dracula" by contrast is a dismal failure. It is not anywhere near as aesthetically bold or atmospheric.
That's not necessarily a knock against "House of Dracula" but a criticism of Universal Pictures. Rarely does one see a studio ruin a franchise as quickly and needlessly as Universal did with its horror movies. Pre-code horror movies like "Dracula" and "Frankenstein" helped Universal cement a reputation as the horror movie studio. Because of a combination of the strict enforcement of the Motion Picture Production Code and an oversaturated marketplace, horror lost not only its edge but its audience. Universal moved its horror movies to its "B" division and as a result top talent was no longer assigned to these projects. The genre went from movies directed by visionaries like Tod Browning and James Whales to "House of Dracula" director, Erle C. Kenton, whose career was primarily spent in comedy - he directed several Abbott & Costello comedies and worked for pioneering comedy producer Mack Sennett. The studio created several sequels and reboots driving an entire franchise into the ground by releasing movies like "Dracula's Daughter" (1936), "Son of Dracula" (1943), "The Mummy's Hand" (1940) - the beginning of an unnecessary reboot of "The Mummy" franchise, "Ghost of Frankenstein" (1942), and "She-Wolf of London" (1946) among others. All pale efforts, unworthy of carrying the names of their predecessors. Among the worst of Universal's cash-grabbing, money hungry creations was the monster mash-ups, featuring many of the famed monsters in one movie - why kill these franchises one movie at a time, lets kill them in one big swoop! Which brings us to "House of Dracula" released on the heels of "House of Frankenstein" (1944). So lazy and uninspired was the Universal marketing team, that they essentially duplicated the poster from "House of Frankenstein" with the same promises of sensationalism for "House of Dracula".
Our movie begins with Count Dracula (John Carradine, playing the character for the second time) flying (he has taken the form of a bat) into the home of Dr. Edelmann (Onslow Stevens), a renowned doctor whom Dracula hopes can cure him of his vampirism. Being a man of science Dr. Edelmann is not a believer of vampires but after Dracula shows the doctor his coffin, Edelmann agrees to help. This "help" is shown to us in the form of the doctor taking samples of Dracula's blood.
Dracula, it turns out, wasn't being honest and doesn't want to be cured of vampirism. His real intention for finding Dr. Edelmann was to reconnect with Edelmann's nurse, Milizia (Martha O' Driscoll) whom, we assume, he wants to turn into one of his brides. How did they meet? When did they meet? Where did they meet? The movie provides no satisfactory answers to these questions, leading me to declare, who cares!
More than one Universal monster it turns out wants to be cured of their curse for later that night Larry Talbot (Lon Chaney Jr.) comes to the doctor's home, on the night of a full moon mind you, seeking help for his lycanthropy (the ability to turn into a werewolf). Upon witnessing Larry's transformation, Dr. Edelmann promises to find a cure.
I am a firm believer any story, if properly told, can be entertaining. "House of Dracula" is no exception to this rule. If the screenwriter, Edward Lowe, had bothered to add more scares and flesh out these characters, the movie could have worked or at the very least been more interesting than what we see on-screen. Then it would have been up to director Kenton and cinematographer George Robinson to have a vision and create the correct aesthetic and atmosphere.
However, I have my suspicions Universal never had any desire to make a truly effective horror movie. The original plan for this movie was to be called "Wolf Man vs Dracula", which the best I could hope for would have followed in the tradition of
"Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man" (1943), possibly the last serious and effective movie dealing with these characters. It appears at this point Universal was primarily interested in cheap sensationalism and no longer concerned with giving these characters their due respect.
The storyline involving Dracula and the Wolf Man should have been enough for one movie but "House of Dracula" has more twists and turns up its sleeve. For no worthwhile justification whatsoever Dr. Edelmann and Talbot discover the body of Frankenstein's Monster (Glenn Strange, in his second outing as the character). By this point we are approximately two-thirds into this 66 minute movie. There isn't enough time to develop a meaningful sub-plot for the character essentially reducing him to little more than a throwaway character. What a waste!
The Monster, I suppose, was meant to serve as an inciting incident to turn Dr. Edelmann into a "mad scientist", hitting on the familiar theme in Universal horror movies, the corruptible nature of science. This foolish attempt to turn Dr. Edelmann into a Dr. Frankenstein or Jekyll & Mr. Hyde character is too abrupt a transition. Before this transition can happen however the movie must make Dr. Edelmann a sympathetic character. In order to accomplish this the good doctor is given a second assistant, Nina (Jane Adams). She is a beautiful woman that we (shockingly) discover is a hunchback. Dr. Edelmann hopes to one day remove her hunchback. Her deformity is also meant to make her a sympathetic character for why would God do such a thing to so lovely a woman. That, I think, was suppose to be the reaction a 1940s American audience would have. Bad things shouldn't happen to good looking people.
But the best parts of "House of Dracula" are the scenes revolving around Talbot. Every Universal movie featuring this character has always been able to get the most out of his storyline. Credit must be given to Lon Chaney Jr for consistently turning in thoughtful and compelling performances. Dracula's name may be in the movie's title but it's the Wolf Man's show.
If anyone ever doubted the acting in these movies and the performances given by actors like Lon Chaney Jr or Bela Lugosi, all someone needs to do is watch John Carradine play Dracula in movies like "House of Frankenstein" and "House of Dracula". Yes, it would be the "curse" of any actor to walk into the role after being so iconically play by Lugosi but Carradine strips the character to nothing. Everything that Lugosi brought to the role vanishes in the hands of Carradine. Of course different actors have different ways of interpreting a character. I'm not suggesting Carradine copy Lugosi but after watching Carradine play the part ask yourself, how do you think Carradine interpreted the character and how did he project that on-screen? Carradine's Dracula is not menacing, suave, or seductive. It is one of the most inferior performances I have seen in a serious movie portraying the character.
The last character of significance in the movie is Inspector Holtz, performed by the actor that has played more inspectors than any other actor in Universal's horror movies, Lionel Atwill. His character this time around is similar to the character he played in
"Son of Frankenstein" (1939), the last good movie to feature Frankenstein's Monster and make the character an integral part of the plot. Inspector Holtz must control the villagers who begin to wonder what Dr. Edelmann is up to especially after some of the townspeople are found dead. Atwill give his usual stiff, heavy-handed performance, which suites this type of character well. The Inspector is a man of great respect and importance, in his mind. This would unfortunately be one of Atwill's final roles. He died the following year.
"House of Dracula" is an uninspired "horror" movie devoid of big scares and an eerie, unsettling atmosphere. It also feels like a hastily slapped together rehash of previous movies like "House of Frankenstein", "Son of Frankenstein", and "Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man". Additionally the ending wasn't satisfying either because of the hastily, rushed nature of the movie. I suspect much of this movie was left on the cutting room floor to trim it down to a roughly hour long feature, typical for "B" movies, so they could be part of a double-bill.
Horror has never been one of my favorite genres. I knew October, when I devote the month to horror movie reviews, was going to cause obstacles for this year's theme - the "year of me". My year long celebration of my favorite artists and filmmakers in honor of my 40th birthday and the 15th anniversary of this blog. I scared easily as a child which is why the horror genre had no great importance for me. But, the Universal Monsters were something my friends and I were interested in. I would try to watch these movies without the aid of a pillow in front of my face but was usually unsuccessful. As I got older I developed a fondness for these characters and over the last 15 years have reviewed practically all of the movies featuring them. That is what makes movies like "House of Dracula" so disappointing to me. I enjoy watching these characters and hate to see them in second-rate offerings like this.
Sadly my opinion of "House of Dracula" isn't an isolated one. The movie was nearly universally panned by critics upon its release. Although some modern "critics" try to create a positive spin on the movie. "House of Dracula" would be the last serious attempt by Universal to combine the famed monsters together in one movie until three years later when it was done for comedy in
"Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein" (1948). Strangely this would revitalize these characters. Though Universal would release no new horror movies featuring these characters. They would however create a new and final monster, the Gill-Man.
Posts
