Fantasy/Horror/Sci-Fi
1 hour and 7 minutes
Approved
Written by: Edward T. Lowe Jr.
Directed by: Erle C. Kenton
Produced by: Paul Malvern
Cast:
Lon Chaney Jr.
Martha O'Driscoll
John Carradine
Lionel Atwill
HORROR UPON HORROR in the HOUSE OF DRACULA
Following the success of its first run monster films: Dracula, Frankenstein, The Wolf Man, etc, Universal Pictures may in hindsight appear to have been a tad too greedy when it came to cashing in on the exploitation of these great Gothic horror figures. Surely, movies like Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein show contemporary audiences that this infamous movie studio intended to showcase these icons for every penny that they were worth, even if that meant placing them smack dab in the middle of a comedy. Luckily enough, Universal would later find its footing again in the 1950s with Creature from the Black Lagoon. When it comes to House of Dracula, however, there might be a reason why this film is hardly ever discussed when it comes to the Universal Monsters canon.
The story of House of Dracula, is actually one that is deeply rooted with promise. From the start, audiences are introduced to the titular character of the Count who seeks out Dr. Edlemann in order that he may cure him of his vampirism. This of course raises for the first (and possibly only time) the brilliant scenario regarding Bram Stoker's most famous creation: What if Count Dracula didn't actually want to be Count Dracula? And because of this interesting introduction into the film, House of Dracula - at first - seems to be a movie that will be much more intelligent than some of its previous predecessors and later successors within this canon. Unfortunately, the whole thing comes crashing down faster than an ancient castle once it is revealed that Dracula is only using Edlemann - or rather pretending that he wishes to be cured - so that he may get closer to Edlemann's beautiful female assistant, Miliza. Had maybe the story given Dracula some sort of genuine desire to be rid of his curse, then maybe it could be one of the more intelligent films to showcase the character.
Adding further to the problems of the film are the introductions of other monsters. Lon Chaney Jr.'s character, Lawrence Talbot, appears seeking the same thing Dracula had fooled Edlemann into believing he wanted - a cure. Only Talbot actually does seek a cure for his werewolf condition. Unfortunately, this is nothing new to viewers. What Wolf Man movie does the werewolf character actually want to be a werewolf? It is not an exciting premise the way it might have been with the character of Dracula. The random inclusions of Frankenstein's monster and a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde scenario also make the story too convoluted and problematic.
Even with these problems though the film does manage to have a few good shocks. Dracula's betrayal of Edlemann, thus damning the man to a similar fate, is truly shocking and in itself comes as a bit of a surprise, despite the disappointment it leaves within the story. With the film's conclusion, it must be stated that it's enormously refreshing to see Lon Chaney Jr. play both the wolf man and the hero within the same film.
And on that note, the acting within House of Dracula is enormously impressive. Chaney really shines, no doubt relishing in the opportunity to finally play the hero. The character's fears and conflicting nature are all easily felt given the damn near flawless performance of Chaney. Similarly, Onslow Stevens gives a riveting performance as Dr. Edlemann. He seems to be a man of great curiosity and yet also one of enormous compassion - something rarely seen in these mad scientist characters. One believes that Edlemann truly wants to help Dracula and Talbot, just as he wants to help his hunchbacked nurse, Nina. This is perhaps why Dracula's double crossing of Edlemann is so powerfully shocking. Stevens' performance makes us feel compassionate for Edlemann in his quest to save these monstrous beings. Seeing him turned into one by the end is assuredly a powerful piece of writing that shines through the murky mess that is the rest of the story. The supporting cast of Martha O'Driscoll, Lionel Atwill, and especially Jane Adams all help the film seem much more professional than it is. Perhaps the only acting downfall is John Carradine's Count Dracula. Carradine, an enormously talented performer, seems off. His gaunt, mustachioed appearance is no doubt right for the role of Stoker's titular vampire, but given that this is fresh off of Bela Lugosi's enormously iconic portrayal of Dracula, something about Carradine's mannerisms in the role just doesn't seem right. One can take relief in knowing that Carradine's Count, despite having his name in the title, disappears entirely halfway through the movie.
Adding to the film's charm are its glorious sets and terrific soundtrack. Cinematographer George Robinson captures every set beautifully, from the towering castles to the gadget filled laboratory, and even the coastal caves. Robinson and editor Russell F. Schoengarth also manage to create some truly remarkable practical effects using a bit of visual trickery. Both Chaney's transformation into a werewolf and Carradine's into and from a bat are brilliant to see, even today. The film's music, composed by William Lava, is fun and typical of what one might expect from a 1930s/1940s Universal Monster flick. In a sequence between Carradine and O'Driscoll, the piano score proves to be incredibly haunting, adding to the grim atmosphere surrounding the character of Dracula.
Even with some impressive performances, cinematography, sets, and effects work, House of Dracula remains one of the Universal Monster films that perhaps ought to go unnoticed by more mainstream viewers. Its charms - such as seeing Lon Chaney Jr. play the hero - will no doubt impress horror and film junkies, but for the average, everyday film lover it won't be enough to save it from mediocrity.
4/10
No comments:
Post a Comment