DRACULA (1931) - Review

Dracula

Fantasy/Horror
1 hour and 15 minutes
Rated: Not Rated

Written by: Garrett Fort
Directed by: Tod Browning
Produced by: Tod Browning & Carl Laemmle, Jr.

Cast:
Bela Lugosi
Helen Chandler
David Manners
Dwight Frye
Edward Van Sloan

The story of the strangest Passion the world has ever known!

By 1931, Universal Studios had managed to make a great deal of money off of their first two monster-related pictures: The Hunchback of Notre Dame in 1923 and The Phantom of the Opera in 1925, both silent films that featured Lon Chaney as the iconic tragic figures of the tales. It was clear by the success of these two films that there was a clear and undeniable market within the horror genre, and Universal was eager to bleed that vein of success, especially with the advent of technology that allowed for sound to be synched with film effectively doing away with the silent-film era. Universal's first choice for a horror film in the talking-pictures era proved to be another enormous success for the studio: Dracula.

Dracula had already been adapted illegally in 1922 by German expressionist filmmaker F.W. Murnau with his movie Nosferatu. Due to this snafu, and the courts' ruling in favor of Stoker's widow in the following plagiarism lawsuit, producer Carl Laemmle, Jr. acquired the rights for Stoker's novel legally to ensure that nothing would derail the potential success of the film. But Laemmle didn't have to work hard in order to ensure that Dracula would be a success with audiences. It had already been adapted into a Broadway stage play that was receiving enormous success, and rather than align the film as closely to the book as possible, Laemmle and director Tod Browning opted instead to make the film version of Dracula resemble the play that audiences had come to adore. It was a safe move that, again, all but ensured the enormous success of the movie before it had even been released.

Tod Browning's Dracula proves to be an incredible movie, even still nearly ninety years after its release - and yet it is not a film without its shortcomings. For starters, the direction is brilliant. Browning's management of sequences and placement of performers within as well as their relation to the camera is extraordinary to behold. There are moments when the characters appear to be swallowed up whole by the enormous and breathtaking sets. In these moments, Browning and cinematographer Karl Freund wisely decided to utilize long shots effectively allowing for the sets to become a new character all on their own and push forward a breath of dread and gothic despair into the overall atmosphere. In other sequences, Browning and Freund just as wisely utilize tighter shots. There is one moment in particular where Count Dracula confronts Van Helsing in the home of Dr. Seward. This set is neither impressive nor is it meant to be viewed as another character the way that the sanitarium or Dracula's castle are, and because of this Browning cleverly lets the film's actors carry the scene instead of the surrounding atmosphere. It's truly easy to see just how brilliant of a filmmaker Tod Browning was based on the varying sequences throughout Dracula.

As already stated, Karl Freund's cinematography is remarkable to behold, and the lighting in many of the sequences is just astounding. It becomes clear based on Freund's lighting cues just where our attention as an audience should lie - on the sets or on the performers. Milton Carruth and Maurice Pivar's editing proves effective, most notably in sequences involving Dracula's transformations or his attacking of his victims. By leaving both off screen, a decision that was surely just as much Browning's as it was the film's editors, the movie takes on another level of dread allowing audiences to imagine those images for themselves. The surprising lack of a score also allows for dread to settle into the minds of the audience. Sequences where Dracula attacks and stalks his victims are riddled with tension-building silence.

Obviously, besides the sets, the most impressive thing about Dracula is its performances, namely one in particular. The supporting cast is relatively overshadowed by the talent of the film's black-cloaked leading role, but there are some who do standout and manage to hold their own against Lugosi. Edward Van Sloan as Van Helsing is terrific, and while he isn't as memorable as Lugosi's Count Dracula, Van Sloan's Van Helsing has some incredible moments in the film - in particular the already mentioned sequence between Van Helsing and Dracula in the home of Dr. Seward. Equally impressive is Dwight Frye's performance as Renfield. Renfield's character takes the place of Harker's from the novel, traveling to Transylvania to Castle Dracula in the film's first act. Frye's performance as the raving mad lunatic Renfield is both believable and at times truly scary. The image of him laughing below deck in the ship, staring up into the light at the men who have discovered him, is perhaps the most terrifying moment in the entire movie. There's a reason why rocker Alice Cooper appropriated the performer's name for a song about a madman decades later.

But it is, to no one's surprise, Bela Lugosi's performance as Count Dracula that really remains the number one reason why anyone ought to see Dracula all these years later. What is perhaps most surprising is that Laemmle and the other Universal executives did not originally want Lugosi to play Dracula in the film. Lugosi ultimately took an incredibly low salary for the film and lobbied against the producers until they relented and allowed for him to play the role that he had made famous on Broadway. Lugosi's Count Dracula, whether anyone has seen this film version of Dracula or not, remains so iconic that most individuals think of him first when the character is brought up - the widows peak, the piercing eyes, the Eastern European accent, the claw-like hands, the pale, bloodless face, and the raised eyebrows. Lugosi was a performer that could say and do more with an expression than most actors could deliver out of an entire film's performance. While Dracula may not be Lugosi's best movie, it will always be his most iconic movie - and it's very clear to see why.

Browning's Dracula does have its issues despite it being such an iconic piece of cinema. The comedic relief of both the maid and orderly characters feels misplaced and out of touch with the film's atmosphere, even by the standards of the 1930s. By injecting humorous characters who aren't actually funny into a gothic horror film, the audience is effectively drawn out of the viewing experience until those characters are removed from the scene. The biggest issue with the film though is that it doesn't follow Stoker's novel closely at all. As previously mentioned, this is an adaptation of the stage play which differs largely from Stoker's novel. Unfortunately, because of this the movie moves too quickly. We are never given time to get to know the characters more intimately the way that we do in the novel, so that when they're thrown into this whirlwind of nightmarish dread, it's entirely too difficult to really care one way or the other what happens to them. Similarly, the film's denouement seems to happen much too rapidly, leaving one wondering if it was that easy then why were any of these characters so afraid of Dracula from the start?

While Tod Browning's Dracula isn't without its flaws, it still remains to this day an iconic piece of cinematic history that showcases the talents of both a filmmaker and performer of yesteryear who both went largely unappreciated by the general public despite all of their respective aptitude.

8/10