Welcome to the first installment of MONSTER SERIAL. During the next few months I'm going to attack some of Universal's best known franchises, starting today with a look at the original DRACULA.
DRACULA, 1931
Starring: Bela Lugosi, Helen Chandler, David Manners, Dwight Frye, Edward Van Sloan, Herbert Bunston, Frances Dade, Joan Standing, Charles K. Gerrard
Directed by Tod Browning
WHAT'S IT ALL ABOUT, ALFIE? An adaptation of the 1924 stage play by written by Hamilton Deane and John L. Balderston, DRACULA is a second generation adaptation that takes many liberties with the 1897 novel by Bram Stoker. In the film, a solicitor named Renfield falls under the thrall of a mysterious Count Dracula while visiting his home in Transylvania to discuss leasing an English abbey.The legal consultation soon turns violent as the Count and his wives attack Renfield in the night. When next we see the doomed solicitor, he's the only warm body on a ship of corpses that's sailed into an English harbor. Driven mad his experiences, Renfield is arrested and institutionalized in a London asylum. Dracula soon turns his violent attentions to the daughter of the asylum's administrator, but meets his match in Prof. Abraham Van Helsing, an unorthodox scientist with a fascination for the occult.
WHAT'S IT REALLY ABOUT? Sex. I mean, have you seen DRACULA? That photo at the top of this post pretty much summarizes the film. There are few scenes in the movie that aren't overtly about sex, particularly oral sex, starting from the moment poor Renfield sucks at a wound on his own finger. Dracula puts his mouth on half the movie's cast and doesn't appear to have a sexual preference.
Contrary to popular belief, though, it takes more than sex to hold people's attention, especially during the many decades since DRACULA was first released. If it was just some creaky old film about outdated sexual mores, who would care? But there's something else going on in the film that continues to speak to audiences, even if we have to listen a little harder these days to hear the message. DRACULA is more than just a movie about sexual confusion. It's a movie about fear of the future.
The many subtexts of DRACULA are well established. So much of what people take away from the story depends on when and where they first experience it. It's been called a story about repressive homo- and heterosexuality, xenophobia, a Biblical parable, class warfare and just about anything else you want to read into it. Complicating matters are the great many unanswered questions, the most pressing being "Why did Dracula travel to England?" The 1931 movie makes no effort to answer this question (or any of the other riddles of the novel), deciding instead to hang its entire narrative on a conflict in belief systems.
DRACULA is a movie about the fear of change, a warning for us not to abandon superstition without first putting it to the rigours of the scientific method. It's a concept that gives the film an unusual perspective, to say the least. Dracula's nemesis in the film, Abraham Van Helsing, has the unpleasant task of informing the cast that adherence to logic and reason have left them open to attack from a mythical being. This is Van Helsing's traditional role in just about every variation of the Dracula story: the learned academic who has more faith in superstition than science. In one scene, Van Helsing paraphrases Charles Baudelaire while advising that the vampire's greatest weapon is convincing the world he doesn't exist. You won't find many scientists, then or now, with the balls to say something like that out loud.
While the character of Dracula challenges the beliefs of the movie's characters, the movie stands as a (not entirely well-reasoned) defense of faith. The story demands the cast and audience believe in something that can't be scientifically proven, and invents a monster as "evidence" of the importance of faith. DRACULA is a fun film, but has a prominent anti-intellectual bias. But that's true for most horror films, which tend to devolve a game of "Kill the Freak" during the final reels.
WHY ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT THIS MOVIE? Bela Lugosi and Dwight Frye, mostly. Lugosi's screen presence, especially in DRACULA, can't be overstated. He's amazing in the film, and brings a theatricality to the role that immediately puts him at odds with the younger, mostly American cast. I can't really call what he does in DRACULA "acting" because his performance is raw charisma, but I can't think of another actor of his time who could have pulled off this role. If you think it's easy, watch the Spanish language version of DRACULA released in the same year. It manages to do just about everything better than the Tod Browning film except in the casting of its leading man.
I can't say enough good things about Dwight Frye, either. His work in Dracula is a legitimate performance, presenting Renfield (no first name is ever given) as both a foppish sophisticate and an unhinged maniac. Renfield is hugely sympathetic in the film. He's not only the movie's heart, but which the story's ironic voice of reason, too. In one scene he interrupts a conersation about vampires by asking "Isn't this a strange conversation for men who aren't crazy?" It's a simultaneously witty and tragic moment. If Frye were a young man today, I've no doubt his professional calender would be a busy one.
Edward Van Sloan is also impressive as Van Helsing. There's an unspoken respect between Van Helsing and Dracula in this film, which makes their conflict especially interesting. The best scenes in the movie involve these two actors, which brings us to ...
IS IT TIME TO STOP TALKING ABOUT THIS MOVIE? Outside of Lugosi, Frye and Van Sloan, the cast is terrible. Helen Chandler's life was fucked up enough without heaping posthumous scorn upon her, but she's got crazy eyes and comes across in the film like a condescending bitch. David Manners does what he can with the role of Jonathan Harker, a role that's defeated better actors*, but he mostly just stands around and adds perspective to the photography. There were a few other actors in the movie, but you'll have forgotten about them before the movie's over.
Speaking of the movie's end, I'm not sure what was taking place behind the scenes of DRACULA, but there must have been some kind of trouble. DRACULA doesn't end as much as it just ... stops. We get a two-second music cue to tell us the ending is a happy one and THE END. Had I seen this movie in the theater in 1931, I would have been sure the projectionist had dropped a reel somewhere.
I love Tod Browning. I don't think you get movies like FREAKS, DRACULA and WHITE ZOMBIE on your résumé unless you know what you're doing. But DRACULA is a jumble of unfocused ideas, ranging from the weird (the vampire beetle with his tiny beetle coffin) to the offensive (the asylum orderly who's constantly badgering Renfield and calling him "flyeater" and "crazy.")
Some of the movie's problems come from adapting the stage play, which has been popular among casual audiences despite being less-than-loved by fans of the original novel. The play makes numerous concessions to consolidate the story for the stage, concessions that were unnecessary for a movie. DRACULA has an epic feel at the start, but becomes stagebound during its second half. Not even the stellar camerawork of Karl Freund could make the climax of DRACULA look anything other than stagey.
Ultimately, the elements trimmed from the story to make it fit onto a Broadway stage undermine many of the movie's messages about faith and the misguided devotion to reason. Dracula, a creature of superstition, tried to adapt to metropolitan life and failed spectacularly. It's not faith or righteousness that triumphs, but Dracula's own inability to fit in that brings him to his doom. I don't know how long he survived in Transylvania (a century? more?) but he lasted only a few weeks in London before someone caught wise and stuck a piece of timber through his heart. If it hadn't been Van Helsing, it would have been someone else. The guy was running around the woods the woods at night in a tuxedo ... how did he expect that WOULDN'T draw attention? (This failure to adapt is directly addressed in the novel. Dracula escapes England and flees to the relative safety of his castle in Transylvania.)
VERDICT: This is certified classic, and I have no intention of disputing it's standing. I love every weird, malformed frame of film that makes up DRACULA, even if I can't endorse its every failing. If you haven't seen it, watch it. If you've already seen it, watch it again. And make sure you tell me what you think about the movie in the comments below.
Up Next: DRACULA'S DAUGHTER (1936)
*Yeah, I just did that.
DRACULA, 1931
Starring: Bela Lugosi, Helen Chandler, David Manners, Dwight Frye, Edward Van Sloan, Herbert Bunston, Frances Dade, Joan Standing, Charles K. Gerrard
Directed by Tod Browning
WHAT'S IT ALL ABOUT, ALFIE? An adaptation of the 1924 stage play by written by Hamilton Deane and John L. Balderston, DRACULA is a second generation adaptation that takes many liberties with the 1897 novel by Bram Stoker. In the film, a solicitor named Renfield falls under the thrall of a mysterious Count Dracula while visiting his home in Transylvania to discuss leasing an English abbey.The legal consultation soon turns violent as the Count and his wives attack Renfield in the night. When next we see the doomed solicitor, he's the only warm body on a ship of corpses that's sailed into an English harbor. Driven mad his experiences, Renfield is arrested and institutionalized in a London asylum. Dracula soon turns his violent attentions to the daughter of the asylum's administrator, but meets his match in Prof. Abraham Van Helsing, an unorthodox scientist with a fascination for the occult.
WHAT'S IT REALLY ABOUT? Sex. I mean, have you seen DRACULA? That photo at the top of this post pretty much summarizes the film. There are few scenes in the movie that aren't overtly about sex, particularly oral sex, starting from the moment poor Renfield sucks at a wound on his own finger. Dracula puts his mouth on half the movie's cast and doesn't appear to have a sexual preference.
Contrary to popular belief, though, it takes more than sex to hold people's attention, especially during the many decades since DRACULA was first released. If it was just some creaky old film about outdated sexual mores, who would care? But there's something else going on in the film that continues to speak to audiences, even if we have to listen a little harder these days to hear the message. DRACULA is more than just a movie about sexual confusion. It's a movie about fear of the future.
The many subtexts of DRACULA are well established. So much of what people take away from the story depends on when and where they first experience it. It's been called a story about repressive homo- and heterosexuality, xenophobia, a Biblical parable, class warfare and just about anything else you want to read into it. Complicating matters are the great many unanswered questions, the most pressing being "Why did Dracula travel to England?" The 1931 movie makes no effort to answer this question (or any of the other riddles of the novel), deciding instead to hang its entire narrative on a conflict in belief systems.
DRACULA is a movie about the fear of change, a warning for us not to abandon superstition without first putting it to the rigours of the scientific method. It's a concept that gives the film an unusual perspective, to say the least. Dracula's nemesis in the film, Abraham Van Helsing, has the unpleasant task of informing the cast that adherence to logic and reason have left them open to attack from a mythical being. This is Van Helsing's traditional role in just about every variation of the Dracula story: the learned academic who has more faith in superstition than science. In one scene, Van Helsing paraphrases Charles Baudelaire while advising that the vampire's greatest weapon is convincing the world he doesn't exist. You won't find many scientists, then or now, with the balls to say something like that out loud.
While the character of Dracula challenges the beliefs of the movie's characters, the movie stands as a (not entirely well-reasoned) defense of faith. The story demands the cast and audience believe in something that can't be scientifically proven, and invents a monster as "evidence" of the importance of faith. DRACULA is a fun film, but has a prominent anti-intellectual bias. But that's true for most horror films, which tend to devolve a game of "Kill the Freak" during the final reels.
WHY ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT THIS MOVIE? Bela Lugosi and Dwight Frye, mostly. Lugosi's screen presence, especially in DRACULA, can't be overstated. He's amazing in the film, and brings a theatricality to the role that immediately puts him at odds with the younger, mostly American cast. I can't really call what he does in DRACULA "acting" because his performance is raw charisma, but I can't think of another actor of his time who could have pulled off this role. If you think it's easy, watch the Spanish language version of DRACULA released in the same year. It manages to do just about everything better than the Tod Browning film except in the casting of its leading man.
I can't say enough good things about Dwight Frye, either. His work in Dracula is a legitimate performance, presenting Renfield (no first name is ever given) as both a foppish sophisticate and an unhinged maniac. Renfield is hugely sympathetic in the film. He's not only the movie's heart, but which the story's ironic voice of reason, too. In one scene he interrupts a conersation about vampires by asking "Isn't this a strange conversation for men who aren't crazy?" It's a simultaneously witty and tragic moment. If Frye were a young man today, I've no doubt his professional calender would be a busy one.
Edward Van Sloan is also impressive as Van Helsing. There's an unspoken respect between Van Helsing and Dracula in this film, which makes their conflict especially interesting. The best scenes in the movie involve these two actors, which brings us to ...
IS IT TIME TO STOP TALKING ABOUT THIS MOVIE? Outside of Lugosi, Frye and Van Sloan, the cast is terrible. Helen Chandler's life was fucked up enough without heaping posthumous scorn upon her, but she's got crazy eyes and comes across in the film like a condescending bitch. David Manners does what he can with the role of Jonathan Harker, a role that's defeated better actors*, but he mostly just stands around and adds perspective to the photography. There were a few other actors in the movie, but you'll have forgotten about them before the movie's over.
Speaking of the movie's end, I'm not sure what was taking place behind the scenes of DRACULA, but there must have been some kind of trouble. DRACULA doesn't end as much as it just ... stops. We get a two-second music cue to tell us the ending is a happy one and THE END. Had I seen this movie in the theater in 1931, I would have been sure the projectionist had dropped a reel somewhere.
I love Tod Browning. I don't think you get movies like FREAKS, DRACULA and WHITE ZOMBIE on your résumé unless you know what you're doing. But DRACULA is a jumble of unfocused ideas, ranging from the weird (the vampire beetle with his tiny beetle coffin) to the offensive (the asylum orderly who's constantly badgering Renfield and calling him "flyeater" and "crazy.")
Some of the movie's problems come from adapting the stage play, which has been popular among casual audiences despite being less-than-loved by fans of the original novel. The play makes numerous concessions to consolidate the story for the stage, concessions that were unnecessary for a movie. DRACULA has an epic feel at the start, but becomes stagebound during its second half. Not even the stellar camerawork of Karl Freund could make the climax of DRACULA look anything other than stagey.
Ultimately, the elements trimmed from the story to make it fit onto a Broadway stage undermine many of the movie's messages about faith and the misguided devotion to reason. Dracula, a creature of superstition, tried to adapt to metropolitan life and failed spectacularly. It's not faith or righteousness that triumphs, but Dracula's own inability to fit in that brings him to his doom. I don't know how long he survived in Transylvania (a century? more?) but he lasted only a few weeks in London before someone caught wise and stuck a piece of timber through his heart. If it hadn't been Van Helsing, it would have been someone else. The guy was running around the woods the woods at night in a tuxedo ... how did he expect that WOULDN'T draw attention? (This failure to adapt is directly addressed in the novel. Dracula escapes England and flees to the relative safety of his castle in Transylvania.)
VERDICT: This is certified classic, and I have no intention of disputing it's standing. I love every weird, malformed frame of film that makes up DRACULA, even if I can't endorse its every failing. If you haven't seen it, watch it. If you've already seen it, watch it again. And make sure you tell me what you think about the movie in the comments below.Up Next: DRACULA'S DAUGHTER (1936)
*Yeah, I just did that.
No comments:
Post a Comment