They were also conveniently available for us to watch, or sneak a viewing of. I remember the first of my viewings of Dracula came late at night when I got up and turned on the old portable TV near my bedroom. It had a broken antenna on it, and the wiring to the back of the tv was not great, but if you fidgeted with it, you could break through the static and get some channels, and some UHF. (...I know most of you have no idea what I'm talking about. I clearly come from some dark age of entertainment.) And as I moved the lousy antenna a bit, the opening of Dracula came into focus. A carriage racing through mountains.
It was thanks to Shock Theater that we all had these movies ingrained in us at a young age. Creatures of the night. Cinematic terrors, that by my childhood became more agreeable for the whole family to enjoy. How horrible!
Now let's go back to where we left off, Universal had finally gained the rights to Dracula (They got the rights to the book and stage play for $40,000.), and Tod Browning had been brought on board to direct.Tod Browning had a good career as a director: London After Midnight (which was sadly mostly lost -- But I plan to cover down the road.), Thirteenth Chair (his first talking movie, and his first time working with Bela Lugosi), Freaks, Mark of the Vampire (with Bela Lugosi again), The Unknown, The Unholy Three, The Blackbird, The Road to Mandalay. Several of his movies were made working with Lon Chaney. They were good friends.
Chaney was one of the leading men they wanted to have in the film. In fact, it's one of the reasons that Carl Laemmle, Sr. greenlit the movie. He expected they could get Chaney onboard at Universal. But that didn't happen, as he stayed at MGM. And he ended up remaking Browning's The Unholy Three without Browning. Shortly after, Chaney died.
Not the happiest of times, and at the same time, he was also dealing with alcoholism. I don' like to bring it up, but speaks to the stories that go around about the making of the movie, with Browning just having moments where he'd tear parts out of the script that he didn't want to do. Also, stories of him walking offset, and leaving some directing to the cinematographer on the movie, Karl Freund.
I don't know how true these stories are. Just that they are well circulated over many years. Maybe this happened a lot, or maybe Browning had one bad day or afternoon. Or maybe it's a tall tale. It's just become part of the film's established lore.
But Browning was dealing with many production issues in making the movie. He wanted an off-screen Dracula. Universal said Browning's plan for the movie wasn't in the budget, and they needed to have a more normal structure to the film. At first, there was a dream of making the film a more grand spectacle, like the classics of the Silent Era, but the studio found it didn't have the resources it would need as production approached. It needed some moderation, and the studio was determined to have its way.
As it was the initial (pre-Browning) plan was for lavish sets, the producer envisioned, keeping close to the book. With tightening of studio wallets, the plan was scaled back, and the play became the more realistic structure for the film. And when Browning was brought on, he had to deal with these realities.
Though if you see the early set used for Dracula's castle, we see the sort of look they wanted the whole film to have. It's is such a large grand area.
Browning and the movie also had to deal with the changing technology and tools. It wasn't Browning's first talking movie, but it was still new to him. As he made the movie, you can still see many hallmarks of silent films, from the way shots were set to the way actors were asked to present themselves and move. It's a movie in transition.
This is also seen in it's approach to music. It was assumed at the time that adding music to movies was just a bad idea (These are the same people who thought supernatural thrillers would never be popular.). You see if music was playing with the movie, but it wasn't being made by something in the scene...How is that possible?! Is it witchcraft? So, music in this movie is kept at a minimum.
We get some of Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake at the start of the film and end. Then, we also have some background music during the scene at the theater (because music could be playing there). This sparse use of music is annoying for some. But the silence an also work to create moments of quiet unease.
The choice of music was made by the music supervisor, Heinz Roemheld, who preferred classical music in movies. Other were using more modern songs to enter films. The results create a lovely timeless quality to the movie. And Swan Lake has been sinister to me ever since.
The cast does a lovely job of bringing the Browning and studio's combined vision to life. Most of the cast is new to Dracula. Edward Van Sloan was brought over from the stage to recreate his role as Van Helsing. And we also have the legendary Bela Lugosi eager to advance after his stage success. Herbert Bunston also comes over to play Dr. Seward again.
Bela Lugosi was one of the main actors who had been playing Dracula on stage at the time, traveling with this show. And he wanted a big role like this, to establish himself in the talking movies. But he was not what anyone at the studio wanted.
They were looking at a number of actors that made executives excited, and even Browning was looking elsewhere (Though seeing as the studio was overriding him, maybe he wasn't going to push for someone he had made several movies with.). What helped Lugosi was that the studio was trying to be cheap, and their preferred choices all fell through.
Lugosi was pushing hard to get the role, and the fact his tour as Dracula had him in Los Angeles helped him make connections. He even tried to step in to help with securing the movie rights with Stoker's widow.
Eventually, they did hire Lugosi, after he'd agreed to take $500 a week as salary. This is was a rather small sum to pay a star of a movie. But Lugosi was eager for the opening to make bigger movies. Still, it feels like he was somewhat taken advantage of in the situation.
As for the rest of the cast, the main issue to consider is how the cast shifts from the book. It's clear for the list that Lucy's subplot from the book is largely out, like in the stage version. So Arthur Holmwood and Quincey Morris are redundant.
But Quincey is so regularly omitted. Though in the original 1924 play there was a Quincey Morris. But she was a woman. (I'd love to see that brought into a modern retelling.)
At least on film we aren't compacting Mina Murray and Lucy Westenra into a single character. But Lucy's part is reduced from the book. And we see the continuation of the idea that Renfield is the one that travels to meet Dracula, expanding his role in the story.
One reversion from the plays is the removal of a plane that Dracula uses to get to England. I guess it was an easy offstage way to get Dracula into the country. In the movie, we return to the book's doomed ocean voyage aboard the Demeter. Though much of the shots of this are taken from the silent film The Storm Breaker,
What stays lost from the book is the ending chase across Europe/ But I can understand that a budget-conscious studio wasn't going to go for that. It took decades before someone tried that ending.
So let's look at how Dracula progresses to establish the Era of Horror.
We open on an old carriage going through a bumpy and mountainous terrain. Aboard it, a stranger in a strange land. He is a proper English businessman on a mission. And while he receives warnings from scared locals, he plows on.
Soon he is in the lair of the vampire, isolated and unaware of the doom ahead.
And soon he is the thrall of the monster. A linchpin in its plans.
And now the monster is a predator in a strange land. But luck an invasive species, it is on the move in an environment where the prey are clueless to its intent or activities.
And soon the monster hones in on the desired prey. A pair of women it will make brides.
But as it begins to hunt, and change it's chosen target, a new stranger enters. A foreigner as well, he can see the signs of something unnatural at work.
And he took seeks a prey. The monster itself.
Before long the monster's new lair is uncovered and a chase begins to catch it and destroy it.
Unfortunately for Van Helsing, he's stuck with all the dirty work,
The tale plays out with a level of charm and skill. Lugosi is engaging and alluring to moviegoers. Dwight Fry is unnerving as a madman driven by a dark master. And Van Sloan offers sagely, interesting, and proactive Van Helsing who helps add some tension to his meetings with Dracula.
Sadly, this is the only time during the Universal Golden Age of Horror we will see Lugosi play Dracula. He will appear in numerous other roles, but this is the end of his Dracula until horror turns to comedy.
Van Sloan and Fry would also go on to reappear in Univeral's next horror film. Frankenstein.
Things lost from the film
For the times, it was necessary to limit some imagery in the film/ Beyond the issues of scenes being treated at times as either silent films or playhouse productions, the film was also left with the need to bypass the gore that wouldn't be appearing.
It's hard not to notice how toothless Dracula does appear whenever he is going in.
And Lucy's whole undead subplot is alluded to with one quick shot of her (and the wail of a child) and hospital workers reading about children being attacked in the area.
Her finally demise occurs offscreen entirely. Sure, we can't be shown Dracula having a bit of wood rammed through his chest. But Lucy's final rest is left wholly to be imagined.
And another part of the film ending up being cut, though not for gore. They filmed more of an ending that we do get with the version of the film we have today. Originally, after Van Helsing gets to work, we cut to him on a stage. He addresses the theater audience. He thanks them, but warns them that they should all be careful as there are such things as vampires.
But this ended up being cut from the final film. Never to be used.
Sadly, it seems this bit of film exists, but is too damaged now to be reincorporated. Van Sloan does a similar piece at the start of Frankenstein, in case you want to get a sense of what they were doing.
The film we do have is still a wonder, even with its warts of age, time, and editing. It may not scare modern audiences in the way it took 1930's audiences, but it is a piece of horror history.
- The work that cemented vampire films.
- The cornerstone of Universal Horror and horror films as a serious genre in the talkies age.
- The portrayal that will be connected most to Dracula for most of the century, from the voice to the clothing. It was a shorthand for the character and for vampires in general.
- The grand old dame of Dracula films. (Okay, of officially licensed ones.)
To this day new films and creators of moving horror in ever-changing directions. As we appreciate the present and the future of horror. Let us not disregard or forget it's past.
And next time we return to Universal Monsters...it'll be time for Frankenstein to live again.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment