Mark of the Vampire - 1935

 Director:                   Tod Browning

Screenplay:               Guy Endore, Bernard Schubert

Photography:              James Wong Howe

Editor:                       Ben Lewis

Art Director:               Cedric Gibbons

Associates:                Harry Oliver, Edwin B. Willis

Recording Director:     Douglas Shearer

Gowns:                      Adrian

Cast

Professor Zelen                     Lionel Barrymore

Irena                                     Elizabeth Allan

Count Mora                           Bela Lugosi

Inspector Neumann              Lionel Atwill

Baron Otto                           Jean Hersholt

Fedor                                  Henry Wadsworth

Dr. Doskil                              Donald Meek

Jan                                       Ivan Simpson

Chauffeur                            Franklyn Ardell

Maria                                   Leila Bennett

Luna                                    Carol Borland **

Sir Karell                              Homes Herbert

Innkeeper                           Michael Visaroff

** Carroll Borland's name is spelled Carol Borland in the credits, and

  in other publications is spelled Caroll

-->“Mark of the Vampire” was made at MGM studios in 1935.  Among the major studios, Universal was leading the pack in terms of horror in those days with Paramount probably a close second.  MGM was way behind and trying to play catch up with this film.  It is actually a remake of one of their silent Lon Chaney vehicles, “London after Midnight” from 1922.  That film has been lost for decades, but one can hope that a print may turn up someday.  “Mark of the Vampire” was MGM’s stab at duplicating “Dracula”, even to hiring the same director, Tod Browning.

Poster for "London After Midnight"

-->

Right off the bat (or should I say, fake bat suspended by wires), let me say that this review will be full of spoilers.  It’s difficult to discuss this movie without giving away the big plot “twist”.  So if you have never seen the movie but plan to, and want to preserve the element of surprise, then stop now.  Actually, if you can make it through to the end of the movie without your head exploding, THAT will be a bigger surprise than the plot.

“Mark of the Vampire” is one of the most confounding movies I have ever seen.  The story is engineered with the precision of a watchmaker.  Unfortunately that would be a watchmaker who is all thumbs and the final product runs about as efficiently as a water-logged cuckoo clock.  Especially coming from a major studio, it contains more contrivances per frame of film than in any other silly flick I’ve seen.  Compared to this, the plot of “The Mummy’s Curse” (see elsewhere on this blog) looks like the pinnacle of crystal clarity.  

It is set in 1934 Czechoslovakia, (it’s original title was “Vampires of Prague”).  Wealthy Sir Karell Borotyn has been murdered, his body found with two small puncture marks on the neck and drained of blood.  The local doctor as well as all the villagers believe that this was the work of a vampire.  Sir Karrel’s best friend Baron Otto is the next door neighbor and now becomes guardian to Sir Karell’s daughter, Irena.   Inspector Neumann arrives from Prague to investigate the murder.  He doesn’t believe in vampires, and the inquest is inconclusive.

We move on to a year later.  Sir Karells’s castle has been empty since his death, since Irena has been living in the guardian’s home.  The villagers have a legend about vampires known as Count Mora and his daughter Luna.  Creepy characters have been seen lurking around the castle, presumably the vampires .  Bats are seen around the countryside, and the Count and Luna are seen in the shadows by the roadside frightening passersby.  Irena and her fiancé Fedor are about to get married.  Before the wedding can take place, Fedor is attacked.  He can’t remember what happened, but he has two bite marks on his neck.  The vampire has struck again!!  

Irena is attacked next.  Professor Zelen, an expert on the occult, is brought in to investigate the weird goings on, and by golly he recognizes the work of a vampire when he sees it.  He confides in the inspector and Baron Otto to help him defend Irena, and destroy the monsters. 

Professor Zelen (Lionel Barrymore - right)  pontificates to Inspector Neumann (Lionel Atwill - left), and Baron Otto  (Jean Hersholt - middle)

-->As the panic grows, the professor goes through the usual spiel explaining what vampires are, for anyone in the audience who still doesn’t know.  To make matters worse, Sir Karell has been seen walking in the neighborhood as one of the undead, much to Irena’s dismay.  The inspector is still skeptical, until he and Baron Otto find Sir Karell’s coffin empty.  They also peek through the window of the old castle and see Sir Karell, Count Mora and Luna acting all vampire-y.  They see Luna seeming to fly from the balcony down to the floor, just like a bat!

Luna nails her landing. 

-->As the professor leads his team into the castle to destroy the vampires, Irena is brought to the castle by Luna.  Irena breaks down at the sight of her father, saying she can’t go on with it anymore.  Now all is revealed to be a hoax which she is in on.  The inspired scheme was to create this vampire scenario and shock a confession from the Baron when he sees the “resurrected Sir Karell” – the man he is suspected of murdering a year ago.  Sir Karell is being impersonated by an actor, who just happens to look and sound exactly like the dead man.

-->

The professor and inspector talk Irena into continuing with their carefully crafted charade.  Baron Otto has been hypnotized by the professor to compel him to replay the events of the evening of the murder one year ago.  Irena and  the phony Sir Karell act out their parts as the spellbound Baron arrives at the house and chats with the man he believes is his old friend.  He puts what he thinks are knock-out drops into Sir Karell’s wine and then bids his friend a warm goodnight.  After he leaves, Sir Karell drinks the wine and appears to pass out. The Baron re-enters and attempts to complete the murder.  His motive? – he wants Irena for himself.  He is interrupted by the Inspector, and the professor who brings him out of his hypnotic state.  They have trapped their murderer.  Whew!

We then cut to the final brief scene in a dressing room.  We see “Count Mora” and “Luna” taking off their costumes and makeup and congratulating themselves on a wonderful performance.  Their trunk is marked with the sign “Luna The Bat Woman”.  One of the actors is putting the props away, including the wings we saw Luna flying around with earlier.  They are actors who had been hired by the professor to impersonate vampires. 

Holy smokes!  That may have been long, but……hey!.... YOU try summarizing all that.  And this is only the barest outline of the convoluted plot.

-->

Lionel Barrymore has star billing.  This very talented actor, who had many, many fine performances under his belt, plays his part as a combination of Groucho Marx and a community theater version of “Dracula’s” Professor Van Helsing.  Actually, his eyebrows do most of the emoting.  He raises and waves them like flags in shock, worry, scorn, anger or pretty much anything else.  He rocks back and forth on his heels as he belittles or talks down to his audience, or as he whips the servants and the Baron into a terrified frenzy as he yells at them to make sure a weed he calls bat-thorn is placed on every door and window.   He bobs up and down to demonstrate agitation, and throws his arms out and opens his eyes wide to register surprise.  His speeches go on at great length and usually turn around on themselves with circular logic.  Here is one small example:

Professor:  “During the hours of darkness the vampire can’t even be harmed, let alone destroyed.”

Inspector:   “If they can’t be destroyed then we are wasting time!”

Professor:  (shouting angrily)  “I DIDN’T SAY THEY CAN’T BE DESTROYED!!”

Well, actually you did.

This distinguished actor may have decided to just have some fun and earn a paycheck at the same time (the Sir Anthony Hopkins of his day).   Or, it may be that even though he was one of THE Barrymores -- brother of John and Ethel, the First Family of the American Stage and Screen, etc.-- he was just as capable as anyone of being a ham.  Or, it’s possible that he is overacting the part because he is playing someone who is playing a part – trying to convince Baron Otto that all this hogwash is true.  His hysterical performance might be a little easier to take once you realize the role he is really playing.  But frankly, it doesn’t make it any easier for me.  Edward Van Sloan as “Dracula’s” Professor Van Helsing is subdued and dignified and much easier to believe as someone who knows of what he speaks.

Donald Meek, Lionel Barrymore and Jean Hersholt

-->

As happens so often in films and plays, the servants in our film exist primarily to provide comic relief.  The only problem is that they aren’t funny and are frequently very annoying, particularly the maid.  Actor Donald Meek who plays the cowardly, gullible local doctor is much more genuinely amusing.  He was in movies for twenty years until his death in 1946, and played countless roles.  His characters frequently could be described best by the actor’s surname.  Donald Meek is one of my favorite old-time character actors and his name in the credits is always welcome.

Another very welcome name is Lionel Atwill.  Here he provides his patented gruff disdain for simple-minded superstition.   Atwill had to have been in more horror films of the 1930’s and 40’s than any other actor.  He was always strong and stalwart whether playing a mad scientist (“Doctor X”, “Ghost of Frankenstein”, “The Vampire Bat”, "Man Made Monster"), the local inspector/mayor/etc. (“Son of Frankenstein”, “Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman”, "House of Frankenstein", "House of Dracula") or some other type of madman ("Murders in the Zoo", “Mystery of the Wax Museum”).  In addition, he showed off his comedic talent in the 1942 Jack Benny/Carole Lombard film “To Be or Not to Be”.

The name Jean Hersholt will be familiar to anyone who has ever watched the Academy Awards.  The Danish born actor was popular in both leading and character roles in everything from the villain in von Stroheim’s silent “Greed”, to the kindly small town Dr. Christian in the radio/movie/TV series named for that character.  He was presented with two honorary Oscars in 1940 and 1950 for his work in founding the Motion Picture Relief Fund.  The annual award for humanitarian work still bears his name. 

In “Mark of the Vampire” Hersholt does great work with a tricky role.  Most of the time Baron Otto appears genuinely honest and caring.  We see his other side as his face instantly changes from gentle warmth to cold ruthlessness when he unknowingly re-enacts the murder of his friend.  That moment could easily have been over-acted buffoonery, but he renders it with finesse.

-->

Elizabeth Allan plays Irena with grace and intelligence, never playing down to the material.   Irena is a similar character to the heroine ‘Mina’ played by Helen Chandler in “Dracula”. 

Henry Wadsworth has the colorless, thankless David Manners-type role as the fiancé who is useless in a crisis.  He is often in a state of full or near unconsciousness.  His biggest contribution is to suggest that the best thing he can do for Irena is to take her away from all the danger as soon as possible, only to be shot down immediately by the irate professor.  The same scene was played out with the characters of Jonathan Harker and Professor Van Helsing in “Dracula”. 

Caroll Borland inhabits the role of Luna.  She was a teenager when she saw Lugosi in the movie “Dracula” and developed a crush on the much older actor.  She started a correspondence with him and they eventually met.  Borland landed a small role in a revival of the play, and spent a great deal of time with Lugosi becoming a close friend.  She has no lines as the vampire girl here; she speaks one line in the final scene as the actress.  Her vampire look – the white face and long, long hair-- has become iconic.

Elizabeth Allan as Irena, and Carol Borland as Luna

Bela Lugosi plays Count Mora.  Well, he plays the actor playing Count Mora.   He also has no lines until the scene in the actor’s dressing room.  Lugosi has the most delightful moment in the movie, as he swirls his cape around while announcing to the others that he was great in his role of the Count: “I gave ALL of me!”  His unimpressed actor colleagues respond to this by telling him to take off his makeup and help put the props away.  It’s a nice little touch of self-parody on Lugosi’s part. 

Bela Lugosi as Count Mora, looking particularly sinister

-->By the way, you notice a dark blotch on the right side of Lugosi’s temple?  That is a bit of plot that did not get explained in the final script.  Originally, Count Mora was supposed to have murdered Luna and killed himself with a bullet to the temple, after an incestuous relationship.  I can’t really imagine how that would have been handled in the film.  But I suppose it was too late to change Lugosi’s makeup, so Count Mora’s strange look remained a mystery.

-->

Which brings me to the subject of how much of “Dracula” was ripped off by MGM in this movie.  Here are some bits that I have noticed which are either identical or very similar in both films:

• The opening scene with villagers, including cooing baby in cradle, praying to protect themselves from the demons.
• The local innkeeper explaining to the English travelers why it is dangerous to travel on their roads at night. 
• Michael Visaroff plays the innkeeper role in both films.
• As the Count and Luna descend the stairs in the creepy castle it is obvious that the set is almost identical to the Universal “Dracula” set. 
• As they walk down the stairs, they appear to have walked through a huge cobweb without disturbing it, just as Count Dracula seemed to walk through a cobweb in his castle. 
• In the castle we see shots of little critters --  bugs, spiders and possums.  Sadly, “Mark of the Vampire” has no armadillos.
•  A scene between Irena and Fedor sitting on a divan near the terrace,  is very similar to a scene between Mina and Jonathan Harker in “Dracula”. 

Count Mora and Luna in "Mark of the Vampire"'s creepy castle

Castle in 1931 "Dracula"

-->

And here are a few things that drive me nuts about the movie:

• In spite of all the precautions and all the bat thorn on the windows and doors, the vampires come and go in the house at will.  Whenever the professor announces that the house is now safe, you can rest assured that it isn’t. 

Count Mora making himself at home

-->

• There is so much confusion in the house -- vampires showing up willy-nilly, the servants running in and out of rooms screaming, chopped up non-sequitor conversations held in different rooms – it’s more like a door slamming bedroom farce than a horror/mystery. 
• The names Zelen and Borotyn are pronounced differently by different characters.  Borotyn is sometimes pronounced Baratin, BORotin, BoroTEEN, or BoRRRotin.  Lionel Barrymore prounounces it differently in each scene.  Continuity, please!!! 
• The way the professor barks at everyone.  Most of the others are either "fools!" or "idiots!"

• The castle is full of dust thick over everything, and cobwebs everywhere.  But a few minutes later when Irena and the fake Sir Karell are acting their part for the Baron, everything is tidy and spotless.  There were some very speedy cleaning elves at work there!
• The actors playing Count Mora and Luna are CONSTANTLY living their parts, even when no one is around.  When the inspector and the Baron are peeking in the window they just happen  to catch Luna "flying" like a bat.  That is some precise staging.  Or else, Luna is flying around every few minutes, just in case someone is looking.  
• Every single time, and by that I mean, every single time that we either see the creepy old castle, or the vampires no matter where they are, we hear a soundtrack of low moaning and groaning.  I suppose it is atmospheric and perhaps it is effective in a way.  However, I found it annoying after the first few times.  It reminded me of a very funny line from the movie "Love at First Bite".  Count Dracula, played by George Hamilton, is playing the piano in his castle.  Wolves are howling outside, very loudly.  He finally becomes so exasperated with the interruption that he yells at them:  "Children of the night!  SHUT UP!!"  That is what I wanted to say to "Mark of the Vampire".      



George Hamilton as Count Vladimir Dracula in "Love at First Bite"

• The trick of draining the body of blood?  Easy!  Just use a pair of small pincers to make the holes, then hold a water glass above a flame, and then put the glass over the wound.  I'll let the professor explain the scientific principle behind this:  "the hot glass over the wound creates a powerful suction".  Really ??  And that glass is going to hold eight pints of blood?  Really??
• There is a third vampire in the castle scenes.  He is not named, not identified nor referred to in any way.  He has no lines of dialogue, he is seen simply sitting or walking around. There were some scenes edited out of the final version of the film, so possibly he was explained in one of those bits.  However, never fear!  I may have this figured out.  In the movie's final scene the same man is playing one of the actors putting props away, so he must have been pressed into service to play a vampire in the professor's plot.  But who was his character?  Relax...I think I have that too.  During the inquest the doctor says that a farmer had been killed and that he saw the same marks on the neck of that victim.  So maybe this guy was supposed to be the undead farmer.  Or maybe I just need to calm down, pour myself a drink, and not think about it any more. 

(from left to right) Luna, "Sir Karell", unknown vampire guy, Count Mora

-->

• Even before the murder, villagers are talking about the vampires that haunt the castle.  So that would mean Sir Karell and Irena were living in their home with a bunch of vampires and never noticed it.  Or we are supposed to think that Baron Otto has been running around for months faking vampire attacks.  Or someone else was doing it.  Or maybe there was …..I give up.  I have a vision of all the writers on this movie (and there were quite a few) being locked up in separate rooms.  Each of them was told to write a page of script.  When all the pages were assembled they were thrown up in the air, and however they came down, that’s how the movie was shot.  
  

The thing about this movie that is much more than simply annoying or confusing is the lame, inexcusable device that the “vampires” are just actors.  That kind of trick would be unthinkable today.  But even in 1935 it had to be a disappointment to many in the audience. 

-->

“Dracula” in 1931 was the first American talking horror film that did not have a logical non-supernatural finale.  It left us with the thought that vampires are very real.  Before that, Hollywood movies had reassured audiences that all was well and there was nothing that could not be explained.  The mystery could always be cleared up by showing us that the “monster” was some bad guy wearing a mask.  Horror films finally had started to grow up in 1931.   But “Mark of the Vampire” took a step backwards, treating the audience like children who need to be comforted at bedtime.  Phooey!!

MGM threw a lot of money and talent at this project in terms of director, photographer, production designer and actors. (I suppose you could look at this and imagine what Tod Browning could have done with “Dracula” in 1931 if he had the money and prestige of MGM behind him instead of Universal.)  In spite of the glossy look of the film-- it is beautifully photographed by James Wong Howe-- it remains one of the most disappointing, perhaps THE most disappointing movie for horror fans – old time horror fans at least.  The “twist” is so ridiculous it is insulting. 

However, if you can just sit back and watch it as a bit of movie history and not take it seriously; if you can think of it as a silly fairy tale, you might be able to enjoy it.  Having said all that, and this may sound unlikely, but I think that if you watch it for a second time, you will enjoy it more than you did the first time you viewed it. 

By the way, the funniest line in the movie is spoken by Inspector Neumann:

 "We all thought our vampire scheme was so simple, so certain of success.  We never thought we'd fail."

 Are you kidding???   “Inception” had a simpler plan. 

Obviously, if you have made it all the way through this review then you have either already seen “Mark of the Vampire”, or don’t care about knowing in advance a movie’s surprise ending.  But, as your faithful reviewer I promise to always let you know if there are any plot spoilers in what I write. 

Oh, by the way… Rosebud was his sled, Kevin Spacey was Keyser Söze, and Bruce Willis was already dead.  

Dracula - 1931

for the English language version

for the Spanish language version

-->

What can there possibly be to say about “Dracula” that hasn’t been said in the past 81 years?   

Universal Studios produced two versions of “Dracula” simultaneously in late 1930; the English version we know, and a version in Spanish to reach foreign audiences.  The same script and sets were used in both films.  The English speaking cast and crew filmed during the day, with the Spanish speaking cast and crew arriving later and filming all night.

          

Bela Lugosi, David Manners, Helen Chandler, Dwight Frye, Edward Van Sloan

Recently I watched both the English and the Spanish films, and even though it is not easy for me to be objective since it is one of my favorite movies, I will try.  This isn’t going to be a review exactly; it will be a response to criticism I have heard and read of the English movie, and praise I have heard about the superiority of the Spanish language version.  Also, I would like to relate some interesting tidbits about the movie and Bela Lugosi, as well as his interpretation of Dracula and a few reasons why it shines.

The English version starred Bela Lugosi, was photographed by Karl Freund and was directed by Tod Browning.  Remembered now mostly for “Dracula” and “Freaks”, Browning is also notable for his  partnership with Lon Chaney, Sr., directing him in many of the actor’s best films, such as; “The Unknown”, “The Unholy Three” and “West of Zanzibar”.  

Tod Browning (left) and Lon Chaney Sr. on set

                                 

George Melford was the director of the Spanish version.  He was a former actor turned director of many silents, including “The Sheik” with Rudolph Valentino.  At Universal he directed the Spanish language versions of “Dracula” and “The Cat and the Canary”.  Unable to speak Spanish, he communicated with his cast and crew via an interpreter.  Cinematography was by George Robinson.  This Dracula was played by Spanish stage actor Carlos Villarias (billed in the film credits for some reason as Carlos Villar).     

The creative and technical differences between the two movies are striking.   At best, the Spanish “Dracula” is a fairly interesting curiosity.  I wonder if the exaggerated hoopla about the film is in part because it was a “lost film” for many years.  A print finally turned up in Cuba

--> around 1990 and the restored film was released several years ago.  The anticipation and excitement about viewing a new interpretation of the beloved classic may have overcome common sense a bit.

Some have the opinion that the Melford film is technically superior to the Browning film, using more creative and imaginative photography and direction.  In my view Browning set just the right pace for the story with efficient and assured work.  Using a moody and atmospheric approach, he focuses our attention where it should be in each scene, and avoids action or dialogue not necessary to move the story forward.  Freund uses his camera to maintain a dark Gothic look and texture, especially in the Transylvania scenes.

Bela Lugosi

                                                            

The Melford work looks brighter and has less depth.   The direction is distracting and the effect literal or obvious, losing a lot of the mystery of the story.  The continuity is sloppy and the camera seems to move just to be moving.  Lupita Tovar, the lovely Mexican ingénue who played the female lead Eva Seward, has stated in interviews that at the start of their shift the Spanish crew looked at what the Americans had filmed each day.  She has said that different approaches and camera angles were used to make their film "better".  Well, “different” doesn’t always equal “better”. 

Carlos Villarias

                                                              

Lupita Tovar

                                                           

As for the performers, no one can seriously compare the two Draculas.  Where Lugosi is magnetic, Villarias is flat.  Where Lugosi is terrifying, Villarias is merely annoying.  Lugosi projects mastery and a dark sexual allure, Villarias mugs for the camera.  I find it interesting that most of the glowing reviews for the Spanish Dracula delicately fail to mention Villarias’ performance.  His realization of the ageless Count is absurdly overripe and amateurish. 

Carlos Villarias

                                                           

Lugosi, with Frances Dade as Lucy

                                           

Let me start by saying it took me several attempts to get through the Spanish language version because I kept falling asleep.  I think that says a lot about the film all by itself.  The three problems I want to address specifically are – unnecessary business and dialogue which slow the plot down, poor blocking, and atrocious continuity. 

The Spanish cut is 28 minutes longer than the English, mostly due to additional dialogue; dialogue which does not add anything important to the scenes, and sometimes undercuts the tension.  This happens throughout the movie and only drags down the action until it creaks to a halt.  Browning’s film moves along briskly in comparison.  For example, in Browning’s film the character Renfield has three scenes with Van Helsing which provide much exposition.  Dwight Frye as directed by Browning, conveys all of this in a short time.  (He does a great job with this character.  Frye was a versatile stage actor with a much greater range than he was allowed to show in movies.) Melford directs his Renfield in five talky scenes which go on much too long.  While the actor playing the Spanish Renfield is not bad, his character definitely wears out his welcome. 

                                                      Dwight Frye as Renfield

                                               Pablo Alvarez Rubio as Renfield

When Dracula and Renfield are upstairs in the castle discussing the lease and transportation arrangements, we see another example of the scene being drawn out by Melford to little effect while Browning films it efficiently yet creatively.

In the Spanish the director takes twice as long to get the business conversation completed.  We get to see Renfield tearing into a chicken, and then cutting his finger while slicing bread.  This brings on the blood lust in Dracula which is squelched by seeing the crucifix.  The Count’s reaction looks as if he is smelling something slightly unpleasant.  Up to now this bit is similar to the scene in Murnau’s “Nosferatu”.  Unfortunately, we do not have the fascinating Max Schreck to concentrate on.  Villarias has to offer Renfield two glasses of wine so we can finally get to the line about “I never drink….wine”  Villarias recites this line with a long pause before ‘wine’.  He leans into Renfield and raises his eyebrows just to make sure that he has made his point.  At least he didn’t nudge Renfield with his elbow.  There is an unnecessary camera set-up across the room for the rest of the statically filmed accommodation scene. 

Browning takes care of all this business in about half the time at the table, with Renfield cutting his finger on a paper clip while unfolding the lease.  When Dracula sees the blood the camera zooms in on his face.  We watch him slowly stalk Renfield and react violently to the sight of the cross.  At the line about not drinking wine, well…no one can do it better than Lugosi.  The meaning is all there with an almost imperceptible pause and emphasis on the word.  The rest of the business is conducted with the same camera set-up, still at the table, intercut with close-ups.  When Dracula takes his leave the camera moves gracefully around the table in a wide arc, staying focused on Renfield and emphasizing that he is surrounded by evil; alone, with no escape.   

But even worse than the slow pacing, the Spanish version has very poor blocking for the title character.  ‘Blocking’ is the term for how a director tells his actors where and how to move.  The first example of this is the scene of Dracula and Renfield meeting on the great staircase in the castle.  Where Lugosi looks like he is leading Renfield to his doom, Villarias looks like a maitre d' showing Renfield to a table.

In Melford’s version of this scene Dracula’s power is diluted by the blocking.  Dracula introduces himself after he and Renfield have approached each other.  They stand  together on the landing like neighbors getting to know each other and then walk up the stairs together.  This pedestrian decision places both characters literally on the same physical eye-to-eye level and makes us unconsciously think of them on the same level psychologically, undermining Dracula’s position as master.

Pablo Alvarez Rubio and Carlos Villarias as directed by Melford

Browning has Dracula slowly descend the stairs on the left before Renfield sees him.  Renfield backs up, turns and freezes at the bottom of the staircase as he sees Dracula coming toward him.  The director always has the Count standing or walking several steps above and looking down on Renfield.  This position keeps Dracula physically where he should be to keep the psychological levels unbalanced .  He looks down on Renfield, literally and figuratively, because he is the lord of the manor, he is the one who knows what is really going on.  His victim, Renfield, has no idea what is really going on and Browning keeps him on a lower, weaker level so he must continually look up. 

Lugosi and Frye directed by Browning

In the Spanish film, Renfield enters the great hall, swats at a bat, turns around and sees Dracula standing on the staircase.  The reveal is accomplished by a swooping crane shot up to the vampire.  Robinson’s camera move is used by some to demonstrate Melford’s superior craftsmanship as opposed to Browning’s supposedly stodgy direction.  Unfortunately, the camera movement is rather bumpy which spoils the effect.  (Compare this crane shot to Karl Freund’s smooth camerawork into Seward’s Sanitarium, different takes of which are used in both movies.) 

Browning keeps the attention focused on Lugosi’s powerful performance and isolates the helpless Renfield.  The camera stays tight on Lugosi when he delivers the iconic lines, “I am Dracula”, and the one about “the children of the night”.  For that line Melford moves the camera behind Villarias looking toward Renfield.  This is one of Dracula’s big moments and best lines– he deserves to have the camera looking at him alone– as he does with Browning.

The London concert hall scene is another example of Tod Browning's assured direction.  The lights come up as the orchestra takes a short intermission, allowing the characters to have their conversation.  And once again Browning has Dracula positioned correctly in relation to the others.

When the Count is standing in the hallway introducing himself to Dr. Seward he is looking up at Seward who is standing on the step into the box.  This blocking has been criticized as showing Dracula at a ridiculous disadvantage.  I disagree.  When Dracula is introducing himself, he is playing the supplicant; he is the outsider who must insinuate himself into this group.  Then Seward invites the Devil into his house so to speak by bringing him into the box for the rest of the introductions.  Dracula is now standing on the same level as Seward and the power starts to shift subtly.  Dr. Seward leaves, the two women remain seated throughout, and hapless Jonathan standing off to the side.  Browning keeps Lugosi standing and centered with the others looking up at him.  Dracula is aware of the power shift (he should, he is controlling it), but the others are not.  The Count is now master of the situation and will destroy or attempt to destroy all of them.  

The music begins again on the low gloomy chords of Schubert's Symphony No.8, the "Unfinished" when Dracula is delivering his final line: "There are far worse things awaiting man than death”.  The lights dim at the same time, obscuring and changing the faces of the innocents.  It is a very well done scene.

In the Spanish language version of this scene, Dracula introduces himself to Seward while they are both standing as equals in the hallway.  When Dracula enters the box he sits down after the introductions so he is on the same level with the others.  This makes him seem more ordinary and diminishes the power shift.  Additionally, the concert music continues non-stop throughout the scene.  This is ridiculously inconceivable.  At every theater I’ve ever been in, anyone having a conversation during the performance would be shushed by everyone around them, and if they didn’t shut up would be thrown out by the management.  The people in the other boxes must have been having a fit.  I’m surprised Dracula didn’t start unwrapping candy. 

Carmen Guerrero, Carlos Villarias, Lupita Tovar, Barry Norton

A tidbit I’ve always enjoyed about this movie is the poem that Lucy quotes. 

  “The abbey always reminds me of that old toast – the one about…              

                Lofty timbers, the walls around are bare,          

                Echoing to our laughter,

                As though the dead were there.

                Quaff a cup to the dead already!

                Hurrah for the next to die!”

I’ve always assumed that was something made up by the screenwriters.  It is actually a version of an old poem or song dating back at least to the early 1800’s.  Its exact origin and authorship are unknown and there are several variations.  Here is the first stanza of the version known as, ‘The Revel’, credited to Bartholomew Dowling, from “A Victorian Anthology 1837 – 1895” (ed.1895)

                     WE meet ’neath the sounding rafter,  

                      And the walls around are bare;

                     As they shout back our peals of laughter

                     It seems that the dead are there.

                     Then stand to your glasses, steady!

                     We drink in our comrades’ eyes:

                      One cup to the dead already  -

                      Hurrah for the next that dies!

Various forms have appeared in song as “Stand by Your Glasses”.  A version was sung by a group of WWI pilots in the 1930 Howard Hawks film, “The Dawn Patrol”, as well as in the 1938 remake. Here is a clip from the 1938 film starring Errol Flynn and David Niven.

The next scene is another example of clumsy blocking by Melford, but also an example of an alternate interpretation of the story draining the drama and suspense out of it.  It takes place in the Sewards’ drawing room when Dracula comes to call, and after Van Helsing has just examined the bite marks on Mina’s neck.   Browning has Harker ask “what could have made those marks?”  With no beat in between, the maid instantly announces “Count Dracula”, making it an obvious answer to Harker’s question. Melford simply has the maid announce Dracula with no question/answer tension. The drama of the Count’s entrance has disappeared.

Browning keeps Dracula at a dignified distance from each of the characters, except Mina – his next intended bride.  He particularly keeps Dracula and Van Helsing apart.  They look at each other, in alternate close-ups, as careful adversaries.  Melford films a long shot of the entire room with Dracula approaching Van Helsing and shaking his hand (!).  Again, it places the Count within the group in a prosaic and non-threatening attitude. So much for wary antagonists.

Introduction of the two adversaries as staged by George Melford

Continuity is another difference between the two movies.  Throughout his film Melford used outtakes or extra footage which had been shot by Browning.  Even though Villarias had a slight physical resemblance to Lugosi and was made up to look as much as possible like him, you can still recognize Lugosi in some long shots, e.g. in front of Lucy’s home, and in front of the theater.

He used Browning’s footage in the crypt when we first see Dracula.  This scene is beautifully handled by Browning and Freund.  It is bungled by Melford.  In Browning’s, the camera moves into the crypt to the coffin.  We see the lid opening and Lugosi’s hand reaching out.  There are various brief shots of the brides waking up and the small vermin crawling out of their holes.   The next cut is the camera coming in close to the standing Dracula and staying on him, his glowing eyes staring at us.  It’s a great scene, beautifully lit and photographed.   

Lugosi reaching for the snooze button

                                              

Melford inserts similar footage from Browning for the beginning of this scene.  We see Lugosi’s hand again, the same brides, etc.  Suddenly the set is completely different.  The coffin is now one of three wooden crates that are in front of a different wall.  Dracula appears out of his box in a brightly lit swirl of mist.  I’m not saying that it is a bad idea to use the mist as a different entrance for Dracula.  I’m saying that the use of a jarringly different set and props is bad.  It’s bad direction, bad editing and bad continuity.  It’s just plain bad.  By the way, this is one of the effects that gets the most praise from those who champion Melford’s imaginative direction and criticize Browning. 

Dracula (Villarias) has emerged from his, er...box, in a swirl of mist.  But where the heck are we??

After Renfield has been drugged and falls to the floor, Browning moves the three brides  toward him.  Dracula appears at the French doors, waves the women back with a slow sweep of his arm, and bends down to help himself to Renfield’s neck.  Melford shoots this scene from the outside of the doors looking in.  The three brides, not Dracula, attack Renfield.  Another distracting break in continuity is provided by Melford using different actresses to play the wives.  The Browning excerpts show the same three silent, pale,gliding phantasms we saw earlier in the crypt.  Melford’s actresses look like wild harpies with bared teeth and claws.  This is a different interpretation of the scene, but the glaring lack of continuity is appalling.   

                                            Dracula's three brides - by Tod Browning

Dracula's three brides, per Mr. Melford.  At least I think that's who they are supposed to be. 

Another of Browning’s outtakes used by Melford is in the scene with Renfield in Dracula’s coach on his way to the castle.  Instead of being spooky, it is laughable.  Renfield looks out the window and sees a large bat leading the horses.  But whoever was controlling the string must not have been paying attention.  The bat is flying forward, sideways, backwards.  I think it’s safe to say there was a reason Browning didn’t use that bit of film.  It was bad.  Just plain bad.

I admit there is one small scene that Browning used and probably should have re-shot; the opening scene in the carriage with Renfield and the rest of the passengers.  If you look closely at Dwight Frye he is obviously about to crack up and is trying to keep a straight face.  It only lasts a few seconds because he controls it and gets back into character.  But it always makes me laugh.

 

I have to say again, the difference between the performances of the two Draculas is mind-boggling.  After all, the title of the movie is, well…”Dracula”.  He is a pretty important character, and if the actor cannot fill the cape, then your movie collapses in on itself like a house of cards.  If your lead actor is shall we say, weak or miscast, then I don’t really care what camera angles you use -- your movie, shall we say, sucks.

Lugosi is unfailingly compelling, powerful, romantic, fierce, commanding.  The actor had played the role on stage a thousand times over the years.  He said in interviews that he had the habit of playing to the back of the theater, he “took it big” and he had to be re-trained to take it “small”.  He has been quoted as being grateful for Browning’s help in crafting his performance, directing him to play to the more intimate space of the camera.**
**from the commentary by Steve Haberman to the dvd release Dracula - 75th Anniversary Edition

-->

Villarias seems to be playing a stage character with his broad gestures, grimaces and wide staring eyes.  If George Melford gave him any good advice about to how to act for the camera it must have gone unheeded.  His Dracula is more like the deadly dull uncle with the bad jokes you try to stay away from at family reunions, or the grumpy waiter who doesn’t leave you alone and drives you nuts because he keeps trying to take your plate away before you are finished and  knows he will get a lousy tip.

Carlos Villarias.  Sadly, no longer available for children's parties. 

As I said earlier, I tried to be objective about both films.  The Lugosi version is much beloved by me.  However, I previously had the opinion that it was a little slow and stage-bound at times.  After watching it with an open mind, I appreciate it much more.  Tod Browning created a complete Gothic horror tale which still stands up today.  I approached the Spanish version as an interesting unknown quantity, and was expecting to be impressed after the praise I had heard.  I was severely disappointed. 

If you are a completist movie fan the Spanish “Dracula” might be a fun addition to your library.  Or, you could (like me), just turn down the lights, pop in the old familiar DVD, and then settle back on the couch to be thrilled and chilled once more by the brilliance of Tod Browning and, especially, Bela Lugosi.

Dracula.  Lugosi.  Any questions?

A FEW WORDS ABOUT BELA LUGOSI…

  ….and a few more tidbits about “Dracula”

I love Bela Lugosi.  He was an underused and underappreciated actor in his time.  For sure, he had his own personal demons to contend with, probably not to mention some bad business judgment.  But how I would love to be able to re-write history and see him given the chance to take more roles with more variety.  Remember him in the comedy “Ninotchka”?  In the 1931 Charlie Chan movie, "The Black Camel" he played a very interesting and sympathetic role as a red herring suspect who helps the detective solve the mystery. 

Lugosi applying his own make-up.

He bravely overcame his addiction to morphine when he checked himself into a rehabilitation hospital in the mid-1950’s.  Unfortunately, by this time the opportunity for good roles was long past.  He worked in the 1950’s with notoriously inept writer/director Ed Wood, Jr.  But if you look at the films they made together, “Bride of the Monster” or even “Plan Nine from Outer Space”, you see an actor who is giving his all -- even to a bad movie. But he is remembered best for “Dracula”, the role that was his triumph but also his albatross. 

He has been criticized for his strange line readings in “Dracula” which make some of his dialogue off kilter.  Let’s be real here.  Lugosi played this role so many times he could probably have recited it backwards.  Doesn’t it seem logical that in all that time, in rehersals and performances, he honed his line readings for exactly the effect he wanted?  The whole situation in "Dracula" is off kilter to say the least.  Renfield (and by extension the audience) is kept off balance by everything he sees and hears.  Certainly you can say that his Hungarian accented English makes very odd stresses on odd syllables, but it works brilliantly. 

In Transylvania, when he is leaving Renfield in his room for the night, Dracula says the very prosaic farewell, “Good-night, Mister Renfield”.  However, Lugosi speaks this line in anything but a prosaic manner.  Lugosi smiles sardonically and with a very slight raising of an eyebrow he delivers it as “Good-night, Mis-ter Renfield”.  It is my favorite line in the movie.  The emphasis on the word ‘mister’ and the rolling Rs, make it drip with arrogant and malignant  irony.  He is saying, “Yes, I will play the game for a bit longer.  We will pretend that you have any significance.  You are just where I want you.”  It is clear and yet not overdone.

Throughout the scene in Seward’s living room when Dracula pays a call on Mina, Lugosi is dignified and aristocratic. He underplays the evil and maintains a superficial benevolent civilty.  His arrogance and assuredness of his superior position are barely concealed under his mask of social grace.  Mina is obviously affected by his presence.  The undercurrent of sexual attraction and lust are there in her rapt gaze at Dracula and in her rapid breathing. 

Mina eyeing Jonathan after she has experienced Dracula's kiss. 

The moment when Van Helsing traps Dracula with the cigarette case mirror is an outstanding lesson in how an actor can convey a myriad of emotions in a few seconds while maintaining the character.  When the professor is speaking, Dracula is standing in front of him, relaxed and confident in his power.  There is nothing that can harm him and he looks down at the case in the professor’s hands calmly.  When it opens, Dracula with a sudden, instinctive, bestial violence smashes it to the floor with his hand.  He pauses – glares at Van Helsing while his face changes from murderous rage to sharp spiked hatred.  Slowly he gains control.  When he realizes that he has been tricked and exposed, a very small, very brief cloud of sadness seems to pass over his face.  It’s as if in that micro-split second we see volumes.  He is aware of Van Helsing as an astute scientist, and so if Van Helsing is on to him, not only is his goose cooked but it is about to be sliced and served. 

He regains a measure of civility and outward calm while he apologizes to Dr. Seward.  With one more if-looks-could-kill glance at Van Helsing, he turns to walk out of the room.  He stops and speaks his line to the professor, “For one who has not lived even a single lifetime, you are a wise man, Van Helsing”.  Now he has returned completely to the elegant character he was when the scene started, except there is an edge of hatred and yet respect for his enemy.  All of the above occurs just over 60 seconds.  It is an exceptional performance.  

Compare, if you want to, the scene done by Lugosi to the very inferior take in the Spanish version.  Carlos Villarias as the Count is a carnival attraction compared to the polished Hungarian actor.  It takes him several seconds to look into the mirror and react to it.  How long should it take?!  It makes Dracula look incompetent. 

One more tidbit about Lugosi:  

His face was used as the model for the face of the devil in the ‘Night on Bald Mountain’ segment of the Disney movie “Fantasia”. 

And finally,…

The original English film had a final curtain speech by Edward Van Sloan.  It is similar to the pre-curtain speech he delivers before the start of “Frankenstein”.  It was removed from the film after 1938 when the Hollywood Production Code was in full force.  The Code protected the public from all sorts of nasty things in movies, like any hint of sex, violence, adult themes, or religious controversy.  Or, the idea that vampires could really exist. 

             “Just a moment, Ladies and Gentlemen, just a word before you go.

            We hope the memories of Dracula won’t give you bad dreams.  So just

             a word of reassurance.  When you get home tonight, and the lights are

             turned out, and you’re afraid to look behind the curtains, and you dread

             to see a face appear at the window, well…just pull yourself together.

             And remember, after all...there ARE such things.” 

Prints of old films, considered lost, are still being found.  I have hope that this delightful bit of film will be discovered someday in someone’s vault and restored.

Last and certainly not least, I couldn't stop before adding this clip of film history.  It documents the meeting of two show biz legends: