Day 2: DRACULA (1931)

SOME INTRODUCTORY REMARKS...

Throughout this month my particular Halloween genre will be the classic Universal horror films, specifically, the Dracula and Frankenstein series. * In elementary school, the library had two or three volumes on early horror films for no discernible reason, which I checked out multiple times each, searing their importance into my still not fully developed brain before I even had a chance to view them. (The books also covered the Hammer films of the 60's/70's but Pauly will be discussing some of those.) More than films in and of themselves, I understood them as pieces of history or influences on later artworks.

My first cinema exposure to these films--aside from the re-imaginings in comic books and on television--was actually the 80's teen flick THE MONSTER SQUAD, which drew heavily on these series, as well as Creature from the Black Lagoon, the Wolfman, the Mummy, and for good measure, Nazis. Even then, I did not directly approach viewing these classics. Before FRANKENSTEIN itself was Mel Brooks' YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN and about the first third of Mary Shelly's novel; I did not seek out BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN until after viewing the magnificent GODS AND MONSTERS. DRACULA was first seen only after viewing Mel Brooks' under-appreciated (!) DRACULA: DEAD AND LOVING IT and reading Bram Stoker's novel. The major elements had so infiltrated the pop culture I didn't feel the need to rush myself.

When it was finally time to watch them in their entirety, along with other films from the era, especially the Lon Cheney/Lon Cheney, Jr. vehicles, there was both much to like and much to bore me. Quite simply, horror has evolved a great deal since that era. It has also been freed of many of the Hays' Code era restrictions, which limited what could be done. (In other words, censorship.) Which brings me to the first film I'm going to review, Tod Browning's DRACULA (1931), a quintessentially erotic story stripped** of all sexual elements.

FINALLY, A REVIEW...

There's probably loads of academic work on the subject, but vampire myths in all cultures are rife with sexual overtones, especially fear/sexual desire of The Other. Its not a coincidence that Stoker's novel was published in repressed England and featured a blood-sucker from the Slavic/Asian East who held a strange power over women. Although this film stars Bela Lugosi, a Hungarian, I find it difficult to determine anything even remotely sexualized about either his performance or appearance. If they were aware of the sublimed sexuality of the source material, it does not seem like they made any effort whatsoever to translate that to the screen.

The element more apparent in this film is pure fear of the unknown, the inherent discomfort of being out of one's element. The film begins with an Englishman visiting Dracula's castle, interacting with odd locals, isolated in the territory of another without the comforts of England. Dialogue pointedly contrasts Christian values with the evil presence we are to encounter. Dracula thrives at night because that's when creatures go bump, not uglies. (Give it a moment. Get it yet? Good.)

The feminine attraction to Dracula is present, of course, but in the same inexplicable and chaste manner as in any romance from the era. It acts as a plot device, devoid of much content or deeper meaning. This is especially disappointing in contrast to the way Browning pressed against taboos in in the far superior FREAKS (1932). You also have the men of the film suspicious of the good Count, but not on account of jealous lovers' envy, but because they know from quite early on that he may be a vampire. The closest the film comes to delving into this fertile psychological territory are some minor glimpses of Mina Seward/Harker as a "fallen women" tainted by Dracula's touch, who mustn't be kissed or loved any longer by her beau, but I suspect that wishful thinking on my part more than anything else. I think I see hints of Van Helsing as a eunuch, the "good" mirror image*** of Dracula as an Eastern The Other, but again, probably wishful thinking.

"Listen to them. Children of the night. What music they make." It sends chills up my spine, though purely of the eerie, non-erotic variety. Its one of the few times that Legosi's stilted delivery works most effectively. (See also: "I never drink. Wine." and "There are far worse things. Awaiting man. Than. Death.") Though, to be fair, perhaps that same off-putting delivery enhances the general aura. Dracula is not one of us mere mortals; he'll take an unsettling pause whenever he damn well pleases.

Browning also makes spectacular use of light and shadow, as well as littering the landscape with askew crosses and a relentless fog. The menace is present in every frame, even when Dracula himself is absent.

Despite being somewhat anti-climactic,**** overall, I think the film succeeds beyond expectations... if you factor in the limitations of the era. A film freed of content restrictions, but stopping short of overindulgence with the sexual themes (e.g. Coppola's film, INTERVIEW WITH A VAMPIRE or basically every modern depiction), would be my ideal version of the Dracula myth. Alas, I have yet to find that film.

OVERALL: **/5 but ****/5 in terms of historical relevance

THE APPENDICES YOU REQUESTED...

* My spellcheck accepts Frankenstein but not Dracula as correct. I can only assume this is because 'Frankenstein' is derived from German and 'Dracula' from Romanian. The English language is heavily influenced by German, whereas Romanian is a Latin-derived 'romance language' which exerts a smaller influence in English. That's a wild guess of an explanation with some legitimate linguistic foundation, of course, but how amazing would it be if I was actually correct?

** Pun very much intended. Heck, I've even got puns you can't see going on here; I drank a Bloody Mary while watching the film. I briefly considered some red wine, a Coppola Cabernet Sauvignon, but decided to hold off on that if and until I decided to review Coppola's much more faithful adaptation of the novel. For the record, I'm not sure that film fares any better than this one in terms of overall quality, even if it all about the sex at the expense of the horror elements.

*** Another pun, yes, but unavoidable in this case.

**** Avoidable pun, but correct terminology.

NOTE: Future reviews, God willing, will not match the length of this piece.