Dracula (1931) – 3/5

Armed to the teeth

Here we have „Dracula“ from the year 1931, so this film will have its 100th anniversary in less than a decade now already. I don’t think there needs to be a lot explained in terms of the title character. Everybody knows the world’s most famous vampire and no matter if you have seen Bela Lugosi here or Kinski, Oldman, Lee or others in other productions, you will definitely know what this is about. At least about the vampirism component in general. This is not a long film by any means, stays under 75 minutes even, but it has turned into a bit of a classic over the years. Let’s take a look at the people who made this one: The director is Tod (Death?) Browning and for him, just like for writer Hamilton Deane, this will always be a contender for most famous film from his body of work. There are others. Apparently, Karl Freund was an uncredited co-director here as well and he became an Oscar winner later on in the cinematography department. Not for this film here of course. John L. Balderston also scored some success with the Oscars later on and he is another co-writer. Pretty much no huge surprise they did not score any Oscar recognition here because this film was from the time when the Oscars hardly even existed. Even better that they are still there nowadays and probably will be for many more decades if not centuries. The base material is of course by Bram Stoker and he did not live to see and realize how much of a success his work would be. How Dracula would be a factor in a triple-digit amount of films. He died about a decade before the first Dracula film(s) got made. This also includes the German production „Nosferatu“ from the silent film days. That was one of the earliest. This one here from the early 1930s is not a silent film anymore. Actually, I was even surprised how much talking there was at times, especially coming from the character of Van Helsing, Dracula’s main antagonist in all these films you could say. But it is a black-and-white movie of course. Nobody can be surprised there at all.

I already mentioned a German production, but while this one here is an American production that is mostly in the English language, you will find the name of Carl Laemmle from Germany originally on the film’s poster. Germany was just really defining and omnipresent in terms of film back then, especially in terms of horror film. Things changed when the 3rd Reich got going, sadly not for the better. I got to watch this film on the occasion of a vampire-themed retrospective and I found it really nice they are also showing such old films, especially as for me this was the first time ever I got to watch this movie. I saw Herzog’s Nosferatu film some time ago and also the one I mentioned earlier that stars Gary Oldman and it is surely difficult to compare these, but if I had to, then I would say that I deem this film here inferior to the other ones. I cannot elaborate on Stoker’s original material, but there are of course crucial differences. I already stated that this film here is really short. As a consequence, there is no introduction in Harker’s hometown, but we are right in the middle of one character traveling to Dracula’s castle. And this character here is Renfield and not Harker for a change. This was interesting and I did not expect it. As a consequence, Renfield was almost a bigger character than Harker here you could say and I kinda applaud Dwight Frye for what he did with the character, probably my favorite performance from the entire film and there are some impressive shades to his performance because he plays kinda two characters in one here with the drastic change that happens to the character of Renfield in the final stages of his stay at Dracula’s castle. I also liked the Renfield character in Herzog’s movie, so this one always has something to offer, no matter if he is the one who travels to (what is now) Romania or if it is Harker going on the trip. Bela Lugosi plays the title character here and maybe this is also the film he will always be most remembered for, even if he has been in so many movies throughout his career, also some not so great films at times. I think he was haunting, but it was just a difficult role and the script did not really offer him to shine. In the end, he is also defeated almost too easily when the character of Van Helsing takes care of him and kills him in his sleep.

We also see how Mina then seems alright again, although we cannot be 100% sure that she will not transform, but what happens there was maybe the closest to a happy ending you could get in a Dracula movie. The bad guy is dead and the girl and her man are walking up the stairs. This ending came really abrupt though. I did not at all expect the closing credits to show up when they did, even if I knew this was not a long film by any means. Another thing to add here is the really nice music at the start, namely Tschaikowski’s Swan Lake. Always a welcome inclusion. That was a pleasure for the ears and even if this had nothing to do with dialogues or sound effects, they truly made the most use of the new technique that gave us sound films with this inclusion. So this was really easy on the ears, but also there was a lot really easy on the eyes, such as almost every female actor/character in here. This does not only include Frances Dade who played Lucy or Helen Chandler (Mina), but also all the others like Bunny Beatty (cool name) who played the flower girl in one scene and really should have been credited or also the three wives of Dracula that we see on two or three occasions. These wives were also included in the Oldman movie. In contrast to that, Herzog decided to do without them if I remember correctly in order to focus more on the expression of Nosferatu’s solitude and even the idea that the castle might not factually exist. There is a crucial key difference to this film here compared to the Oldman movie. With the latter, they really went all in in terms of set decorations. Here the place was as bleak as it gets. Finally, a parallel to Herzog. Oh and were there really armadillos running around in the castle on one occasion relatively early? They are so cute! There was also one very specific quote in this very old film and that was when Lugosi/Dracula explained that there’s worse things than dying that can happen to humans. Of course, he was referring to his own fate. Oldman said the same on one occasion. I am not sure why I remember this.

What I also remember from this film here is that they included many references to items that vampires cannot deal with. That harm them. The best example is the Cross and as soon as Dracula saw it somewhere, he had to take a step back and look elsewhere. Then there is a specific herb that Mina is supposed to have as close to her as it gets to make sure she cannot be attacked by Dracula himself. Mirrors are also depicted as something evil, not really because they cause suffering to Dracula, but because they reveal who he really is. This scene when we see all the characters in the reflection, but Dracula is not depicted was quite interesting. Van Helsing also gives it a really aggressive approach here in dealing with the evil master when he is ready to expose him in the presence of witnesses. He is not scared of him at all because he knows he carries something with him in his pocket that helps him that he is not easily attacked. There was also a really nice comment from Dracula when he says something like how Helsing is pretty smart given the fact that he has not even lived one lifetime. Another reference where Dracula talks about himself of course. Then there is the component of animals. We do not get a ship full of rats that result in almost everybody in the city dying, but we see Dracula after having transformed into a bat and there is also talk about how he can transform into a wolf. The latter we do not see, but the bat we see quite a few times. Mina also says on one occasion that this is really a big and strong and healthy bat or so and we know that what we see there is the vampire in disguise who just cannot stay away from her, even after he makes sure he gets away as fast as he can from the guys including Helsing who already understood what was going on at that point. Also roughly around that time, from this scene, there was a moment that was a bit of foreshadowing when we hear a question, slightly rhetorical, slightly profound, and Dracula is mentioned in the next sentence, not as the official answer to this question (like who would do such a thing), but because he shows up that very moment and is greeted or his name is announced. I quite liked this moment. Absolutely no coincidence.

Apart from that, we can say that the Dracula version here is maybe not as strong as in other adaptations of Stoker’s work, especially the two I was already talking about. Even Kinski’s old and ailing Dracula seemed to possess more power. Also without the animal transformations. A great deal about this 1931 film from today’s perspective was also about funny moments like when Mina is ready to bite another character, I think it was her man even. I am sure it was not meant funny at all back then when this film got made, but like full-on drama, but it is always a question how a film ends up aging over the years. Or decades in this very case we have here. I would say it has aged alright. Surely you will be more entertained than scared now, but that is fine. I was glad I got to see the movie on the big screen a few nights ago and again props to all those who make screenings of classics possible. As a consequence, I was glad that there were really many people in the crowd, so they will keep showing more old films. I would still say that for me this is closer to a weak/forgettable film than to a great film, but right now calling it „decent“ seems pretty accurate. I also learned that Lugosi/Dracula does not blink once in this film. All in all, it’s a thumbs-up from me and I suggest you go check it out.