This episode is a summary and review of the 1931 motion picture of Dracula. The episode talks about some of the dynamics and film history surrounding the filming, and offers some opinion from a current viewpoint. The episode ends with a section from Bram Stoker’s book - pointing out that Stoker (like Poe) could create vivid images in your mind - images that would be all but impossible for a film to convey.
This episode is a summary and review of the 1931 motion picture of Dracula. The episode talks about some of the dynamics and film history surrounding the filming, and offers some opinion from a current viewpoint. The episode ends with a section from Bram Stoker’s book - pointing out that Stoker (like Poe) could create vivid images in your mind - images that would be all but impossible for a film to convey.
00:00 Intro
Welcome to Celebrate Poe - This is episode seventy nine - Children of the Night. The opening melody is Edgar Allan Poe’s favorite song - Come Rest in This Bosom. This episode deals with the first approved motion picture version of Dracula - the 1931 Universal production. Next week this podcast looks at the 1926 German masterpiece, Nosferatu - and what a movie Nosferatu is!
I originally intended to have Children of the Night up - ready to downlight on Sunday at midnight - but I have been having computer problems - and you know how that can bring everything a standstill.
Now, I initially thought I would have an episode dealing with the 1926 Nosferatu having an episosde dealing the 1931 Dracula. My simplistic reasoning was that it made more sense to initially deal with the 1926 version because it was filmed first. And I went back and forth sometimes deciding that it was logical to start with Nosferatu, and sometimes that I should start with the 1931 Dracula because in many ways it is closer to Bram Stoker’s masterpiece.
But for most of us - at least in the United States - the 1931 Dracula Universal Studios is frequently the version think of when we think of Dracula. For many of us, our first and often lasting impressions of Dracula came from the 1931 movie - as dated as it might be.
You may remember from Episode 55 that Universal Studios had produced Dracula duing the early part of the year 1931 and had a real success on their hands. Hoping that the success of Dracula wasn’t a fluke, they invested in Frankenstein and began a series of monster movies.
Bram Stoker’s Dracula proved to be a natural for adaptations and spin-offs, and the 1931 film version of Bram Stoker’s masterpiece was the first English language motion picture version. As mentioned in episode 76,, The Manipulative Lover, Bram Stoker himself wrote a stage version. It is believed that Stoker wanted Henry Irving to play Dracula, but Irving rudely dismissed the play. It seems that Irving was the boss from hell, and maybe the manipulative and evil character of Dracula was a little too close for comfort. There was a silent movie film called Drakula’s Death - that’s spelled D R A K U L A - or Dracula with a K - released in 1921 in Hungary, but no copies remain. This version used a totally different plot, but borrowed the name - kinda. In 1924 in London, Hamilton Deane wrote an authorised stage version of the book that pared down both plot and characters. The critics hated it, but the play was a real hit with the public. It was this version where we first get the image of a vampire as a suave and somewhat charismatic man-about-town in a black cape.
This is in contrast to the hideous, rat-like image of the vampire in Nosferatu played by Max Schreck. I guess the best word for Schreck’s Dracula is repulsive. When I was a kid, I remember seeing a few images of Schreck as Dracula, and it gave me nightmares for weeks.
04:16 A Charming Dracula?
But back to the almost charming Dracula - when Dracula reached Broadway in 1927, it provided a big break for a Hungarian actor by the name of Bela Basko. He later changed his name to Bela Lugosi, and become quite a success as a suave, Hungarian gentleman Dracula. By today’s standards, the play is kinda stagey, melodramatic, and sometimes tedious. Then there are moments, such as the one when Dracula’s reaction to the sound of wolves howling is “Listen to them, the children of the night. What music they make!” Then you experience a moment when chills run up and down your spine.
Universal orginally planned to make a movie of Dracula that was more faithful to Stoker’s novel - and I presume with a higher budget - but the Great Depression nipped that in the bud. So the film had to be simplified.
There was also problems with finding a star. They originally planned to have Lon Chaney play Dracula AND the man who figures him out - Abraham Van Helsing. Chaney was the child of deaf parents, and really excelled at the visual. He had played the Phantom in the original The Phantom of the Opera.
Perhaps you are familar with the scene where Lon Chaney as the Phantom first unmasks himself while playing the organ to Christine behind him. That visual is the stuff that nightmares are made of.
Chaney was a master of makeup and designing his own memorable appearances, so it would have been interesing to have seen his choice of makeup. Unfortunately, Lon Chaney died of cancer before production began, and Universal chose Bela Lugosi to play Dracula. Of course, Lugosi had played Dracula hundreds of times on Broadway, and was certainly familar with the part. And perhaps most important to Universal was the fact that Lugosi was willing to work for just a few hundred dollars a week - important to the studio duing the Depression.
Universal Studios was taking a big gamble with Dracula - especially in the middle of a financial depression. Would an American audience accept a serious full length chiller? This was a horror story with little or no comic relief. But Dracula turned out to be a significant box office success.
07:04 Movie premiere
The movie premiered at the Roxy Theatre in New York City on February 1931, and was released two days later throughout the United States. I know it might be hard for us to imagine today, but several newspapers reported that audience members fainted in shock at the horror they witnessed on screen. Of course, Universal Studios played up such scares - the news of the scares was great publicity. Kinda similar to Universal later publicizing audience members fainting at the terror in another Universal movie that year - Frankenstein. Within 48 hours of the movie’s opening at New York's Roxy Theatre, it had sold 50,000 tickets - eventually culminating in a $700,000 profit. This was the largest of Universal's 1931 releases.
The film was generally well received by the critics. Mordaunt Hall of The New York Times called it "the best of the many mystery films” and characterized Todd Browning's direction as “imaginative.” Variety praised the film for its "remarkably effective background of creepy atmosphere" and wrote, "It is difficult to think of anybody who could quite match the performance in the vampire part of Bela Lugosi, even to the faint flavor of foreign speech that fits so neatly”. Film Daily declared the film "a fine melodrama" and remarked that Lugosi had created "one of the most unique and powerful roles of the screen". Time called it "an exciting melodrama, not as good as it ought to be but a cut above the ordinary trapdoor-and-winding-sheet type of mystery film". John Mosher of The New Yorker wrote a negative review, remarking that "there is no real illusion in the picture" and "this whole vampire business falls pretty flat”. The Chicago Tribune did not think the film was as scary as the stage version, calling its framework "too obvious" and "its attempts to frighten too evident", but still concluded that it was "quite a satisfactory thriller”.
Now while I would be among the first to admit that the 1931 Dracula was an important movie, I believe it does have significant defects. To be fair, it might be instructive to look at some of the dynamics surrounding the movie. There was certainly enough subject matter in Bram Stoker’s novel - in fact there was so much that some subplots had to shortened or cut out. I am in awe of the incredible technology that was used for the recent BBC version - technology that just didn’t exist in 1931 - in the 1931 version there are some impressive scenes, but there are also scenes where the viewer sees a noticeable rubber bat on a string.
10:42 Director Todd Browning
The director, Todd Browning, had directed 10 silent movies with Lon Chaney at MGM, and it is said that he did not feel totally comfortable with sound movies. Unfortunately the 1931 Dracula was produced during that clumsy period between silent movies and the beginning of talkies. And Todd Browning was not the most stable of people. Film historican Jon Towlson wrote in 2017, a summation of Browning’s character that could have been applied to the young Edgar Allan Poe - except for the fast cars and circus. Although you might substitute the theatre and literature in Poe’s early life for the circus in Browning’s life - Anyway -
Towlson wrote: Todd Browning was ‘a non-conformist within his family, the alternative society of the circus shaped his disdain for normal mainstream society... circus life, for Browning, represented a flight from conventional lifestyles and responsibilities, which later manifested itself in a love of liquor, gambling and fast cars
Browning's career almost ended when, intoxicated, he drove his vehicle into a railroad crossing and collided with a locomotive. He and one of the passengers suffered numerous injuries. Another passenger was killed almost instantly. Film historian Jon Towlson notes about Todd Browning - again like Poe - that "alcoholism was to contribute to a major trauma in Browning's personal life that would shape his thematic obsessions...After 1915, Browning began to direct his traumatic experience into his work – radically reshaping it in the process.”
12:46
Karl Freund as cinematographer It has been said that because of this unease with sound, Browning often deferred to the cinematographer, Karl Freund - that is spelled F R E U N D - and pronounced almost like friend.
Now, I think it might be really helpful to look at the role of the cinematographer a little bit closer. A cinematographer is simply the director of photography. The cinematographer is the chief of the camera and light crews. He or she is responsible for making artistic and technical decisions related to the image.
The backgrounds for the scenes in Dracula filmed in Dracula’s castle, the surrounding mountains, and Castle dungeon were designed by Karl Freund, who was basically responsible for the “look” of the film.
But getting back to the 1931 Dracula, I think that the all-too frequent stagey portions where the cast is just sitting around talking - really slow the movie down. Karl Freud had done some work with German film director, Franz Murnau, the director of Nosferatu - and Nosferatu is the subject of the next podcast episode. Karl Freund had done the cinematography for a variety of movies, including Metropolis in 1927 and The Mummy two years later. He also invented the unchained camera - and I can’t emphasize the importance of this enough. This was a revolution in early film because for the first time, the camera was free of the tripod and could move around the set.
In the 1950’s, Desi Arnaz at Desilu convinced Karl Freund to be the cinimatographer for the television series I Love Lucy. He not only used his talents as a cinematographer to make the series shine - but designed what is called a flat lighting system for shooting systems. Basically this system covers the set in light - eliminating any shadows - and allowing the use of three moving cameras without having to modify the lighting between shots.
This made it practical to use cameras for shows filmed in front of a live audience. Of course that system began with I Love Lucy, and is still used - right on up to Will and Grace, Seinfield, Friends, and the Late Show with Stephen Colbert, among others.
Browning achieved a pervasively creepy atmosphere with long periods of silence and stylised movement, massive, decayed staircases, dank dungeons, giant spider webs, squeaking bats, howling wolves, and Lugosi's tortured delivery
16:04 Bela Lugosi and Dwight Frye
The 1931 film version of Dracula DOES cut out some of the many subplots that are in the 400 page plus novel - but it still seems to drag at the end. I think the two saving graces are Bela Lugosi and the actor who plays Renfield. Lugosi has an unaturalness that seems perfect for the part. He tries to come off as a man-about-town, but has a creepiness in his attempts at being charming. He was so memorable in the part that he was destined to basically play variations of the role of Dracula for the rest of his life. And when Bela Lugosi died in real life, he was buried in his cape.
The other actor who I believe towers over everone else in the move - with the possible exception of Bela Lugosi is Dwight Frye. Frye, playing Renfield, intially visits Dracula at his castle to make the necessary arrangments for Dracula to move to England.
In the book, Jonathan Harker, initiallly visits Dracula for his English firm.
But in the 1931 film, Renfield is introduced as a sincere and reasonable character at first. His encounter with the vampire turns him in a wild-eyed, raving lunatic. It’s very effective to have Renfield as the visitor to Dracula because we get to see Renfield sane and even business like - at least at first. That makes his descent into madness that much more powerful - the contrast between being a proper English gentleman and an out of control, raving maniac. Unlike the book, our first introduction to Renfield is NOT as an insane patient in a mental hospital - we see the REASON for his insanity.
Dwight Frye - who also played Fritz in Frankenstein never got the appreciation he deserved. In Dracula, he chews up the scenery. I think it is interesting that Alice Cooper wrote and recorded a song entitled “The Ballad of Dwight Frye. Now Frye’s last name is spelled F - R - Y - E but Cooper intentionally dropped the last e - possibly alluding to the concept that Dwight Frye was so over the top that he had to be “fried.” When the song was performed onstage, Alice Cooper would be in a straitjacket trying to escape. Then he finally breaking free at the end of the song to strangle the nurse with the ties.
19:12 Conveying images versus language
As I have mentioned before the movie version is forced to leave out some of the most dramatic sections of the novel, Dracula. A motion picture - even today - would have difficulty conveying images that words in a book can form in your mind. And we will later see this to a great extent with Edgar Allan Poe - there ARE film adaptations of his works that are better than others, but most adaptations of his works are far inferior. It is a tribute to Poe’s genius that he was able to evoke such strong images in your mind solely through the use of language.
But getting back to Dracula - For example, in the 1931 film, of Dracula, the vivid imagery conveyed by the three sinister women is just not there. Sure, the movie briefly shows three mysterious women dressed in white and that is all - but it is nothing like the emotional depicture of the three women in the book as they enter the room in which Johnathan Harker is sleeping. I KNOW I have read portions of the section previously but even if you have heard it before - imagine how you, as a filmaker, would convey the narrative of the three women approaching Johnathan Harker - or Renfield character? How much of the incident would you show? What approach would you take? How would you show the emotions felt by Johnathan? How would you show the yearing felt by the three women?
Do you feel there is a homoerotic subtext in Dracula’s anger and his line “How dare you touch him, any of you? How dare you cast eyes on him when I had forbidden it? And in the 1930’s how much would you have been able to show or even imply?
The sense of sleep was upon me, and with it the obstinacy which sleep brings. The soft moonlight soothed, and the wide expanse without gave a sense of freedom which refreshed me. I determined not to return to-night to the gloom-haunted rooms, but to sleep here, where, of old, ladies had sat and sung and lived sweet lives whilst their gentle breasts were sad for their menfolk away in the midst of remorseless wars. I drew a great couch out of its place near the corner, so that as I lay, I could look at the lovely view to east and south, and unthinking of and uncaring for the dust, composed myself for sleep. I suppose I must have fallen asleep; I hope so, but I fear, for all that followed was startlingly real—so real that now sitting here in the broad, full sunlight of the morning, I cannot in the least believe that it was all sleep.
I was not alone. The room was the same, unchanged in any way since I came into it; I could see along the floor, in the brilliant moonlight, my own footsteps marked where I had disturbed the long accumulation of dust. In the moonlight opposite me were three young women, ladies by their dress and manner. I thought at the time that I must be dreaming when I saw them, for, though the moonlight was behind them, they threw no shadow on the floor. They came close to me, and looked at me for some time, and then whispered together. Two were dark, and had high aquiline noses, like the Count, and great dark, piercing eyes that seemed to be almost red when contrasted with the pale yellow moon. The other was fair, as fair as can be, with great wavy masses of golden hair and eyes like pale sapphires. I seemed somehow to know her face, and to know it in connection with some dreamy fear, but I could not recollect at the moment how or where. All three had brilliant white teeth that shone like pearls against the ruby of their voluptuous lips. There was something about them that made me uneasy, some longing and at the same time some deadly fear. I felt in my heart a wicked, burning desire that they would kiss me with those red lips. It is not good to note this down, lest some day it should meet Mina’s eyes and cause her pain; but it is the truth. They whispered together, and then they all three laughed—such a silvery, musical laugh, but as hard as though the sound never could have come through the softness of human lips. It was like the intolerable, tingling sweetness of water-glasses when played on by a cunning hand. The fair girl shook her head coquettishly, and the other two urged her on. One said:—
“Go on! You are first, and we shall follow; yours is the right to begin.” The other added:—
“He is young and strong; there are kisses for us all.” I lay quiet, looking out under my eyelashes in an agony of delightful anticipation. The fair girl advanced and bent over me till I could feel the movement of her breath upon me. Sweet it was in one sense, honey-sweet, and sent the same tingling through the nerves as her voice, but with a bitter underlying the sweet, a bitter offensiveness, as one smells in blood.
I was afraid to raise my eyelids, but looked out and saw perfectly under the lashes. The girl went on her knees, and bent over me, simply gloating. There was a deliberate voluptuousness which was both thrilling and repulsive, and as she arched her neck she actually licked her lips like an animal, till I could see in the moonlight the moisture shining on the scarlet lips and on the red tongue as it lapped the white sharp teeth. Lower and lower went her head as the lips went below the range of my mouth and chin and seemed about to fasten on my throat. Then she paused, and I could hear the churning sound of her tongue as it licked her teeth and lips, and could feel the hot breath on my neck. Then the skin of my throat began to tingle as one’s flesh does when the hand that is to tickle it approaches nearer—nearer. I could feel the soft, shivering touch of the lips on the super-sensitive skin of my throat, and the hard dents of two sharp teeth, just touching and pausing there. I closed my eyes in a languorous ecstasy and waited—waited with beating heart.
But at that instant, another sensation swept through me as quick as lightning. I was conscious of the presence of the Count, and of his being as if lapped in a storm of fury. As my eyes opened involuntarily I saw his strong hand grasp the slender neck of the fair woman and with giant’s power draw it back, the blue eyes transformed with fury, the white teeth champing with rage, and the fair cheeks blazing red with passion. But the Count! Never did I imagine such wrath and fury, even to the demons of the pit. His eyes were positively blazing. The red light in them was lurid, as if the flames of hell-fire blazed behind them. His face was deathly pale, and the lines of it were hard like drawn wires; the thick eyebrows that met over the nose now seemed like a heaving bar of white-hot metal. With a fierce sweep of his arm, he hurled the woman from him, and then motioned to the others, as though he were beating them back; it was the same imperious gesture that I had seen used to the wolves. In a voice which, though low and almost in a whisper seemed to cut through the air and then ring round the room he said:—
“How dare you touch him, any of you? How dare you cast eyes on him when I had forbidden it? Back, I tell you all! This man belongs to me! Beware how you meddle with him, or you’ll have to deal with me.” The fair girl, with a laugh of ribald coquetry, turned to answer him:—
“You yourself never loved; you never love!” On this the other women joined, and such a mirthless, hard, soulless laughter rang through the room that it almost made me faint to hear; it seemed like the pleasure of fiends. Then the Count turned, after looking at my face attentively, and said in a soft whisper:—
“Yes, I too can love; you yourselves can tell it from the past. Is it not so? Well, now I promise you that when I am done with him you shall kiss him at your will. Now go! go! I must awaken him, for there is work to be done.”
“Are we to have nothing to-night?” said one of them, with a low laugh, as she pointed to the bag which he had thrown upon the floor, and which moved as though there were some living thing within it.
For answer he nodded his head. One of the women jumped forward and opened it. If my ears did not deceive me there was a gasp and a low wail, as of a half-smothered child. The women closed round, whilst I was aghast with horror; but as I looked they disappeared, and with them the dreadful bag. There was no door near them, and they could not have passed me without my noticing. They simply seemed to fade into the rays of the moonlight and pass out through the window, for I could see outside the dim, shadowy forms for a moment before they entirely faded away.Then the horror overcame me, and I sank down unconscious.
30:46 Summary
So in conclusion, the 1931 version of Dracula does have a definite historical significance in the history of film. Dracula has become widely regarded as a classic of it genre, and of its era. It was even selected for preservation in the U.S. National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant”
To many film lovers and critics, Lugosi's portrayal is widely regarded as the definitive Dracula. Lugosi had a powerful presence and authority on-screen. The slow, deliberate pacing of his performance ("I bid you… welcome!" and "I never drink… wine!") gave his Dracula the air of a walking, talking corpse. That image might have terrified audiences of the time.
But to be personally honest, I thought the movie was rather boring. I am sure for the time, it might have been scary, and the outdoor scenes (such as the mountains) or wide expansive shots of the indoors (such as those in Dracula’s castle) are a feast for the eyes. But overall - and I know this is partially because of the times - possibly because of the directing - I think the film is too stagey and static. I know it is less than 75 minutes long, but when I first saw it, I kept looking at the timer on screen and hoping that the movie would end soon. I thought it would go on forever. Maybe I am spoiled because I am watching a BBC version of Dracula that grabs you and each frame could be an exciting work of art - but this is a version made decades later. But Frankenstein was made by Universal later the same year, and flows as a movie - the movie Dracula tries, but I don’t believe the story is as smooth or effective - perhaps Frankenstein comes across as more cohesive because it is basically the product of one man’s vision - the great director, James Whale as covered in Episdodes 55 and 56. James Whale knew what he wanted, and tended to see the movie as a whole. This is in contrast to the sometimes spotty direction of Todd Browning in Dracula who often left the direction to someone else.
But in summary, I can’t think of another movie that has been remade and adapted and readapted and reimagined for than Dracula. And over the years, it has reflected the times the new version was made, as well as the talent and technology available.
And why not visit my podcast web site at celebratepoe.buzzsprout.com - click on the episode you want to learn more about to see its show notes and a transcript.
34:07 Sources
Sources for this episode include Bram Stoker: A Biography of the Author of Dracula by Barbara Belford, Legends of Dracula by Tom Streissguth, Edgar Allan Poe: A Critical Biography by Arthur Hobson Quinn, The Poe Log: A Documentary Life of Edgar Allan Poe by Dwight R. Thomas and David K. Jackson, In Search of Dracula: A True History of Dracula and Vampire Legends by Radu R. Florescu and Raymond T. McNally, The Vampire Book by Sally Regan, the Wikipedia entry for the 1931 Dracula, The Vampire in Legend, Fact, and Art by Basil Cooper, and last, but definitely not least - Dracula by Bram Stoker.
34:50 Future episodes
Well, thank you very much for making it this far, as we take a deep dive into life and times of America’s Shakespeare, and how he has influenced our world. Until the Halloween episode, Celebrate Poe will continue to look at some of the literary undead influences in Poe’s work and in our culture. In the next episode, this podcast will look at Nosferatu - what has been called a German version of Dracula and, in my opintion, one of the best horror movies ever made.
In contrast to the somewhat charming vampire of Dracula, Nosferatu has a clearly creepy and even terrifying vampire at its center - along with what many have said are comments on immigration, societal unrest, and a widespread but greatly misunderstood plague.
It’s probably obvious that I am really into this movie. In fact, I am not sure how many episodes I will devote to Nosferatu. It is one of those rare horror movies that not only can terrify us, but points to dangerous social conditions in our midst. This podcast will also look at a great remake of Nosferatu, as well as an excellent film about the remake - how’s that for meta. I like to think that this will to an analysis of a horror film made in the 1920’s that comments on our social and political life today.
36:07 Outro
Thank you for listening to Celebrate Poe