October Horror (31 Days Of Horror Movie Reviews) Day Five: Dracula (1931) Let’s get in the way-back machine now and drop back 80 years from yesterday’s pick, and take a look at one of the great-granddaddies of horror cinema. A year before Tod Browning shot a torpedo into his own career with the wonderful, ahead-of-its-time “Freaks”, he turned in an early masterpiece of Universal monster mayhem with his take on Bram Stoker’s beloved, laugh-a-minute Count Dracula. Based on the successful stage production of Stoker’s 1897 novel, this film jettisons the diary entry and “letter home” format that works so well in the book and trims much of its fat to get to the skeleton of the story: Count Dracula, aided by the madman Renfield, moves to London from his native Transylvania to immediately begin drinking the red, red kroovy. The screenplay takes other liberties with the source material, such as using Renfield as the solicitor who must travel to Castle Drac to close the real estate deal, instead of Jonathan Harker, who plays this role in the novel. This, to me, is a home-run move, as it not only better explains Renfield’s insanity, it also supports his loyalty to the Count later on. (Plus, in the movie, Harker is just, I don’t know, kind of just a prop.) Oh, and the Count. Bela Lugosi, reprising his role from the stage production, KILLS it here (vampire humor, sorry) and all future interpretations of the role (even the Count, from Sesame Street) must be measured against his performance here. He’s creepy and commanding, and, especially during the scenes where he is controlling people by the sheer force of his will, you can’t help but be mesmerized by his presence. Watching this movie, it’s easy to see why Lugosi became the Hollywood legend he did, before his opportunities declined and his addictions destroyed his career. He rules the screen here, as Boris Karloff would that same year in Universal’s Frankenstein. Close on his heels, though, is Dwight Frye, with his chilling portrayal of the insane, bug (and sometimes scenery) chewing, exposition-spouting Renfield. Just listen to that laugh (Hnnnnnn-Hnnnnn-Hnnnn-Hnnnn), and you can’t help but feel a chill. Sure, he might go over the top a bit now and then, but hey, we’re talking about 1931 here. Subtlety, in that era of film-making, was not a priority. All in all, though, I can honestly say I love this film. Sure, it’s in black and white (get over it), sure, the effects are incredibly dated (so it’s a rubber bat, get over that, too), but it also has a way of getting under your skin exactly the way it’s meant to. Enjoy. youtube/watch?v=UehobGtSnOk
Posted on: Sun, 05 Oct 2014 21:41:29 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015