Horror Classics: Dracula (1931)

When it comes to vampires, there are few who are as well-known as Dracula. The king of vampires has been thrilling literary audiences since his creation back in 1897. Film audiences have also seen their share of the Count. With some 200+ films to his name dating back to Nosferatu - 1922's unauthorized adaptation of the novel.

So, having covered Nosferatu in our last entry, I wanted to do a sort of Dracula marathon. The only question was: where to start? I was originally going to start off with Hammer Films' first Dracula outing and go from there. The more I thought about it, however, the more I wanted to go right back to the beginning - so to speak.

With all that in mind, let's look at 1931's Dracula and see how it holds up. Strap in everyone, 'cause this is going to be a doozy!

Behind the Scenes of Dracula's First 'Talkie'

Dracula is probably the best-known horror novel in existence. It was written by Irish author Bram Stoker and published in 1897. The book received widespread praise and garnered a massive audience - which has only grown larger in the 125 years since its publication. A film was inevitably going to happen and it did...with Nosferatu.

Production on the first official adaptation of Dracula began nine years after Nosferatu and by all accounts it was a...complicated and disorganized shoot. Casting was apparently a nightmare. While this is probably Lugosi's most known role, the producer, Carl Laemmle, didn't want him to play Dracula. Instead the role was intended for Lon Chaney who, unfortunately, passed away before filming began. Laemmle went through several other actors including David Manners who instead took the role of John Harker.

Lugosi ultimately got the role by agreeing to a pittance of a salary - $300 per week and the rest, as they say, is history. The film was a huge hit and went on to become one of the most profitable films for Universal Pictures in 1931.

The Story

A young solicitor, Thomas Renfield, from London travels to Transylvania to sell a property to a mysterious Count Dracula. When he arrives in London, Dracula takes an interest in Mina Seward, whose father runs the asylum that's next door to his new residence. It's up to Mina's fiance John and Professor Abraham Van Helsing to put an end to the vampire before he makes her his next victim.

The Good Stuff

Okay, so what's good about this film? Where does it shine?

Well, I guess the best place to start would be the writing. As hokey as it is by today's standards, it holds up fairly well. The performances are all pretty good too - albeit a bit overly done in some places. Dwight Frye's portrayal of the crazed Renfield is great and is a particular highlight for me.

The makeup, costumes, and pacing are all very well-done as well. The film moves at a good, steady clip and never really feels like it's dragging its heels. The costumes - particularly Lugosi's iconic opera cape and tuxedo - are all great to look at even if you can't see the colors.

A Nitpick: Changes from the Source Material

Okay so, we've looked at what I liked. What didn't I like about this movie? Well, apart from a few goofs here and there (cardboard on the lamp in one scene) which only add to the film's charm, the only real issue I had was with the numerous changes from the source material.

Don't get me wrong, it's a great film and I understand why they made these changes but it would've been nice to see a bit more of the novel's material on screen.

Is 1931's Dracula a Good Adaptation of the Novel?

Speaking of the novel, let's have a look at that for a minute, shall we?

Most of the major plot beats are met, the bulk of the changes are to names though there are a few other notable changes. These include:

• The lawyer who goes to Transylvania to deal with Dracula is Renfield not Jonathan Harker as in the novel.
• Lucy is an American woman whose last name is 'Weston' not Westenra.
• The plant used to repel Dracula is Wolfbane instead of Garlic.
• The sequence with the brides plays out very, very differently between the book and the film. In the book, there's a distinctly sexual overtone as they attempt to feed on Jonathan only to be thwarted by an enraged Dracula. In the film, they're silent and while they do approach Renfield - presumably to feed on him - we don't get the enraged Count of the book. Instead, he just appears and waves his hand and they leave. Now, a key part of that sequence in the book was when Dracula hands them a 'wiggling bag' which is presumed to hold a human infant...obviously something that was likely too gruesome for 1930s audiences.
• Similarly to the bag with the child in it, Lucy's illness and subsequent transformation is not shown - you don't even see the bite marks on her throat...not in the English version anyways. A Spanish version was produced alongside the English version and pulled no punches.

There are a couple of other changes here and there made to accommodate the audience and film standards of the time. Other than that, yeah, I'd say it's a pretty good adaptation.

Some Standout Scenes and Performances

Let's look at a couple of things that stood out, shall we?

Bela Lugosi

Starting off with the main man himself, Bela Lugosi has a very commanding onscreen presence that can still be felt today. His performance is very good, giving us a charming monster. Some of his best work, is purely facial where the focus is on his facc. He's not talking aloud, but his expression says it all.

Dwight Frye

Frye's performance as Renfield is absolutely legendary, I honestly don't think anyone's done it better. His wild-eyed stare and crazy laughter make for a thrilling performance and he plays brilliantly off of comic relief Martin.

Charles K. Gerrard

Speaking of Martin, Charles K. Gerrard is absolute comedy gold! His performance as Renfield's exasperated caretaker is brilliant. He also gets some of the best dialogue. One of my favorite lines is:

"They're all crazy, they're all crazy except you and me, sometimes I have my doubts about you."

He's also got a few other good ones but that was the one that made me laugh the hardest.

Now, the characters of Abraham van Helsing, Harker, and Mina were all good (Helen Chandler is absolutely gorgeous) but they came across as mostly stereotypical characters and nothing really stood out. Van Sloan has a few moments (i.e. when he confronts Dracula with the cross) that are pretty good, Overall, however, he seems somewhat bored and even went on to describe the film in a letter to his nephew as:

"Overplayed, overwritten - altogether lousy."

A Stellar Ending

1931's Dracula features probably one of the best horror movie endings I've seen in a very long time. It starts with Van Helsing and Harker showing up at Carfax abbey, looking for Dracula. At the same time, Renfield arrives and he and Dracula both spot the two hunters through a window.

As Renfield tries to flee, Dracula stops him and his pleas for mercy are ignored as the enraged Count grabs him by the throat and strangles him.

Dwight Frye and Bela Lugosi's performances are great throughout but this is by far their best moment together. Listening to Renfield beg for his life and watching as Dracula kills him anyway is absolutely chilling.

So, Does it Hold Up to Modern Standards

Well...yes and no.

Dracula is very much a product of its time. The performances are, in some places, way over done but when you consider the fact that films before this were silent it makes sense. On the other hand, while the practical effects haven't aged too well, when viewed as a film of its time it holds up surprisingly well.

It's not great, but there's a lot going for it and I highly recommend checking it out - if only to say that you've watched it.