Horror Classics: Son of Dracula (1943)

I can't believe we're already four films into our Dracula marathon! Now, I mentioned in the last entry that Dracula didn't have a specific solo run with Universal Studios in his early film appearances; he did however appear in a few crossover films in the late 1940s - which we'll discuss at a later date.

For now, let's discuss the only other direct sequel to Dracula, 1943's Son of Dracula!

Behind the Scenes of Son of Dracula

Having had two successful Dracula films, Universal Studios was eager to continue the trend and it wasn't long before they got their chance.

Production on Son of Dracula began in May of 1942, with Curt Siodmak being commissioned to draft a script for the film. Siodmak had experience with the sci-fi and horror genres, making him an obvious choice to pen the script. Universal Pictures purchased the script and then had a man named Eric Taylor to pen the final version.

As far as the casting went, Lon Chaney Jr. was hired to play the Count while Louise Allbritton played his bride. Other cast members include George Irving, Robert Paige, Etta McDaniel, and Evelyn Ankers.

The film's release was delayed a few times in 1943 to accommodate the various war films that were being shown (America had just entered WWII) at the time. It was eventually released on October 30th, 1943 to a mixed reception.

Quick note before I move on: there are 3 release dates that I could find: October 20 - Mexico, October 30 - USA, and November 1 - Canada.

The Plot

Katherine Caldwell is a southern plantation owner who invites a Count Alucard to her estate. Alucard is, of course, Dracula and he has some much darker motives regarding the southern belle. The woman's former fiancé is left trying to save her life.

What Works?

Okay, so what works here? Well, there were a few things that I liked.

For one thing, the concept of a vampire coming to the deep south and causing chaos isn't quite original - I mean, it goes back to the original Dracula novel in 1897 with the Count going to London. With that said, there's still something that's just appealing about how it's done here.

The performances are pretty good and the story is fairly well-paced. There's also a really cool effect where Dracula transforms into a bat.

The cinematography, set design, and costumes are all very well done.

So, is there Anything that Doesn't Work?

Well...the performances do go a bit overboard at times which can make a serious scene into a joke - thankfully, they seem to have figured out how to dial it back enough that it doesn't happen often.

Lon Chaney Jr. did a good job with the role of Dracula, but that moustache really didn't suit the character. He just looked silly with it, but at least he carries himself well.

Standout Moment

There's really only one moment in the film that stood out to me; the ending. The film's lead character, Frank, finds Katherine - now a vampire - in her coffin. He places a ring on her finger before setting the coffin on fire.

The last shot shows Frank and a few others staring at the burning coffin. This ending is very...grim. Usually, the hero of the story gets the girl and they live happily ever after. In this case, that doesn't happen and it works really well.

Son of Dracula isn't Great, but it's Worth a Watch

As far as sequels go, Son of Dracula isn't great, some of the scenes are a bit over the top, certain aspects of the performances are very dated and the film is really slow. With that said, it's worth watching - even if only to say that you've seen it.

So, as far as direct sequels go, that's the Universal Dracula films done. I'm going to take a break from Dracula movies for a bit, I think that's a good idea. Don't worry though, the King of vampires isn't gone yet - I've still got plenty of Dracula films to add to the Horror Classics Dracula set.

Rest assured, Dracula will return...