Caseus Archivelox: Dracula

2002-01-29
Considering how many horror films I have seen and enjoyed, my taste for the Universal Horror films of the 1930s and 1940s is mainly limited to James Whale’s darkly comic takes on the genre’s conventions and classic scenes. This movie did not change my mind on them one bit. Besides the inevitable shortening of the plot and the horribly histrionic acting of many of the actors (which is not as necessary for sound films as it is for silent films), there is little to like in this fairly drab version of the Dracula myth. Bela Lugosi labors over every word, as one would expect from someone who did not know any English before starting the role, and his Dracula “acting” is really limited to looking at the camera with a rectangle of light on his face. If someone with more talent had been directing or writing this movie, it could have turned into something much more rewarding, but instead it is a fairly weak Dracula story. Renfield is creepy, but should not have been raised to being the star of the film (as he has been here, because the other male characters are incredibly flat and poorly acted).
Anyway, I just wanted to complain about that movie. The horrible bat effects did not help it much either.
One of the nice things about the movie is the restraint with which it deals with what is normally a main feature of vampire films: blood. The only blood that I remember seeing was when Renfield poked himself with a paperclip. I do not remember even seeing Dracula bite anyone’s neck or seeing any bite marks on anyone’s neck. It is almost as if the vampire parts of the story are being hidden behind what is essentially a creepy story of a foreigner attempting to steal away a woman from her fiancée. Almost all parts of the supernatural aspects of the story have been removed. It is more of a gothic story, with extended scenes of people arguing about the existence of vampires, than a true horror film. Very little is scary in the strictest sense, with more emphasis focused upon the fact that it is almost a story that could occur today. Ignoring the times when Dracula turns into an animal, or the times when he cannot be seen in the mirror (which is driven into the audience’s mind to make sure that they do not miss that subtle shot), it is a fairly traditional spook story.
Another thing about the movie is the fact that it is subtly anti-Semitic, as Dracula wears a Star of David on his cloak and is scared by crosses. He is also a foreigner threatening the well being of the young women of England (and the American audience). “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar”, but I think that with Browning’s history, I would not be surprised if he was anti-Semitic.