Dracula (1931)

If you were a monster in the 1930s there was only one place you could be, at Universal Studious. The "home of the monsters" was responsible for creating the mainstream genre of the horror film, and an inspiration for every movie ever made of this kind. These 70 minute gems may seem to modern audiences somewhat lame and slow, but remember, the talkies were at their beginning, most of these "concepts" were being presented for the first time, and the audiences were really scared of the events on screen, because they had never seen anything like it before. Dracula, Frankenstein, the Wolf Man, the Mummy and the Invisible Man bedazzled audiences, although the subsequent remakes, sequels, homages and spoofs almost ridiculed the genre looking back to the original movies, but these have a particular kind of magic and influence that cannot be lost. "Dracula" in 1931 was the very first monster movie produced at Universal. The death of Lon Chaney in 1930 lead to Bela Lugosi's taking the part of the count himself, his voice and accent influencing every Dracula impersonation since. Tod Browning (who one year later would direct "Freaks") was the director and the photography was done by german Karl Freund (who would direct the first Mummy picture). Influenced by this dark director and this german cinematographer who brought the Gothic style of Caligari and Nosferatu into the american production, "Dracula" has an amazing set design and a clever use of light and shadow, with a beauty that only black and white photography can give. Following closely the structure of the narrative in "Nosferatu" (1922) we see the first trip of Renfield (fantastic performance by Dwight Frye) to Transylvania, his encounter with the count and his brides, the boat trip to England and his dealings at Carfax Abbey and his neighbours at the sanatorium. Most shots are static and the screenplay is slow. We never see the vampire biting a neck, nor the seductions (of Lucy for example), not once even the vampire teeth on Lugosi, not even the stabbing of the heart at the end. Every scary thing happens off camera, and many things that happen are told and not seen (for example Mina recounts the next day what happened to her with Dracula the night before). This gives the movie a tense atmosphere but never on screen thrills. It played a lot with the audience emotions of the time, teasing them into the never seen horror, but seeing it today it gives almost nothing. The closer it gets to that is in Lugosi's eyes and expression, with a hint of sadism and devilish half laughter, and the two spots of light constantly pointed at his eyes. The climax is also very lame, and the ending gives a feeling that much more could be gotten out of the production. The acting, (aside Lugosi's and Frye's) is also very sleepy, and the talks between Van Helsing and Dracula are almost without emotion to an audience. Probably the static scenes are due to the movie being based on the stage play of "Dracula". Little running around happens, which is a shame. Subsequent movies on Dracula take a lot of influence on this one, but have gained rhythm, intensity, horror and sexuality, all of these things 1931 Dracula lacks. But until then audiences had never seen something like this, so it is not a surprise that this was a box office smash hit, and that people were terrified of this very peaceful and calm Lugosi. Today the historical importance of the movie and its technical aspects supersede the story and the movie itself, which is probably the worse of the original monster movies.