Bela Lugosi: The Ultimate Dracula

 

The character of the vampire lord, Count Dracula, as made famous by Irish author Bram Stoker, is one of the most recognized and iconic figures in not just horror fiction, but ALL of popular fiction. There are very few people in the "developed world" today, I'd wager, who didn't at least have a general passing knowledge of who Dracula is. He's been depicted in everything from serious works of art, to toys, to comics, to cartoons and even sketch comedy. But the medium in which he became most famous, naturally, was film. 

There have been many, MANY depictions of Dracula in film, by some counts, the character has made over 200 film appearances, allegedly second only to Sherlock Holmes. But again, I would wager that more people, especially young people, know who Dracula is, than even the great detective. Narrowing it down a bit, there have been, at the LEAST, around or probably over 40 films made that center around the character of Dracula more specifically, most of them direct adaptations, of some manner or other, of Stoker's original novel. But while several of those film depictions of the Count have been quite memorable, some even iconic, there is one who, I think it's completely fair to say, stands head and shoulders above all the rest.

Lugosi in the original Broadway play.

Béla Ferenc Dezső Blaskó, otherwise known as Bela Lugosi, was born on October 20th, 1882, in Lugos Austria-Hungary, what is now known as Lugoj, Romania. Meaning that, ironically, the man who would go on to become synonymous with the character of Dracula, was originally from the same basic land that was also home to the Count's native Transylvania. Lugosi dropped out of school at age 12 (something not at all uncommon in those days), and began his acting career in the very early 1900s. After years acting in stage plays in Hungary and elsewhere, he got his first silent film role in 1917. He went on to act in several Hungarian and then German films, before finally leaving Europe for political reasons, to immigrate to the United States in 1920. After living and working in the States for many years, both as a laborer and immigrant actor, by 1931 he finally became a naturalized citizen. 

Lugosi's acting work in America started out in his native Hungarian, playing to immigrant crowds. His first English speaking role came in 1922, and for his first several English plays, he had to learn his lines phonetically, as he could not yet speak English very well. During the 20s, he also acted in several silent films, the first of which being J. Gordon Edwards' The Silent Command. But the role that would come to define his career, for better and for worse, fell into his lap in the late 20s. In the summer of 1927, he was approached to play the role of Count Dracula in a Broadway production, which would go on to be a smash hit, playing 261 times before embarking on a national tour that ended in California. 

A poster almost as iconic as the film's actor.

When Universal Pictures optioned the rights to the play and began production in 1930, as hard as it may be for many to imagine, and in spite his own lobbying for the role he felt was his, Lugosi was actually not the studio's first choice to portray the title role. After considering many other actors, in part because he lobbies hard and won them over, but also reportedly in part because he agreed to take the role for considerably less money than he could have commanded, Bela Lugosi did, however, win the role that so badly wanted to portray on the "silver screen". 

Spanish Dracula

Spanish Renfield

Spanish Van Helsing

In an unusual, but in those days not uncommon occurrence, Universal had two productions of Dracula filming at the same time. The more famous English production would film during the day, and then when they were done, the Spanish production would use the exact same sets at night. For many years, the Spanish version of the film was actually thought to be lost, though surviving prints were eventually found. It would seem that to many film historians and even some film buffs, this Spanish language film is considered "superior", mainly due to a few, in my opinion minor points. For one thing, the Spanish production apparently had the advantage of watching the English "dailies", watching their camera-work etc., and were able to try and improve upon it, such as the camera moving up the stairs to zoom in on Dracula when he first appears to Renfield. They also added a bit more "flair" in certain scenes, such as smoke rising from Dracula's coffin when he awakes, and things like that. Lastly, the Spanish film, for whatever reason, clocks in at nearly 20 minutes longer than the English version, which some feel gives the story a bit more room to breath, and a bit more time for character development. 

Personally, however, I reject the notion that the Spanish version is "superior". I absolutely recognize the longer running time, slightly more lavish special effects, and somewhat more complex camera-work. But to me, none of these things really "improve" the story itself to a significant degree. I think for what it was, especially considering it was made on a smaller budget than the English version, the Spanish film is well done, and a solid movie overall. But as far as I'm concerned, there really is no contest between the two, and I'll explain why. 

English Dracula

English Renfield

English Van Helsing

The English version has also been criticized by some critics retroactively, for being "too much like silent film". And I honestly, for the life of me, don't understand how this is a legitimate complaint. Director Todd Browning, though he left a lot of the actual filming to Director of Photography Karl Freund, was a successful director of silent films. He reportedly was never quite comfortable with sound films, and this being one of very first, it shows. But as far as I'm concerned, his silent era proclivities are not a hindrance to the movie, but rather, a strength. The film has a lot of silent moments, with hardly any music (which wasn't unusual for early sound films anyway), and a lot of long, still shots. To me, this lends to the creepy atmosphere, mood and tone of the story. The darkness, silence and stillness, lend the film, in my opinion, a much spookier and more menacing air, than the busier, more technically complex Spanish production. 

The acting in this movie, has also been described by some as basically being stage acting, which, again, I don't find any real fault in. For one thing, Bela Lugosi and Edward Van Sloan, had already played Dracula and Professor Van Helsing respectively, opposite one another hundreds of times in the play. Which, I might add, attributes itself both to their chemistry together on screen, working off of each other so very well. But it also explains, as far as I'm concerned, why they both seem so comfortable and natural in their roles. Because they had literally already played them to death. And really, I think along with what I personally consider more appropriate cinematography for the tone of the film, that the acting is really the shining strength that makes the English, not the Spanish version, the "superior" 1931 Dracula. 

Perfect in their roles.

While I have no wish to slight the acting job of the Spanish crew, to me at least, the acting in the English version of Dracula, is simply better. It's top tier, in all of the major roles, and even in some of the smaller ones. One such smaller role that really stands out, as a bit of valuable comic relief, is that of the Seward Sanitarium attendant, Martin, played Charles K. Gerrard. His thick, Cockney-esque accent, delivering humorous jabs in his interactions with the insane Renfield, are genuinely funny, and shine appropriately comedic light on the otherwise macabre nature of the man eating flies and spiders. Helen Chandler and David Manners also stand out, as the haunted Mina Seward, and her concerned, protective lover John Harker. 

But the three characters who truly steal the show, and carry the film, are appropriately the three biggest roles. First off, it should be mentioned that Dwight Frye was an incredible character actor of his era, bringing both capable physicality, and true dramatic chops to his roles. The role of Renfield, I think, is arguably the finest of his career, and certainly the most complex of the entire film. Renfield starts off a very decent, if somewhat simple, and good-natured, well meaning real estate solicitor, who was hired by Dracula to arrange for his purchase of the decrepit Carfax Abbey in England. But after Dracula gets control of him, becomes a man quite literally possessed, a tortured soul who hates and mourns what he is made to do, and what he has become, but is also thoroughly controlled by his cravings for "smaller lives" (flies, spiders and other bugs), and his fearful loyalty to his "master". 

Frye expresses such a fantastic range of emotions as this character, from well mannered and even joyful, to outright menacing and stark raving mad. And then of course there are his periods of solemn, remorseful sadness. By comparison, Pablo Alvarez Rubio as Renfield in the Spanish version, is convincingly manic and insane. But he also comes off, at least to me, as a bit TOO over the top with his craziness. Dwight Frye's performance, even at its most manic, just comes across as more subtle and menacing. He also, to me, feels like more of a conflicted character. All around, his performance is an absolute highlight to the film.

Dracula descending.

The true "meat and potatoes" of the story, of course, is the mental chess game, and actual conflict, between the characters of Van Helsing, and Count Dracula himself. As stated before, I feel that Edward Van Sloan and Bela Lugosi were perfect for these roles, both because they had already made these roles their own on stage, but because their individual personas, acting idiosyncrasies, and even their accents, in Bela's case natural, were perfect. For his part, Van Sloan as Professor Van Helsing, is great to me, tied in my mind with Peter Cushing's portrayal of the character in the later Hammer films. He is all at once wise and very learned about supernatural and scientific matters, even a tad arrogant while also still coming off as politely humble. He is a charming and commanding presence, who garners the respect and often obedience of those he is trying to help, merely by his presence and personality. He is a self-assured, yet cautious hero, who would rather quietly observe, waiting for the right moment to strike, rather than rush in foolishly. He is a man of action, but only when the proper situation presents itself. 

Eduardo Arozamena, Van Helsing in the Spanish version, does a perfectly fine job in the role. In fact he shares some of the characteristics of the character as Van Sloan does. But at the same time, his Van Helsing also seems to bit more of a timid, even bumbling old man, at times even somewhat fearful of Dracula, something that Van Sloan's Professor never is. Whether he is faced with Renfield's madness and threats, or Dracula's brooding yet charming menace, Van Sloan's portrayal of the good doctor, never once bats an eye. Not that he isn't, perhaps, deep down fearful, but because he is confident that he knows how to deal with it.

Even in the iconic scene where they are alone together for the first time, and they both "lay their cards on the table", so to speak, and Dracula tries to mesmerize and control Van Helsing, he does now cower. He does, in fact, momentarily nearly fall under the Count's sway, so strong is the undead fiend's power, but Van Helsing's will proves to be quite strong, as he steadies himself, standing up straight and defying the vampire lord. Lugosi's Dracula expresses, more than once, genuine respect, perhaps even slight admiration for his new enemy. And because of Van Sloan's confident, wizened portrayal of the character, you can actually believe that he truly means it. His Van Helsing earned Dracula's begrudging respect, even though they fully, and openly, intend to destroy one another. 

Those haunting eyes.

As for the person we're really here to discuss, Lugosi as Count Dracula, if you've ever even seen but a small clip, or even just a picture of his performance, really speaks for itself. His exotic, charming yet sinister look, and his natural Hungarian accent, just lent themselves to the character. He isn't an immediately physically imposing figure, not someone who commands instant fright upon first seeing him. And yet, you can also immediately tell there is something more, something dangerous about this persona, and he is not someone you would want to meet alone, in the dark. By comparison, Carlos Villarías' Dracula in the Spanish version, while capably acted, both because of his general mannerisms, but also because of his quite frankly sometimes goofy looking facial expressions, comes across as a far less menacing, sometimes even comical vampire. Again, no offense to Carlos, but to all those who try to claim that the Spanish version is "superior", I don't think his portrayal holds even a small candle to Lugosi's.

Lugosi's Dracula is a monster, no doubt about it, but he is a monster who is not often given to recklessness or foolish chance. Much like his opposite, Van Helsing, he too is a very calculating mind, who plans much and risks little. Not because he is afraid, but because he is a mastermind who is always several steps ahead of most of his victims and enemies. He's a man who has had centuries to learn and hone and perfect his role as vile hunter of the living, and his mental command of the weaker-minded is pretty much unparalleled. He is still supernaturally strong, mentally powerful, and able to change his physical form, etc., just as most versions of the character are. But with Lugosi's portrayal, the characters strength lies more in his cunning, and almost sardonic charm. He's scary, but often more because of what he COULD do to you, or even make you do to yourself, than because of more graphic acts of intimidation or violence. 

Max Schreck's Count Orlok.

Christopher Lee's "Hammer" Dracula

Bela Lugosi's OG Dracula

 

I think in the minds of most film fans and historians (often little distinction between the two), there are really three main film portrayals of Count Dracula, that are the most memorable and iconic. They are pictured above. While in the 1922 silent film Nosferatu, for legal reasons they had to rename the character Count Orlok, it is still meant to be Dracula. And in all blunt honesty, Max Schreck's incredible turn in that film, is hands down the creepiest. His character eschews any pretense at handsomeness or charm. He looks and acts like the monster he truly is, and his image and performance are no doubt the scariest, if we're talking about pure horror. 

As for Sir Christopher Lee, he played the character of Dracula probably more times, in both Hammer films and outside of that studio, than any other actor. His portrayal is unquestionably the most intimidating and certainly the most actively, visibly violent. But for all of his visual evocativeness, I must say, for all the times he played the character, Lee's Dracula also has the least "character" of the three. That definitely isn't a knock on him, as Lee was a great actor in his own right. But the combination of how he was directed, the scripts he was given (or sometimes chose to ignore), and his own personal choices in portraying the role, while his Dracula is absolutely fearsome, even "badass" as some would rightly say, you could also argue his Dracula has the least "to him", if that makes sense. If anything, he almost feels like more of an evil force, than he does a character.

 

 

That pose.

 

That expression.

That stare.

But for my money, as a film fan, as a horror fan, as a fan of supernatural fiction in general, Bela Lugosi is, as the title of the article states: The Ultimate Dracula. His character is the prefect mixture, of just charming enough, just intimidating enough, and just sinister enough, that he is the complete total package as far as I'm concerned. There are good reasons why it is his portrayal and very image, that is most popularly and most infamously associated with the character. He made that role his own in a way that few actors ever accomplish in their entire career. And this was, on a professional note, both a boon and a curse to him as an actor. That one iconic role achieved him a kind of "immortality" that few ever achieve. But at the same time, being so associated with that role, along with his thick Hungarian accent, also caused Lugosi to become very typecast for the rest of his film career. A fact that he, rightly, hated. He loved the character, so much so that he was buried with the original cape when he passed away, something his family thought he would have liked. But he also hated what it did to his career, a career full of many other iconic roles and great turns. But he could never quite escape The Count, much like his victims in the story. 

Regardless of that unfortunate fact, the truth is, Lugosi was a fantastic actor, a reality that shines in his immortal performance as Count Dracula. The Spanish version made by Universal may well have been more "technically sound" in certain ways. But I hardly think those extra touches make it "superior", and as as stated, I feel that acting-wise, it is most certainly the inferior film. And there have surely been a great many adaptations of the story since 1931, which have been more lavish, more expensive, more technically impressive, etc., including Francis Ford Coppola's 1992 film, which featured Gary Oldman in a very strong performance. But I do not earnestly believe, out of all the films that have come since, or perhaps ever WILL come, that any of them are as simple, pure, and darkly, hauntingly beautiful, as Todd Browning's 1931 classic. That Dracula, as far as I'm concerned, is perfect, and is one of the few films I would give "5 Stars" to. 

Bela Lugosi IS Dracula, to entire generations of people, and deservedly so. If you've never seen the movie, I implore you, this Halloween Weekend, please do yourself a favor and watch it. It is a slow, often understated burn of a film. But it is never boring, always captivating, often creepy, and if you ask me, a pure delight to take in. I'd like to wish everyone a Happy Halloween, and stay safe out there!