That, my friends, is our introduction to Dracula, the undead count of the Transylvania region of Romania. And the actor who portrayed Dracula in this 1931 film was Bela Lugosi. Lugosi had previously played the role of the fictional character in a stage production for several years, so he had the part down pat by the time he donned his cape for the first legitimate film adaptation of Bram Stoker's famous horror novel. As a side-note, yes, the story was told in the 1922 German picture, Nosferatu, but without proper permissions and film rights.
The Dracula that Lugosi brought to the world in '31 was the image and persona that would influence subsequent vampire movies - for nearly 90 years now! - and stamped in the public consciousness the likeness that the general public would associate with Drac... and pretty much all vampires in entertainment. Lugosi played the immortal count as a handsome, soft-spoken, suave, and sophisticated nobleman. Sure, he'd go for the jugular whenever he fancied a bite, but this was not a creepy, unsavory creature like Nosferatu's Count Orlok. Lugosi brought an urbane, European gentlemanly style to the table.
Dracula, the movie, kicked off the successful string of horror classics by Universal Studios. Frankenstein followed later in '31, then The Mummy in '32, and so on and so on. This monster franchise was to create a genre that still exists today.
I believe that Dracula was the first, or at least among the first, horror movies I ever saw. As a young kid... younger than age 10, I'm sure... I discovered this and other scary classics on a public television station in my home province. I remember seeing Dracula first in serialized form, broken down into half-hour segments for viewing after dinner and homework each evening. Then a little later, I caught the film in its entirety, which helped establish the flow and mood that both helped and hindered the production.
It's an incredibly slow-paced movie, with several scenes of prolonged silence (which are intermittently effective and dull), and the over-acting (and under-acting) reflects the stage experience its performers. Special effects were simple and minimalist, using mostly fog, lighting, and implying off-camera action. Some worked, some not so much. So Dracula is not without its flaws. Lugosi's ability with the English language (he was from Hungary) was nearly non-existent, so that forced him to speak slowly and to over-pronounce his lines... which sort of added to his foreign appeal in the role. Audiences flocked to see Dracula and the film was a financial success; critics gave it passing marks, but nothing exceptional.
As important as Dracula was to cinema and the horror genre, I rank it below several other Universal monster outings, including Frankenstein and its sequels, The Wolf Man, Creature From the Black Lagoon, and Werewolf of London. I must admit, though, that as a kid, Dracula (and vampires in general) was my favourite of the film monsters. I dressed as Drac one Halloween, I had (and still have) a cool Aurora model kit of Dracula - with glow-in-the-dark bits and lots of blood splashed about for effect, and owned books and magazines that featured various versions of the famous count. Over time, though, with a more discerning eye, I found Lugosi less interesting in the role.
So... historically important, certainly nostalgic for me, but not one of my favourite Dracula films.
And in the other corner is...
...the 1958 Hammer Films re-imagining of the classic tale, Dracula (in the UK), and re-titled in the States as Horror of Dracula. This British production took a different approach to the famed vampire, injecting lurid details to the proceedings... more gore and violence, plus a sensual side to the character. The new Technicolor film produced rich colours that enhanced the already lush locations and sets... and blood. The camera technology at the time allowed for more vivid images in the newer widescreen format. Perfect for a milestone (or should I say tombstone) movie like this.
I was a bit older, in my early teens, when I first encountered Christopher Lee as the bloodthirsty king of the vampires. It may or may not have been Horror of Dracula that I first saw... my memory is really hazy on that... but I know I did see this one at some point during those adolescent years. Back then, in the late 70's and early 80's, the only way I could catch the more "mature" Hammers was on very-late-night TV. And my idea of horror was changing as I watched the less kid-friendly re-makes of the oldies. Those Universal classics would always have a place in my heart, but the more graphic and grisly Hammer films were more to my taste as my hormones kicked in. A bit of nudity on those flicks didn't hurt at all either.
When I think of Lee as Dracula, I picture a couple of different shots of him: one is the calm yet menacing photo of him, tall and imposing, long black cloak, exuding supernatural evil. Then I recall the image of Lee on the cover of one of my childhood horror movie books (still got it!), where he is streaked with blood, red-eyed, and scrambling through tree branches, the very picture of unrestrained ferocity. A truly bloodthirsty monster... versus Lugosi's gentlemanly interpretation.
The Hammer version of Dracula, immensely popular with audiences and critics, launched a series of sequels, most of which are good, though quality lagged toward the end of their run. The best thing about the sequels is that Lee's fellow thespian Peter Cushing popped back now and then as Dracula's nemesis, Van Helsing.
The '58 film, introducing Christopher Lee as the count, was just as important to its creators and viewers as the 1931 Dracula was to its own. Each was crucial to its era. Given a choice, I'd pick the Lee portrayal over Lugosi's. In fact, as Halloween fast approaches, I might opt to throw on my DVD of Horror of Dracula. I could do a lot worse... like Twilight or Van Helsing. Gag.
