|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Mar 9, 2020 22:36:39 GMT -5
So Why Couldn't Bela Play Dracula Again?The question has already been asked once in this thread. Now that horror is back in demand as of 1939, now that we've got Karloff in costume as The Creature again, where are the Dracula roles for Bela? His next film, The Devil Bat, is at least the second time he's been cast in a film with a title clearly intended to suggest he will be playing a vampire again, and yet he doesn't. At least part of the answer as to why he isn't getting more actual vampire roles is suggested by Mark of the Vampire, the only non-Universal film to have Bela play a Dracula-like role up to this point. That film essentially ruined itself trying to demonstrate for the sake of all the copyright lawyers watching that this was NOT a real vampire, and therefore was not intended to be Dracula. That fear of legal recourse might be what kept other studios from cashing in on the Dracula legacy when Bela was desperate for cash and willing to accept pretty much any role. Okay, fair enough. Other film studios were afraid of a lawsuit from Universal. But then why wasn't Universal putting Bela back in the cloak? My best guess is based upon two facts: 1. Filming Dracula's Daughter required Universal to purchase the rights to a subsequent Dracula story from the Stoker Estate, and yet the script really didn't follow that story at all. 2. F.W. Murnau's Nosferatu (1922) was sued by the estate over their unauthorized use of a character and story that closely resembled the Dracula novel, and that lawsuit resulted in all known copies of the film being destroyed by the German government (luckily, a few survived!). So the Stoker family was litigious, and they did not sell Universal the carte blanc rights to make Dracula films. Each new installment had to be authorized and paid for. So my guess is either the Stoker Estate did not want another film featuring the character who was killed at the end of the first novel, or they did not like Lugosi as Dracula (who, to be clear, really doesn't match the character in the novel at all). Curiously, by the time of the Monster Mash films, little to no consideration seems to be given to the authenticity of Dracula's involvement in the story, so something definitely changed later down the road. As to why Bela wasn't chosen to play Dracula in those films, maybe he was just too old for the part by that point? According to Robert Wise, Lugosi's health issues were a constant disruption on the set of The Body Snatchers (1945), so perhaps Universal had already seen signs of this during the filming of Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman (1943). Dracula was supposed to be seductive and good looking, and Bela no longer fit that look by this point in his career:  Lugosi in 1939. I think the rights issue may be the perfect and most logical explanation out there - I'm surprised that I haven't come across it elsewhere at least as a possibility if nothing else. Great catch! As for the two House films? I've heard that Lugosi wasn't able to appear in House of Frankenstein because he was starring on-stage in Arsenic and Old Lace at that time. Whether he was asked and couldn't? I don't know, but it does seem as if he would have had to have chosen between the two jobs if he were. Yeah, I know "I've heard" doesn't help much as a cite but a look at filming dates vs. tour dates does show a scheduling conflict. If Universal thought they could pass Lugosi off as The Frankenstein Monster in 1943, I'm thinking they felt they could have passed 1944's Bela Lugosi's Dracula off as 1931's Bela Lugosi's Dracula. Any health problems he might have displayed on the set of that film would likely have been attributed to the physical toll undertaken by essaying such a role rather than a reflection of his general health. "Hey, Lugosi's looking a little tired over there - let's toss him some more barrels to throw around and while we're at, get some more lights on him! A few more layers of padding while we're at for his costume too! Man - that guy sweats a lot!" I mean, Val Lewton had him bobbing around in water in The Body Snatcher and that was in 1945. Regardless of how seductive he still looked, Bela Lugosi would still have been Dracula to audiences in 1944. Dracula and Frankenstein enjoyed a big revival in 1938/39 and whether that rekindled audiences to the characters or served as an introduction I don't know, but I can't imagine Universal not glomming on to his association with the role. Again, he was a big enough name for Universal to think they'd sell tickets with him playing The Frankenstein Monster in 1943, so why wouldn't they want to put him back in the role that made him a big name in the first place when 1944 rolled around? |
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Mar 10, 2020 7:51:21 GMT -5
Managed to watch S.O.S. Coastguard off YouTube yesterday and this morning while starting up work and scanning staff licenses into the system. LOVE Bela's beard in this one at the start. I wonder: was the name Boroff a play off combing Boris and Karloff simply meant as a sinister name or used just to annoy Karloff and/or Lugosi??? Some of the worst ever model work I have seen in a serial. And poor Bela sets things up and then is pretty much put aside for the entire serial other than for some expository scenes and quick walk in's. His clarity of speech and enunciation though is very clear and precise while very NOT the typical Boris Badanov evil hokeyness. And why is Bela the only one to lose his hat during the entire movie during the finale? Hurricane winds and everyone else manages to keep their hats on during the entire show but poor Bela's hat falls off trying to make a quick escape!
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Mar 11, 2020 1:59:03 GMT -5
Some Batsplainin' care of Kay Kyser  This looks awesome! ((And simultaneously it looks like one of the worst Brave and the Bold team-ups EVER!) |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,865
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 11, 2020 9:53:21 GMT -5
As for the two House films? I've heard that Lugosi wasn't able to appear in House of Frankenstein because he was starring on-stage in Arsenic and Old Lace at that time. Whether he was asked and couldn't? I don't know, but it does seem as if he would have had to have chosen between the two jobs if he were. Yeah, I know "I've heard" doesn't help much as a cite but a look at filming dates vs. tour dates does show a scheduling conflict. In at least three separate circumstances prior to this, Bela worked on two productions simultaneously, filming one by day and one by night. It's possible the directors were not willing to work around his schedule, and also possible that Bela's health issues prevented it, but as there appears to be no evidence nor even recollections of Bela being invited to play the role, the more likely truth is that Universal did not want him in the cloak again. Hilarious as this is (I'm laughing out loud in my classroom, and kids walking by are worried), Dracula and the Monster are two entirely different roles. Most critics will tell you Bela's greatest contribution to the role of Dracula is the raw and dangerous sexuality he exuded. He has utterly lost that by the 1940s. Someone playing The Monster doesn't need sex appeal. Although, now that I wrote that sentence, I'm getting all sorts of ideas... There was certainly still a public demand for Bela as Dracula, but it was a hokey, lowest common denominator kind of appeal. 1940s Bela as Dracula was more fitting of the opening of a car dealership than of a starring role in a new Universal outing. I think Universal was looking to reinvent the role with a younger actor in order to give it a little more dignity, class, and sex appeal all over again. I certainly can't fault their choice of John Carradine in those respects. We're exactly at the point in Bela's career where he starts playing old man roles. Dracula doesn't get old. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,865
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 12, 2020 21:09:36 GMT -5
The Invisible Ghost (1941) Hands-down one of my favorite Lugosi films of all time, this shoe-string budget production manages to do nearly everything right in spite of the lack of resources. It's also one of Bela's absolute finest acting roles. Plot (0-5 points): The concept is quite original -- a beloved older man lost his wife to an affair several years back and now must face the fact that his only child is about to be engaged, leaving him all alone. Meanwhile, his former wife is alive but traumatized by a car accident and (unbeknownst to him) wandering the grounds, believing she is dead. The husband is having romantic dates with thin air because he can't handle the pain, while she is prowling around right outside the window. Oh, and people are being murdered left and right. Which one of them is doing it, or is it neither? However, the execution is downright sloppy. The answer to the mystery is unceremoniously revealed after only 15 minutes, leaving no way to believe there is any kind of "Invisible Ghost" at work. Furthermore, the plot is full of logic lapses that prevent the film from holding together. NO ONE has ever suspected that the guy who owns the house that all the murders are happening in just might be responsible? The police never conducted a thorough enough search after the third or fourth murder to find the dazed wife hiding on the premises? Oh, and there are twin brothers involved in this for some odd reason (played by the same actor). The first dies, and the second replaces him like he was never gone. Odd. 2/5 Atmosphere (0-5 points): THIS is how you film a low budget picture. No special effects, no elaborate sets with hidden passages and fancy electronics. Just an old house, brilliantly expressive lighting (some of the best I've ever seen in a classic horror film), and some truly bold camera work that isn't always as precise as the work of an established professional like Karl Freund, but it makes up for it with ambitious camera movements and shot compositions. 4/5Other Actors (0-3 points): John McGuire's voice and delivery irks me, but everyone else does a surprisingly outstanding job for a B film. Clarence Muse always rocks my world, and this might well be my favorite role of his as the servant who is wiser than everyone else combined but knows to keep his mouth shut as a result. Betty Compson also plays an unusually compelling zombie-wife, and I find her lines in the film the most unforgettable. Her unorthodox delivery just stays with you. 2.5/3The Lugosi Factor (0-10 points): While nowhere near as striking as in his master performances in White Zombie and Murders in the Rue Morgue, Bela turns in a far more complex performance here, playing the most downright lovable villain of all time. This is the film that truly made me love Bela, I think. He is so warm, so charming, so utterly innocent and delightful. And his transitions into a cold-blooded murderer are deliciously nuanced and carefully considered. For some reason, he hams it up for the final two transformations, but the rest of the film is some of the finest acting he has ever done. 9.5/10Overall: No memorable special effects, spirit-gummed monsters, nor big name actors to speak of, but this film makes up for all of that with tremendous passion and artistry. The script and music are painfully bad, but the rest more than makes up for it with a film that absolutely ranks among my favorite Lugosi works of all time. 18/23
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,865
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 12, 2020 22:12:39 GMT -5
The Black Cat (1941) It's challenging to keep in mind that, during the Golden Age of Horror, memories were incredibly short. There was no home video, and film had advanced so much over the past decades that a handful of years ago could seem like centuries instead. With the exceptions of the true classics, a five year old film was as good as forgotten. And that helps to explain so much of what is going on with The Black Cat. While Universal threw a generous budget at this thing, they're also clearly recycling old material they assume no one is going to recognize anymore. The title is the same as Universal's 1934 film, and the plot is a mix of Night of Terror (1933) and The Cat and the Canary (1927), the latter of which Paramount had recycled into a new film only two years earlier. Bela ends up playing nearly the same role here that he did in Night of Terror, but while this ends up being a superior film, Bela's involvement proves far less impressive. Plot (0-5 points): A mix of two recycled whodunnit films, only with a far more likable protagonist and sidekick than the now overdone edgy newspaper reporter and his young photographer. Broderick Crawford and Hugh Herbert play an adorable down-on-his-luck real estate agent and bumbling antique dealer that truly lighten up the film and mix the atmospheric tension with well-earned smiles and laughter. The rest of the film holds together well enough, but fails to add much new to the mix. And (as with the 1934 film), it has absolutely no interest in Poe and barely earns the film title with one tacked-on detail. 4/5 Atmosphere (0-5 points): The lavish sets and gorgeous lighting we've come to expect from a Universal production. No special effects to speak of, and the secret passages could be more elaborate, but the mood is beautifully crafted. 4.5/5Other Actors (0-3 points): Alan Ladd is distractingly bad in his role, but nearly everyone else is fantastic, especially Gale Sondergaard as the enigmatic servant, Abigail, who feels a bit like a young female Bela in her delivery. I may need to seek out more of her films. 2.5/3The Lugosi Factor (0-10 points): There just isn't enough Bela in this thing. The script offers him very little to do other than creep outside of windows, and those shots don't afford him much opportunity to act. Bela does an adequate job in the film, but he's mostly there taking up space. Sondergaard's character is the one who gets to do the kinds of things Bela would be doing ten years earlier. Sure seems like Universal wanted Bela's name on the movie posters more than they were interested in actually using his talents. The name, at least, could still invoke ten year old memories of Dracula, while the man himself was too old and tired for Universal to see much worth in him here. 3/10Overall: A fun and beautiful film I've now watched four times and enjoyed equally with each viewing, but this is not a Bela film. 14/23
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,865
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 13, 2020 12:04:26 GMT -5
Spooks Run Wild (1941) Lugosi's second outing with Monogram Pictures is less interested in Lugosi as an actor and more in using Lugosi as a gimmick. Originally entitled "Trail of the Vampire," the concept was to have Monogram's East Side Kids meet Dracula (but, of course, they couldn't call it that! Nor could he end up being an actual vampire by the close). Thus begins my least favorite trend in Bela's career -- using him as a means for established comedy acts to get chased by Dracula. Mitchell and Petrillo, Carney and Brown, Mother Riley, it all starts here. Plot (0-5 points): Pretty much what you'd expect. The kids end up trapped in an old house with secret passages, believing Bela is a vampire. But he isn't. And while I happen to really like the Kids themselves, the writing is horribly unfunny. 1/5Atmosphere (0-5 points): Good atmospheric lighting, decent secret passageways, the film seldom looks as cheap as it actually was. I do hate that recycled Poverty Row soundtrack that's crept up repeatedly in Bela's serial productions prior to this. Couldn't they have sprung for a composer? 3/5Other Actors (0-3 points): I really enjoy the East Side Kids, especially Sunshine Sammy Morison playing "Scruno" (pictured above). No brilliant acting here, but the personalities are fun. 2.5/3The Lugosi Factor (0-10 points): Considering that Bela was there to play an archetype in a silly comedy, as well as that any masterful acting might have upstaged the intended comedy of the whole thing, I can't say Bela had a lot to work with here. He is menacing at times, seems to be having fun at others, but doesn't really do anything special this time around. 5/10Overall: While I enjoy the film itself, I dislike what it represents for Bela's career, and it certainly doesn't make good use of him. Hard to believe this is the same studio that just gave us The Invisible Ghost. 11.5/23
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,865
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 15, 2020 0:01:38 GMT -5
The Wolfman (1941) While I prefer Universal's earlier Werewolf of London (1935), the film had been largely dismissed for feeling like a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde knock-off. The Wolfman, in contrast, presents a far more supernatural and menacing beast, as well as a far more intelligent, nuanced script rife with psychological symbolism. My only problem with the film: Lon Chaney Jr. He plays an awkward man-child who I find hard to sympathize with, utterly lacking in the nuanced internal duality that the script so heavily depends upon. To put it another way, a werewolf played by Bela Lugosi bites and creates a werewolf played by Lon Chaney Jr., who in turn bites a convincing Buster Keaton look-alike gravedigger. Of those three potential werewolves, Chaney is the one whose story I'm the least enticed to follow. Plot (0-5 points): Deeply psychological and heavily symbolic, this is one of the most robust scripts to ever come out of a Universal horror film. 5/5Atmosphere (0-5 points): They might (quite literally) pour on the atmospheric fog a bit too thick, and the camera may not be as expressive as I would have liked, but the sets are lavish and unconfined, the transformation is convincing for the time period, and the lighting and shot compositions are impressive enough. 4/5Other Actors (0-3 points): I generally cannot stand Lon Chaney Jr., but Claude Rains almost makes up for it with a masterful and complex performance. And Maria Ouspenskaya plays a haunting Gypsy fortune teller who is half the film's atmosphere in and of herself. 1.5/3The Lugosi Factor (0-10 points): He does a fantastic job with the space he's been given, playing a character who truly feels tormented by his curse and who in no way resembles any character Bela has played in any of the forty eight films I've already reviewed. Impressive how much he gives to such a limited role, but it IS such a limited role. You'll be forgiven if you forgot Bela was even in this film. 5/10Overall: Though weighed down by the lead actor, this is otherwise a Universal masterpiece. However, Bela's role in it is nearly inconsequential. 15.5/23
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,865
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 15, 2020 16:33:25 GMT -5
Black Dragons (1942) Hastily written in response to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor, the film takes the paranoia of Japanese spies living amongst us and adds the question, "What if they had good plastic surgeons?" Plot (0-5 points): A little ridiculous by today's standards, but not so far fetched to a paranoid U.S. audience in 1942, the film actually offers some surprisingly clever twists by the end, even if most of the film is just Bela murdering people and covering it up. Then again, what's wrong with watching Bela murdering people and covering it up for sixty minutes? 3/5Atmosphere (0-5 points): It's a cheap action film that sometimes strays into the horror genre, so the atmosphere isn't given all that much consideration. 1/5Other Actors (0-3 points): Really nothing exceptional this time around. Nothing terrible either. 1/3The Lugosi Factor (0-10 points): Oh, he's a lot of fun this time around, and he gets in a few truly chilling lines, but even as the center of the plot, the film doesn't really give him enough time to show off. He gets three scenes in which he truly gets to act, and he does each one quite well. The scene where he is reading and he and Joan Barclay get to talking about destiny is absolutely his best shining moment in the film. 8/10Overall: Nothing particularly noteworthy, but it's a solid Bela B film when you're in need of one. With a name like "Black Dragons," I was surprised to see it stray into the horror genre as much as it did. 13/23
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Mar 15, 2020 18:50:41 GMT -5
Black Dragons (1942)Hastily written in response to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor (but prior to the United States entering World War II), the film takes the paranoia of Japanese spies living amongst us and adds the question, "What if they had good plastic surgeons?" Plot (0-5 points): A little ridiculous by today's standards, but not so far fetched to a paranoid U.S. audience in 1942, the film actually offers some surprisingly clever twists by the end, even if most of the film is just Bela murdering people and covering it up. Then again, what's wrong with watching Bela murder people and cover it up for sixty minutes? 3/5Atmosphere (0-5 points): It's a cheap action film that sometimes strays into the horror genre, so the atmosphere isn't given all that much consideration. 1/5Other Actors (0-3 points): Really nothing exceptional this time around. Nothing terrible either. 1/3The Lugosi Factor (0-10 points): Oh, he's a lot of fun this time around, and he gets in a few truly chilling lines, but even as the center of the plot, the film doesn't really give him enough time to show off. He gets three scenes in which he truly gets to act, and he does each one quite well. The scene where he is reading and he and Joan Barclay get to talking about destiny is absolutely his best shining moment in the film. 8/10Overall: Nothing particularly noteworthy, but it's a solid Bela B film when you're in need of one. With a name like "Black Dragons," I was surprised to see it stray into the horror genre as much as it did. 13/23 I've seen this a few times over the decades. It's highly entertaining despite being pretty bad. The major thing I like about it is … it's sort of like Dracula vs. the Lone Ranger because the hero is played by Clayton Moore. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Mar 15, 2020 19:04:34 GMT -5
The Wolfman (1941) When I was a kid, I loved this movie so much! It was on Friday night TV a lot! I remember we'd see it in the TV Guide and all the kids would start planning staying all night at the house of the kid with the most permissive parents. "Please, Mom! Can Rick come over? The Wolf Man is on Sammy Terry!" (Sammy Terry was Indiana's Friday night horror-movie host.) I remember when I was 13 or 14, four of five of my friends were at my house (we had a very nice converted basement that was GREAT for gatherings like this), playing pool and watching The Wolf Man and whatever the second feature was. So much fun! Lon Chaney Jr was my favorite of the Universal horror actors back then, but as time went on, I saw a little more Lugosi and Karloff and, for a while, I didn't think much of Chaney. I went a long time where I didn't see The Wolf Man. When I finally saw it again, I was kind of surprised. It's actually pretty good! The thing about Chaney … I liked him a lot better after I realized that he's more of a performer and less an actor. He does what he does, sometimes rather indifferently, but sometimes he can be very entertaining. I love him in Spider-Baby! And he's hilarious in several scenes with Bob Hope and Peter Lorre in My Favorite Brunette. And let's not forget Of Mice and Men! He IS Lenny! |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,865
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 15, 2020 23:17:07 GMT -5
I remember when I was 13 or 14, four of five of my friends were at my house (we had a very nice converted basement that was GREAT for gatherings like this), playing pool and watching The Wolf Man and whatever the second feature was. So much fun! I am jealous of your adolescence, sir. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,865
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 16, 2020 11:48:26 GMT -5
The Ghost of Frankenstein (1942) Back when I was still married, my (then) wife asked to borrow my Frankenstein Legacy collection so that she could show it to her high school students. This was the collection where disc 1 consisted of Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein, and disc 2 contained the rest. She managed to lose the first disc. When my face dropped upon learning this news, she tried to reassure me with, "Well you still have the other movies!" Truly, while Son of Frankenstein created a resurgence in the horror movie genre, what passed for quality entertainment in 1939, when the original films were not available on home video and could not easily be found playing in theaters, really doesn't hold up in hindsight. And The Ghost of Frankenstein, the big budget follow-up that took three more years to make, totally and utterly buries the franchise for me. I think there's a reason Universal shifted to Monster Mash films immediately after making this stinker. The Frankenstein franchise had absolutely nowhere left to go. Plot (0-5 points): There are so many logic lapses, conveniences, and moments of generally bad writing in this film to make it almost unwatchable, from Dr. Frankenstein having yet a second son that was never ever mentioned in the previous film (especially when the Baron relinquished his inheritance to the town at the end), to that son being a sort of psychologist who conveniently also knows how to transplant a brain, to the final unforgivable decision to give the Frankenstein monster a new (evil) brain and the ability to speak freely. Clearly, the writers had no idea what the appeal of the original films was. Oh, the film has two positive qualities. One is giving Igor a more rounded personality (not just maniacally evil), and the other is the touching relationship between the monster and a small child, but that last bit feels downright cliche by this point in the Frankenstein franchise. 0.5/5Atmosphere (0-5 points): Gorgeous lighting, solid camera work, and impressive special effects by the climax. What a shame this was all wasted on such a bad script! 5/5Other Actors (0-3 points): Cedrick Hardwick, Lionel Atwill, and Ralph Bellamy all do a decent enough job. While I can't stand Chaney Jr, he effectively conveys the menace of the monster (though he utterly lacks the nuanced innocence and pain Karloff always conveyed along with it). So I'd call it pretty average acting all around. 1.5/3The Lugosi Factor (0-10 points): The one thing this script truly does right is give Igor more range, now feeling genuine affection and concern for the creature, and seeming more than a little mentally unstable as well. Bela really owns it and delivers an excellent performance on a B-level script. Best yet, when he becomes the voice of the monster (Chaney Jr. still lip synching the dialogue along with Lugosi's recorded voice), his inflections truly work and lend expression to the monster that Chaney Jr. isn't otherwise providing. While Giving the monster Igor's brain and voice was the nail in the coffin for this franchise, Bela does an incredible job with it all the same. It was just the wrong move for the character. The decision to cut the monster's lines in the next film is always attributed to the poor quality of Bela's acting, but I absolutely don't buy that. Seems to me the studio correctly realized that a monster with a functioning and articulate brain was no Frankenstein monster at all. The decision was a tragedy, but Bela's voice acting here was a triumph. 9/10Overall: I don't love Bela in the role, but there's no denying he made it work. I would even argue his was the strongest performance in this film and the second best thing about it (the atmosphere being the first). 16/23
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Mar 16, 2020 23:11:09 GMT -5
The Ghost of Frankenstein (1942) I rather like this one, and The House of Frankenstein as well. Oh, they're not the classics of the caliber of the first two, but I find them very entertaining all the same. And there is nothing in any other Universal horror film that's half as creepy as the monster wanting Dr. Frankenstein to put the girl's brain in his body. I am getting the chills just thinking about it! That scene provides a little too much information about the monster and his motivations and the way he thinks. I didn't see this one when I was a kid. When I lived in Los Angeles, my roommate got into the Frankenstein movies and was renting them one by one over a couple of weeks, and I was watching them as well (because of course I was!) and we got to this one … and none of it looked at all familiar! I would have remembered this … especially the scene where he wants the girl's brain! |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,865
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 17, 2020 10:07:38 GMT -5
And there is nothing in any other Universal horror film that's half as creepy as the monster wanting Dr. Frankenstein to put the girl's brain in his body. I am getting the chills just thinking about it! That scene provides a little too much information about the monster and his motivations and the way he thinks. In Murders in the Rue Morgue, Bela Lugosi is trying to get a gorilla to breed with unsuspecting women. I find that more disturbing, myself. |
|
