The Dry Spell (1936-1938)

Whereas Bela starred in between 4 and 6 film productions a year between 1929 and 1935, the roles suddenly dry up in 1936. Bela does three films in 1936, one in 1937, and none in 1938. It's at this point that he takes an ad out in the 1937 Players Directory, published by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, desperately imploring producers to see his range beyond playing villains. And, considering that Bela was already broke and working to pay off debts from his lavish lifestyle prior to this dry spell, as well as the fact that he seemed to be taking ANY roles offered to him prior to this point with few questions asked, we can be sure that this lack of work wasn't for lack of trying.

There are two prevalent theories for why Bela cannot get work at this point:


The most common one points to the "Horror Film Hiatus of 1936-1938" in which increasingly burdensome government restrictions, paired with the United Kingdom banning all horror films for a time, made it impossible for any actor associated primarily with the horror genre to find work. Even when horror films return, they are never again given the lavish attention and resources of the pre-code horror films now that the public has been encouraged to see them as lowbrow and immoral entertainment. Bela returns to acting only to become a star of the B film, but that's largely because 99% of the horror films made post 1938 were B films.

Of course, Bela had been starring in non-horror films all along, and those roles also seem to dry up at this point. Though many associated Bela with Dracula, he succeeded in seeking out non-horror work in the first four years that followed the release of Dracula, so this theory doesn't fully explain Bela's lack of work.


A second theory takes into consideration Bela's involvement in the creation of the Screen Actors Guild. Bela was a founding member and purportedly even solicited and signed fellow actors on the sets of some of his films. It stands to reason that a production company wary of union involvement might avoid hiring someone so public in his advocacy.


And while I acknowledge that both of these factors inevitably played a role in Bela's dry spell, I suspect that the largest cause was something else entirely. There are many conflicting accounts of how Bela became addicted to morphine and when that addiction began to spin out of control, but watching these films back to back in chronological order, something becomes quite apparent to me. Between 1920 and 1935, Bela barely seemed to age at all. Born in 1882, Bela was already 49 when he played Dracula, and yet he looks two decades younger. Up through 1935, he not only continues to look remarkably young, but he's also in phenomenal shape. Any film that has him wearing tight-cut clothing reveals a remarkably slender and yet muscular build that seems unthinkable for a man in his fifties.

And yet, by the end of 1935, things begin to change fast. Bela gains a noticeable amount of weight, both in the face and the body, seems to lose all muscle mass, and his facial features age extraordinarily.

1935 Bela:




1936 Bela:


(to be fair, he's disheveled in this scene, but he looks older and fatter in every other scene too)

I suspect it's the morphine.

And so, when a casting agent hears Bela Lugosi is in the hallway, they're imagining the dashing lady-killer from only five years earlier, and in walks an old man, truly looking 54 years in age. THAT is what I believed happened to Bela's career. And, perhaps, a man who previously worked so hard at his physical appearance might even find himself ashamed to seek out new roles, or maybe nervously fumbling through auditions and screen tests.

While I don't believe the suspension of American horror films caused Bela's dry-spell, I do believe their reemergence in 1939 is responsible for Bela's comeback. Once horror was back, people wanted Bela Lugosi in those films, and his aging physique would be less of a liability when playing a creepy supernatural villain than any other role in another genre.

Anyway, that's my theory. Regardless of what you believe about Bela's departure, when he returns to film, it's unquestionably as a B actor who will only ever appear in one A level non-horror film again after this point (Ninotchka in 1939).

In 1939, a run-down Hollywood theater facing bankruptcy decided to dredge up classic horror films including Dracula and Frankenstein and show them for a limited run. The showings were so unexpectedly successful that the run was extended, and Bela Lugosi even came out to promote the films in full Dracula garb. According to at least one source, he credited this move with saving his career. Universal took note of this unexpected demand for their classic horror films (as well as for Lugosi) and thus decided to return to making horror pictures, as well as make new use of Bela. Of course, while once celebrated by all, horror films were now frowned upon and seen as immoral, so the lavish Universal productions become less and less frequent, and the Poverty Row studios rise to take their place.


The Phantom Creeps (1939)



This 12 chapter serial (later edited into a feature length film) enjoys a cult following today for reasons I don't entirely understand. It's blatantly cheap, recycles nearly all of its plot elements from other cliche serials that came before, the acting is thoroughly lackluster, and the climactic final battle is nearly all stock footage. There's really very little to love about this one. But it's Bela Lugosi in a Universal film that borders on horror, and there's a creepy robot involved. I guess those elements were enough.



Plot (0-5 points): It's the same plot we've already seen in both The Postal Inspector and SOS Coastguard. A mad scientist who is believed dead has some outlandish scientific weapon that can pose a threat to all of humanity if the government doesn't get it before he sells it. There's a plucky girl reporter, a confident government agent in the role of the hero, and a begrudging sidekick to the villain that you just know will be his undoing by the close. Add to that a little theft from The Invisible Ray (heck, they steal a clip of Boris Karloff mining the alien meteorite), and you have a thoroughly unoriginal script that does nothing worthy of note. On top of this, the episodes are mostly pretty forgettable and repetitive, and the cliffhangers are insulting in how often the hero is clearly about to die, the villain says, "Well that's the end of him," and the hero ends up perfectly fine WITHOUT explanation. 1/5

Atmosphere (0-5 points): On the one hand, this production is cheap as hell, with an airplane interior clearly made out of cardboard, bad screen backdrops for boat, car, and plane chases, and an insulting amount of recycled footage. On the other hand, there are some really fun secret passages, sliding doors, an atmospheric secret laboratory, some decent "invisibility" special effects for The Phantom, laser guns, and an inexplicably creepy looking robot. The initial scientific invention over-used in the first few chapters (a laughable looking mechanical spider that blows up when it comes in contact with a silver disc) is mercifully abandoned early on. Really, the atmosphere is what saves this otherwise disposable production. It's cheap, it's tacky, but it's fun. 4.5/5

Other Actors (0-3 points): Most are simply forgettable, but Edwin Stanley (playing Dr. Mallory) doesn't seem to have any idea how to act, and Dorothy Arnold (playing Jean Drew) under-delivers every line to the point that I half-wonder if she's sleepwalking. Truly, there's nothing good about this cast. 0.5/3

The Lugosi Factor (0-10 points): Whereas he knocked it out of the ballpark with Shadow of Chinatown and SOS Coastguard, effectively playing the same villain twice but in totally different ways, he plays the same villain a third time here and stumbles. In the first chapters, he hams up the delivery something awful. After that, he's adequate, but generally fails to bring much style to his delivery. He does a convincing mourning over the character's deceased wife, but that's about it. Truly, nothing all that memorable about his role here beyond the energy with which the now 57 year old Bela leaps from the secret cave entrance to his lab nearly every episode. 6/10

Overall: I won't lie. I really enjoyed the middle episodes of this serial, but it was almost entirely the atmosphere that kept me engaged and little else. Bela wasn't bad, but this was not his A level, likely because he was filming Son of Frankenstein at the same time. 12/23

Son of Frankenstein (1939)



Universal's triumphant return to monster films, Son of Frankenstein clearly benefits from a lavish budget, as well as a 90+ minute run-time. Universal was ready to go big or go home with this release, and it appeared to work, garnering unprecedented box office returns and ushering in a new Silver Age of horror. Bela manages to get a major role this time around, with a plot that rests heavily upon his character and offers him plenty of screen time, but it's also a uni-dimensional role that doesn't give Bela much room to demonstrate his range. Still, I'm impressed by the dialect and mannerisms he lends to Ygor. He is so different here: a vast departure from his familiar accent, appearance, and expressions as to be almost unrecognizable in the role.


Plot (0-5 points): Clearly, a tremendous amount of passion and thought went into this one. A son of Dr. Frankenstein, raised as a normal person in our world, is transported to the world of Universal Horror via inheritance, along with his utterly normal family, inviting us to sympathize with him in his quick descent into obsession that threatens to tear his family apart. Meanwhile, the character of Ygor and his subplot closely mirror aspects of Robert Louis Stevenson's The Body Snatcher, and (as Val Lewton would later prove) could ultimately have been a film unto itself. The film also asks the clever question: if the monster is so desperate for a friend, what if it finds a friend who has plans to misuse it? Ygor even uses music in a way reminiscent of the old blind man in Bride of Frankenstein, only this time for a sinister purpose. And, speaking of callbacks to prior films, I love how this film recalls the death of little Maria in having the monster befriend young Peter Frankenstein. This time, the relationship is more complex, extended, and ultimately darker.

However, I do have one major criticism with the plot -- it depicts the monster more as a plot device than a protagonist, and thus a film that otherwise so carefully reconsiders the premise fails to grasp the most important ingredient in the franchise: the monster himself. No wonder this was Karloff's last time in the role. 3.5/5

Atmosphere (0-5 points): The pains this film went to in order to channel the German Expressionism that influenced that first round of Universal Horror films! Exaggerated lines and angles--never straight--always reflecting the madness of the Frankenstein family, along with thick shadows and open, empty spaces. Extraordinary money and effort went into the look of this film, and yet it's so visually uncomfortable, utterly lacking the visual beauty of those first two films. Additionally, the camera itself is always pragmatic and lacking in stylistic expression. An A for effort, but the final execution is why I don't come back to this film more often than I otherwise would. When Mel Brooks made Young Frankenstein three decades later, he essentially re-did this film and gave it the more traditional horror atmosphere it so richly deserved. Sure, it was a comedy. But, more than that, it was a fan's love-letter to a film that almost got it right. 2/5

Other Actors (0-3 points): Exceptionally strong cast. Basil Rathbone never disappoints, this may be Lionel Atwill's finest role, and Donnie Dunagen may be the finest child actor I've ever seen--utterly convincing in his innocence and authenticity. It's amazing to me those lines he delivered were actually on-script, as they are delivered with the sincerity of a rambling a young child. 3/3

The Lugosi Factor (0-10 points): He brings very little range to the role, but it's striking how un-Bela he is here, as well as how tremendously fun a one-note psycho villain he proves to be. LOVE that moment where he sneezes in the barrister's face. 7.5/10

Overall: A VERY strong film that falls just short of being a true horror classic. It isn't a high point for Bela, but he's certainly good enough here. 16/23

The Gorilla (1939)



Universal may have gotten the horror craze going again, but Fox was ready to jump on that bandwagon with a high quality production featuring Bela that would seamlessly blend horror and comedy. The only problem...they chose to recycle a script from a 14 year old stage play that feels like a dinosaur by 1939 standards.


Plot (0-5 points): The original stage play was marketed as a spoof of The Bat, and that's exactly what it is. A decade and a half earlier, I might have found it unique. But the Old Dark House murder mystery was so overdone by this point that adding (lousy) comic relief isn't enough to make this thing feel fresh again. And really, I didn't laugh once. Part of that is my not enjoying the Ritz Brothers in their roles at all, but I don't think there's anything that funny going on even if it was The Marx Brothers instead. 1/5

Atmosphere (0-5 points): Surprisingly gorgeous! Brilliant lighting, some expressive camera work, an old dark house with numerous hidden passageways, and a booming lightning storm allowing for spooky faces at the window amidst the torrential downpour. Even the Gorilla (the escaped animal in the film; not the arch villain) looks convincing at times. 4.5/5

Other Actors (0-3 points): The Ritz Brothers just don't do it for me. This is the only role I've ever seen them in, and (to be totally fair), they were in a dispute with the producer, being forced to show up on set for filming after their father had just died, so I'm sure they weren't on their A game, but a few funny faces aside, it seems like their entire gag is getting angry. In 2020, that doesn't play very well, especially when they are yelling at women. In contrast, Lionel Atwill is on his A game once again, and Anita Louise's calm/restrained terror is memorable as well. Everyone else seems adequate, but not worthy of note. 1.5/3

The Lugosi Factor (0-10 points): Charming, benign, threatening, and utterly capable. Bela has played this role before. It's essentially written the same as the role he played in Night of Terror, but he plays it completely differently here. Somehow, the kinder he gets, and the bigger he smiles, the more he manages to come off as suspicious, and he tells us just with his posture that this servant is more capable and powerful than anyone else in this film. I just wish he'd been given a little bit more to do. 8.5/10

Overall: I have no love for the story, nor for the Ritz Brothers, but the visuals and Bela's presence still make this a film worth coming back to. 15.5

Ninotchka (1939)



For once, Bela's typecast as a sinister foreigner lands him a role in an A-level production, though it's odd that he receives fourth billing and then only appears in one scene of the film.


Plot (0-5 points): Incredibly clever with its humor, though seldom laugh-out-loud funny. I always appreciate Billy Wilder, and yet I haven't sought out enough of his films. This was my first time watching this one, and yet my daughter and I plan to return to it again (just ordered the Blu ray from Amazon). And while the anti-Soviet attitude in the film is unmistakable, I credit the script for giving some serious exploration to the Soviet perspective before ripping it apart. My only real complaint is how quickly the protagonist changes her perspective. The transformation should have been more gradual and earned. 4.5/5


Atmosphere (0-5 points): Though much of the film hinges on the idea of Soviets enjoying the elegant Parisian lifestyle, the atmosphere doesn't dominate as much as it perhaps should. Still, the sets were convincing enough. I did appreciate the thick snow falling upon the protagonist's return to Russia, heavily featured outside the window in her scene with Bela. 4/5

Other Actors (0-3 points): I'll never understand why everyone was so enamored with Greta Garbo once upon a time. She overacts something awful and is awkward looking too. I loved her as the restrained, tightly controlled Soviet who expressed no emotion, but she jumped from that to overly expressing every emotion on a beat, and it did not work for me. A strong male co-lead might have saved the day, but Clark Gable was shooting Gone with the Wind, and James Stewart was filming Made for Each Other. This other guy they ended up using is certainly adequate, but doesn't really earn his place in such an otherwise impressive film. However, the three clownish Soviet stooges working under Garbo were priceless. 1.5/3

The Lugosi Factor (0-10 points): He plays a fine Soviet bureaucrat for all of three minutes. Surprisingly, he really does hold his own with Garbo and expresses a complex persona -- concerned, but detached and authoritative, concealing some degree of warmth just beneath the surface -- but really, this is not a film you see for Bela. Three minutes out of an hour and fifty minute film. 3/10

Overall: A truly special film worth seeing, but not for Bela. 13/23

Black Friday (1940)



When Universal billed this as another team-up between Bela and Boris Karloff, they were outright lying. Neither character is the true star of the film, and yet Lugosi's role is far far less significant than Karloff's. While Karloff gets to play a morally conflicted surgeon and best friend, Bela is assigned the role of routine gangster, and he never even gets a scene together with Karloff. Allegedly, Bela was originally supposed to play Karloff's role, and Karloff was supposed to play the dual identity at the center of the film, but a last minute change was made for reasons that are still debated today. Still, Bela takes what he is given and makes it memorable.


Plot (0-5 points): I'm neither a big fan of gangster films nor of medical fantasy/science fiction. I suppose the concept of a gentle professor of English literature and a ruthless gangster occupying the same brain is a novel concept, but this is not the kind of story I ever would have sought out if it wasn't for Bela and Boris. And why is it called "Black Friday," anyway? I guess all this happened on Friday the 13th, but that isn't really integral to the plot. Seems like the title, cast, and publicity photos were already in place before this film even had a script. 2.5/5

Atmosphere (0-5 points): Some very stylistic shots at the beginning and end, though the cinematography seems to "get out of the way" once the story gets moving, it's a polished looking picture by most standards but, judging it as a Universal release, it's nowhere near as moody and expressive as so many of their other films of the era. 2.5/5

Other Actors (0-3 points): The entire success of this film rests on Stanley Ridges' ability to become two entirely different characters, almost entirely through facial expressions and intonation, and boy does he succeed. Anna Nagel and Anne Gwynne both bring something extra to their roles as well. 3/3

The Lugosi Factor (0-10 points): It's hard not to be disappointed by the secondary role Bela receives after sharing top billing on the production, but he makes it work. At this point, Bela has played a gangster far more times than he has played a monster and a mad scientist combined, so it's a bit surprising to see him playing a lower profile thug who doesn't steal the show. I worried Bela was phoning it in a bit until we got to his final scene, and it then became clear what Bela was up to. This is a far less commanding thug; someone who puts on the facade of being intimidating but cowers and breaks easily. His final scene, pleading for his life from a closet and almost out-screaming Anna Nagel, is truly haunting stuff, and in no way resembles anything Bela has ever tried to do before. The fact that we don't even see his face -- it's all done with his voice -- is extraordinary. Still, it's one scene in an hour long film that otherwise isn't overly concerned with Bela and doesn't give him much space to impress. 7/10

Overall: Universal was well aware there was new demand for more horror films in the style of Dracula and Frankenstein. It therefore blows my mind to see Lugosi and Karloff receive top billing together in a Universal film in 1940 and then not even make it a horror film. Worse yet, Bela plays a secondary role. What a waste of an extraordinary cast and crew, in service of a story and genre that simply aren't the best fit here. 15/23