Dracula Month Day 10: Tomb of Dracula #25

Once again I'm looking at one of my favourite issues of Marvel Comics' Tomb of Dracula series. This time it's Tomb of Dracula #25 (1974) and the story "Night of the Blood Stalker!" by Marv Wolfman, Gene Colan and Tom Palmer.

This tale is told from the perspective of a heretofore unfamiliar character: Hannibal King. King is a private detective who is hired to investigate a man's death and it leads him straight into the realm of vampires, ultimately to Dracula himself. King is barely fazed by this as he's had experience with vampires before; indeed, as is revealed in the final panel, he's a vampire himself! This was an explosive conclusion to the story and one which was well-prepared (King's reflection doesn't appear in mirrors while others do). It also raised all sorts of questions - no vampire in the series had been able to pose so successfully as a human: how had King managed to remain so humanlike? How was he able to resist Dracula when so many other vampires are subserviant to him? Answers were coming and although Wolfman used King sparingly, he was always a welcome figure.

This was before the trope of 'vampire detective' had led to shows like Forever Knight or Angel; indeed, the story's title suggests Wolfman's own influence was the TV series Night Stalker. Hannibal King is one of my favourite Marvel Comics characters, particularly when written by Wolfman. If you can find copies of Journey into Mystery #520 & 521 (1998), you'll fin an excellent two-part Hannibal King tale by Wolfman therein.

Dracula Month Day 9: Tomb of Dracula #15

Over these next few days I'm going to examine Marvel Comics' Tomb of Dracula comic book series, which ran from 1972-1979. It was easily the most successful of Marvel's brief horror comic book boom and all of the success belongs to the creators, especially the moody shadowy artwork of Gene Colan and that all but six issues were written by Marv Wolfman. The series also succeeded because of the strong emphasis on its supporting cast, allowing Dracula himself to be a wicked, villainous characters while the heroics were usually left to the vampire hunters. In that sense, it was akin to Stoker's novel.

Tomb of Dracula #15 (1973) featured the story "Fear Is the Name of the Game!" by Marv Wolfman, Gene Colan and regular inker Tom Palmer. This story presented something a little offbeat from Wolfman's usual pace as instead of continuing the ongoing plotlines the issue takes a breather while Dracula composes a few entries in his diary. Very quickly a number of Dracula tales are told, each about 3 pages long and ranging across the breadth of his life. Some of the tales existed to patch up continuity, but others could have easily comprised the contents of a full issue themselves: a hunter shoots a bat from the sky, then sees the fallen animal turn into Dracula; Dracula sees a woman fatally wounded by her husband and converts her into a vampire so she can have revenge on her killer; Dracula meets an immortal man who has lived 1700 years and wants to die; a Scotsman battles Dracula in his castle and drives a stake into his heart.

I recommend this lone issue to anyone who wonders what Wolfman & Colan's Tomb of Dracula was about; these four short stories are indicative of the storytelling quality throughout the series. If you want to sample just one issue to see if you like it, this is probably your best bet. It's only $1.99 at Comixology.

Dracula Month Day 8: Dracula: Dead and Loving It

Confession time: I'm not that into Young Frankenstein (1974). Perhaps I saw it too late in life, too long after I'd heard it repeatedly referenced in other works, too long after I read review after glowing review. Comedy is, of course, subjective, but I simply did not laugh too often while watching that film. Regardless, there are other Mel Brooks pictures which I found very funny (at least, I did when I was a teenager) and my teenage self enjoyed Leslie Nielsen films; getting those two together to satirize Dracula should have been a slam-dunk for me, right?

Dracula: Dead and Loving It (1995) parodied the 1931 film much as Brooks' Young Frankenstein parodied the 1931 Universal Frankenstein (with a lot of Bride of Frankenstein & Son of Frankenstein thrown in). While I think the earlier Brooks film is okay, Dracula: Dead and Loving It is, in my opinion, a misfire and the critical response & box office seem to agree with me. No doubt part of this is down to the source material; Karloff's Frankenstein films are not only remembered for their performances but for specific set-pieces which Brooks was able to parody; Lugosi's Dracula is only truly memorable for Lugosi's performance, not for any particular set-pieces. And yet, Brooks went to considerable trouble to recreate the 1931 Dracula, down to the tiresome drawing room scenes, Renfield journeying to Transylvania, etc. Although one assumes this film was made in part because of the success of Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula film in 1992 Brooks only referenced that picture in two gags, one where Nielsen sported a similar hairstyle as Gary Oldman's Dracula, then removed the hair, revealing it to be a wig (that's a joke! you're supposed to laugh!) and a parody of Lucy's death scene where the joke is that her body unleashes a torrent of blood when staked.

I was the target audience for this film as in 1995 I was very much into Universal monster films, Mel Brooks & Leslie Nielsen, but the reviews kept even me away. Watching it is a dismal affair; there was a lot of talent in this picture but it was in the service of an unfunny script. It seems to be the end of Brooks' career as a director, which is an awful way to go out.

Dracula Month Day 7: Son of Dracula

Lon Chaney Jr. built his career at Universal Pictures more-or-less on his father's reputation. Sure, he had talent, but because Chaney Sr. had been well-remembered for his own Universal horror pictures it made sense for Universal to bank on the younger Chaney's name. I haven't done the math, but I believe Chaney Jr. was ultimately the lead in more Universal horror pictures than any other star. He played virtually every Universal monster, including Dracula in 1943's Son of Dracula, directorial debut of Robert Siodmak.

Son of Dracula is the third of Universal's Dracula pictures; after this he would appear only in Universal's "team-up" pictures (House of Frankenstein, House of Dracula, Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein). Although the title refers to a "son," that's just a lame sequel title - Chaney Jr. is supposed to be Dracula here, although he spends much of the film going by "Alucard" (a deception which throws people off for about 2 seconds). The film sees Dracula visiting the USA and wooing a morbid young woman; the woman's lover, Frank, tries to kill Dracula for taking her from him but when he fires his gun at Dracula the bullets pass through the vampire's body and kill Frank's ex-lover instead; she soon rises from the grave as a vampire. As you can see, Frank is not your typical Universal horror protagonist - he's got more in common with the flawed Hammer film protagonists.

Son of Dracula shows the limits of the Universal horror tropes; although Universal cast Chaney Jr. all over the place he had a pretty narrow range - he was wonderful at playing frightened, worried men, but I find him an ill-fit for the role of a supremely confident figure such as Dracula. Dracula ought to be played by someone with a bit of swagger and Shakespearean extravagance. Although Siodmak's direction hints towards his future as a film noir auteur, Son of Dracula was a little behind the times; over at RKO, Val Lewton was showing new ways to capture horror on-screen. For Universal, there wasn't much left to do with their venerable cast of creatures but run the team-up films.

Dracula Month Day 6: Dracula's Daughter

During my teenage years I read a number of books about horror films and I always took note of what they stated about the Universal pictures of the 30s & 40s. I don't recall any of them referencing Dracula's Daughter (1936); when I did learn of the film through various film guides those books gave no indication it was in any way memorable, nor did they mention it was a direct sequel to Bela Lugosi's Dracula (1931) - indeed, the film opens immediately after the conclusion of Dracula with Edward Van Sloan reprising his role as Van Helsing.

Dracula's Daughter is becoming better known thanks to the internet age and it's now easily available on DVD. The picture stars Gloria Holden as the titular daughter of Dracula, Marya Zaleska. She yearns to be rid of the curse of vampirism and with the death of her father believes she might have a chance, turning to a psychologist played by Otto Kruger in the hopes she could be hypnotically cured of her thirst for blood; complicating matters is Sandor, Zaleska's loyal henchman who keeps nudging his mistress into her bloodlust, hoping she'll turn him into a vampire.

One reason this film has obtained reexamination is a segment where Zaleska goes hunting for dinner and picks up a woman from the street, behaves nicely to her, then lunges in (off-camera) to feed on her. Some point to this as being an early entry in the surprisingly vast lesbian vampire subgenre, a cousin of sorts to Sheridan Le Fanu's story "Carmilla" (1871). Of course, Zaleska's affections are towards the doctor played by Kruger; her feeding upon a woman is no different than her father preferring to feed on women in the 1931 film (note that Dracula isn't seen biting Renfield). Whether they're male or female, there's something about vampires in these stories which draws their thirst to women. It's not necessarily a lesbian thing, but the subtext is there for anyone to dig up; it makes Dracula's Daughter a little more interesting than your typical mid-30s horror picture (horror was a struggling genre at the time). In fact, I'll gladly call Dracula's Daughter the best Dracula film Universal made and - aside from his corpse - Dracula ain't even present.

Dracula Month Day 5: Dracula (the 1931 Spanish film)

How's this for a complicated film: a Spanish adaptation of a Tod Browning film adapted from a John L. Balderston play revised from an earlier Hamilton Deane play adapted from a novel by Bram Stoker! The Spanish-language version of Dracula was filmed on the same sets as the English-language version with an entirely different cast following the same treatment. Contemporary DVD releases of the Tod Browning English film tend to include the Spanish-language variant directed by George Melford.

As you would expect the Spanish Dracula is virtually identical to the English version in terms of plot and staging. And yet, beyond the performances themselves, there are some noticeable differences: the fake spider at Castle Dracula is a completely different (and more believable) prop in the Spanish version; the bats in the Spanish version flap about instead of hovering in place. But it's the performances which truly alter the material; although they are still restricted by the script's devotion to the play, there is something about the Latin languages which inspires more energy and excitement in conversation. Note too how violently Van Helsing's mirror is shattered in the Spanish version versus the English copy!

I would also say the Spanish version of Lucy & Mina (Lucia & Eva) are far lovelier than the women in the English film. The film's Renfield is no Dwight Frye, but is fine. Where the Spanish film is lacking is in the count himself, portrayed there by Carlos Villarias. Carlos' was so moon-faced that while his performance showed a ruthlessness which I found lacking in Lugosi, physically he was not as intimidating as Lugosi (of course, he also lacked Lugosi's wonderful accent). If you don't mind watching films with subtitles than you might enjoy the Spanish version more than the English one - I certainly do. However, you'll likely want to see the English version first to prepare for the inevitable comparisons.

Dracula Month Day 4: Dracula (the 1931 English film)

1931 was a banner year for Universal, the one major Hollywood studio to take a strong interest in developing horror pictures; Dracula with Bela Lugosi and Frankenstein with Boris Karloff both premiered in 1931 and became classics of the genre, archetypal pictures both.

Directed by Tod Browning, veteran Lon Chaney Sr. director, Dracula was not so much an adaptation of Stoker's novel as it was of the play by Hamilton Deane & John L. Balderston, with Lugosi reprising his stage role as Dracula and likewise Edward Van Sloan as Van Helsing. Although much of the film is derived from the stage play, it's worth acknowledging how much of the novel was put back in for the film account. Renfield was given Jonathan Harker's role of traveling into Transylvania to meet Count Dracula, but the stage play hadn't even been set there. Dracula's brides were added to the opening sequences, Lucy & Mina were both present on-screen and back in their roles in the novel and the UK setting was shifted back to Whitby; Dracula kills Renfield.

Both I begin to criticize this film there are a few points worth applauding: Lugosi's line delivery was excellent; Edward Van Sloan was a properly indefatigable Van Helsing; the set designs of Dracula's castle and the Carfax crypt were some of Universal's best.

The unfortunate side of Dracula is just about everything else. Compared to the stage play, Dracula put in some effort to open up the story with the scenes of Renfield traveling by carriage, the doings around Dracula's castle and Dracula's visit to Dr. Seward at the theater. However, Dracula is all-too unfortunately an early talkie picture and a stage adaptation, which are so often detriments in 1930s pictures. For all that Browning did to open up the story there are still significant events occurring off-screen as they did in the play (most obviously when Harker describes a wolf running across the lawn and the film fails to cut away and depict said wolf). Early talkies were all-too enamored of relaying information to audiences through verbiage instead of action and Browning fell into that same trap; once the film moves into Dr. Seward's library - the same place most of the stage play was set - it becomes rather uninteresting visually.

The other unfortunate business about Dracula is that contemporary audiences find it laughable rather than scary. I watched this film at Cineplex a few years ago and many of the attempted frights brought a chorus of laughter from the crowd. The hovering bats were always greeted with laughter, so too the immense and clearly fake spider in Transylvania; Dwight Frye's Renfield was often greeted with laughter as his histrionics were viewed as merely campy rather than frightening; Lugosi's overly-stagy performance was likewise seen as campy. I think the film is also hindered by the sparse soundtrack; dramatic stings of music might have helped maintain tension during the picture and kept a little bit of dignity for Frye & Lugosi's performances. Instead, the lack of music intertwined with the melodramatic acting seems to convince audiences they're watching a series of blackout comedy sketches. But then, the audience I was with laughed at James Whale's Frankenstein for many of the same reasons.