Tweet House of Dracula (45)

I watched this tonight for the first time in about 20yrs. I've revised my opinion. It's a lot moodier and more atmospheric than what I remembered. I know the whole series was on it's last legs at this stage but this one is OK, in my book. Onslow Stevens is quite good for what he has to do in it.

As a kid I always took the atmospheric filmmaking in these movies for granted. I appreciate the craftsmanship so much more now.

This is many times better than its predecesor HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN, which has the clumsiest dialogue this side of George Bricker. HOUSE OF DRACULA has a few genuinely scary moments, particularly the wagon scene with Onlsow Stevens and Ludwig Stossel. What disappoints me about the film is Edgar Fairchild's very offhanded musical direction. Almost every cue is played rushed and without emphasis. It's weakly orchestrated and badly dubbed. In that regard, HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN was a revelation - a superbly prepared score brilliantly played and recorded.

I must say, aside from A&C MEET FRANKENSTEIN, this is about as tolerable as the Larry Talbot character gets in a film, even arousing sympathy near the end. The "I just want to die" thing gets really old in a rush.

Unfortunately, "House of Dracula" is marred by a number of stock-shots, from "Bride of Frankenstein" during the nightmare sequence, and, particularly, "The Ghost of Frankenstein" in the last scene. So you get three different Frankenstein Monsters as well, Glenn Strange, Boris Karloff, and Lon Chaney Jr in the same movie!

This is many times better than its predecesor HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN...

Absolutely.

I'm glad to learn that I'm not the only one who thinks that HOD is much better than HOF. Admittedly, the ending is rushed but the film showed an infusion of new thinking and it was a genuine surprise to to see Talbot get cured. Onslow Stevens gave the performance of his career and although he is the de facto star of the film, he is fifth billed - in small letters. For years I marveled at his doing his own stunts (apparently) only to learn that his double looked so much like him in makeup that the camera fearlessly gets right in his face. I saw a photo once of Stevens and his double and they did look like twins.

A word about FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLFMAN - I have a hunch it began life as a sequel to - and only to - THE WOLFMAN. It eventually turns into a sequel to GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN as well and that's where things start to get silly. But the first half of the film is excellent and I can only assume that Siodmak wrote himself into a corner or the studio brass didn't like the direction of his story in the latter half.

A word about FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLFMAN - I have a hunch it began life as a sequel to - and only to - THE WOLFMAN. It eventually turns into a sequel to GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN as well and that's where things start to get silly. But the first half of the film is excellent and I can only assume that Siodmak wrote himself into a corner or the studio brass didn't like the direction of his story in the latter half.

Nope -- it was conceived from the start as a teamup. I don't have the story in front of me, it is quoted in full in the book "It's Alive", but Sidomak was throwing out titles at a lunch one time and threw that one out, and a few days later IIRC the brass came to him and told him to write a story starting from that title. The film in theory would not have been as silly had the dialogue of the monster not been cut nor some of the more explanatory scenes. In practice, so the story goes, the studio crew saw the initial cut and laughed their heads off at Lugosi's Hungarian accent coming from the monster's mouth. So the cuts made the film somewhat incoherent.

One of my wishes for lost film cuts is a set of scenes with Lugosi's dialogue intact and the cut scenes, but from all accounts those scenes are forever lost.

Yet, FMTW has always been one of the most popular of the series for 16mm collectors.
To be honest, I enjoy it.
My favourite of the titles which followed BRIDE... would be SON OF FRANKENSTEIN - yet again, very atmospheric, brilliant sets, and Lugosi in what must be his finest role as Igor.

Perhaps I should do some homework - I have a copy of the script - and look for the Monster's dialogue. It sounds like the studio brass forgot the ending of GHOST and that the Monster indeed spoke with the voice of Lugosi as Ygor. That was silly inasmuch as Ygor's brain was transplanted and not his vocal chords. At any rate, if the Monster in FMTWM sounded like Ygor, at least it would have been consistent with the previous film. Apparently they did carry over the fact that the Monster went blind at the end of GHOST, then jettisoned it from the plot, but keeping in reaction shots of Lugosi at the end when he can see again.

I also wonder why Evelyn Ankers didn't continue her role from GHOST and why the ruins of the mansion had turned into a castle? Given that the films were released only about a year apart, Universal must have assumed the public had a short memory. Of course, architectural consistency was not a strong suit in the series. The same house appears in FRANKENSTEIN, BRIDE, and SON but is totally redesigned in each film. Don't get me started on plot holes in BRIDE!

And of course there are the scenes where Lugosi is stumbling because of his blindness, but because the film never explains it you get the cliche about the monster's stumbling gait as if that were just how he walked.

I don't have the full shooting script but It's Alive has fairly extensive quotes of the cut scenes. Frankly, IMO the problem wasn't the Hungarian accent as much as the lame dialogue. I think I would have found them funny no matter who was speaking them, though of course the accent makes it far worse.

Firstly, I'm not sure that the presence of plot holes is at all important in these films. They are meant to be enjoyed for what they are. For that matter, there's one huge flaw running through them all - these creatures do not exist

Secondly, I forgot I had a copy of ITS ALIVE. Time it was re-read, I feel.

Checked my scripts - I have THE WOLFMAN and GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN but not FMTWN. Chalk it up to a senior moment.

I think there is a difference between plot holes and the so-called "voluntary suspension of disbelief" in watching these films. For purposes of the movie, we accept the proposition that if vampires, werewolves, etc. did exist this might be a story. But even when we suspend our disbelief, we still expect the characters to act in a believable manner and for events to unfold in a logical manner. Plot holes are mistakes in the narrative that the film makers didn't catch or chose to ignore. For example, in BRIDE when E.E. Clive says, "Tell the old baron we're bringing his son home" and we never see or hear about the old baron again, that's a plot hole. Not a big deal and admittedly fun when we spot them.

Basically, whatever their individual minor faults, all of the Universal Frankenstein films and frankly, most of the Universal Horror product are well-made, entertaining films. The late Frankensteins are helped immensily by their director, Erle C. Kenton, who was one of the most solid craftsman directors who could handle any genre he was dealt from comedy to horror. Universal's production staff also had the european atmosphere situation down pat, I love how that one village backlot set becomes french, german, or british effortlessly as the need takes it. Even as they became more formulaic, director Kenton keeps things moving nicely in both HOUSES OF FRANKENSTEIN/DRACULA, trotting out the old star monsters for their turns. HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN was always like the HOLLYWOOD PARTY of horror films, each monster gets his ten mnutes, with Boris Karloff MCing the whole thing, who can really complain? Thanks to its episodic nature, that film also made more great 10 minute Castle cutdowns than any of the other films. Heck, even ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEETS FRANKENSTEIN was one of that teams best films, and the horror content is solid, one last hurrah for that style as so many of those series we loved went out on their post-war last gasps.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

But even when we suspend our disbelief, we still expect the characters to act in a believable manner and for events to unfold in a logical manner. .

Nah......in these movies we don't care about that

Man, I haven't seen ANY of these film sin at least 20 years.

I hope that these are a part of the Universal BluRays. After reading what you guys have been saying I'd like to check them out again!

Man, I haven't seen ANY of these film sin at least 20 years.

I hope that these are a part of the Universal BluRays. After reading what you guys have been saying I'd like to check them out again!

If you look up the Universal 100 years press release in the All Quiet thread, it sure looks like they will be doing the entire thing on Blu ray this year....

I just finished re-watching the entire FRANKENSTEIN-DRACULA-WOLF MAN series (plus some of the other underrated little Universal gems like MAN-MADE MONSTER and THE INVISIBLE WOMAN) and loved every last one of them. Inevitably, in a saga of nearly a dozen films made over 14 years, there are bound to be glitches, some beyond controlling, others just baffling, some so bizarre they actually seem oddly appropriate in this surreal "alternate universe", as James Whale called it, where these films take place. My favourite examples are the watchtower magically teleporting itself miles across the countryside to its new lot next door to the castle or the two jurors killed off in SON OF FRANKENSTEIN being alive and well and back at their posts in GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN. The only times I found the continuity genuinely vexing happen when in the later films it becomes uncertain specifically which "Dr. Frankenstein" is being referred to by the characters.
The repeated resurrections get pretty daft, but perhaps the Monster really is indestructible, the bullet the Wolf Man is shot with in HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN is just imitation silver, and it's at least possible the Dracula revived in the same film is actually "Alucard" from SON OF DRACULA. At any rate, Dracula Jr. does seem to have a knack for recovering from being skeletonized (is that a real word?). John Carradine is so good in the part it's a crying shame he didn't get more to do, but when the movie gives up and starts over after the first couple of reels he's perplexingly ejected from the story. Then, it happens to him again in HOUSE OF DRACULA, though at least by transferring things to the Edlemann character they admirably avoided the obvious route of having Dracula stick around for the finale and revive the Monster himself.

One thing that was always a mystery to me: why wasn't Lugosi used for these 1940's Dracula parts? Anybody knowledgeable about this?

One thing that was always a mystery to me: why wasn't Lugosi used for these 1940's Dracula parts? Anybody knowledgeable about this?

A few things here -- Universal blamed Lugosi completely for the ineffectiveness of his portrayal of the monster in FMTW (as if having post-production cuts didn't drop the bottom of how he played the role) and they did not renew his contract. Forced to stay alive, Lugosi reached out for whatever deals he could get and signed with Monogram and other poverty row studios. When House of Frankenstein was announced, Lugosi was in fact originally announced as Dracula and Lugosi certainly wanted the part. But for various reasons, it didn't happen, including fading health, his contracts with the poverty row studios, and executives at Universal who were still steamed over his performance in FMTW. All of this per "It's Alive", the definitive book on the Universal Frankenstein series, or at least the best I have ever seen.

http://www.amazon.com/Alive-Classic-Cin ... 015&sr=1-6

Thanks! Poor Bela...

... "It's Alive", the definitive book on the Universal Frankenstein series, or at least the best I have ever seen.

http://www.amazon.com/Alive-Classic-Cin ... 015&sr=1-6" target="_blank

I second that. Excellent book.

... "It's Alive", the definitive book on the Universal Frankenstein series, or at least the best I have ever seen.

http://www.amazon.com/Alive-Classic-Cin ... 015&sr=1-6" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank

I second that. Excellent book.

I'll third that! Haven't actually seen the book in thirty years but it was so good it's stayed with me vividly.

One thing that was always a mystery to me: why wasn't Lugosi used for these 1940's Dracula parts? Anybody knowledgeable about this?

A few things here -- Universal blamed Lugosi completely for the ineffectiveness of his portrayal of the monster in FMTW (as if having post-production cuts didn't drop the bottom of how he played the role) and they did not renew his contract. Forced to stay alive, Lugosi reached out for whatever deals he could get and signed with Monogram and other poverty row studios. When House of Frankenstein was announced, Lugosi was in fact originally announced as Dracula and Lugosi certainly wanted the part. But for various reasons, it didn't happen, including fading health, his contracts with the poverty row studios, and executives at Universal who were still steamed over his performance in FMTW. All of this per "It's Alive", the definitive book on the Universal Frankenstein series, or at least the best I have ever seen.

Well, yes and no. The fact is that Universal had never treated Lugosi properly, from the pittance they paid him to do DRACULA in the first place, then after MURDERS IN THE RUE MORGUE's failure never really promoting him properly as a star, certainly not in the way they promoted Karloff. Lugosi had turned to Poverty Row studios almost immediately just to keep going, making pictures for companies like World-Wide and Mascot as early as 1933, and most likely they were paying him as well or better than Universal was.

Universal would team him with Karloff, usually emphasizing Boris over Bela,but the only other solo-starring film Lugosi had at Universal after MORGUE was the 1939 serial THE PHANTOM CREEPS, and the most money they ever paid Bela for a picture was what they paid him NOT to appear in DRACULAS DAUGHTER! Universal threw Bela bones in the early 40's, oddly miscast supporting roles in things like THE BLACK CAT (1941)and NIGHT MONSTER (1942), and brought him back as Ygor for GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN in 1942 because the character had been so effective in SON OF FRANKENSTEIN they almost grudgingly had to, but even Lionel Atwill was being better used and working more in Universal films by then and that was post-scandal for him.

Then the decision to cast a now 60 or so year old Bela to play the Frankenstein Monster, a part Karloff had given up on partly because he was getting to old to go through the physical torture the performance required, comes off as crass and mean-spirited nose-rubbing for an actor who had turned down the part more than a decade before. Playing it was one of the major contributing factors to Belas declining health, exacerbating the back problems that fueled his addiction to pain medications. Dumping him for his work at Monogram, where he had been making pictures for Sam Katzman since 1941 would have been nonsense, because again, he had been on Poverty Row for a decade by then. Considering how much money Universal has made over the years from characters carrying Lugosi's likeness, they really have little to be proud of in their shabby treatment of him as an employee.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

I am wondering if his nationaility or accent had played a role in this also. Politics of the time?

I've seen some stories that Lugosi was blacklisted during the McCarthy era, but his career was in such a hole already i'm not sure it would have made a difference.

greta

I've seen some stories that Lugosi was blacklisted during the McCarthy era, but his career was in such a hole already i'm not sure it would have made a difference.

greta

Well, I don't believe he was ever called in front of HUAC, and yeah, the way his career was going, it wouldn;t really have changed things much if he was blacklisted. Really, as far as the movie business went, both Lugosi and Karloff had similar career problems post- WW2, horror films had pretty much waned again, and Karloff went back to supporting roles and starring parts in minor films, as well as Abbott and Costello movies. What saved Karloff was having the savvy and a good enough agent to keep busy in other mediums: stage, radio and especially television, which Karloff really embraced from the get-go. Lugosi did a little television and radio, but really had nothing left but endless stock touring company productions of DRACULA, and even then things didn't really get desperate for him until he returned from Britain in 1951, his third marriage fell apart, and his drug habit was at its most severe.

RICHARD M ROBERTS

I do not disagree with your analysis of the big picture in the least, Richard; Universal never respected Lugosi at any point in his career, sometimes giving him great parts almost by accident. My point simply was an explanation for why specifically he didn't get Dracula for HoF. Universal in essence had people against him for whatever reason, and used the contracts he signed after his Universal contract ended as a means to keep him off the movie. He'd been to poverty row before but in this case it was used against him to deny him a crack at his defining role. Clearly at some point someone considered him for that role but the bigwigs shut it down.

[Mike Gebert]

I'm still surprised at how rarely Karloff was used in mainstream supporting parts, since he was obviously one of the most reliable hams in the business and always kicked even a routine movie into overdrive for the length of his scenes. But that seems to be the same fate Christopher Lee had-- Serial, say, is to Lee what Lured is to Karloff, and both had to wait for young fans to grow up to give them respectful parts in old age.

That is the only saving grace about Attack of the Clones, an otherwise unbearable movie -- it is wonderful for Lucas to close the Hammer circle by adding Lee to his use of the classic team in his series. And Lee was amazing as Saruman against Ian McKellan, a perfect casting. Lee seems everywhere anymore, and this is a most welcome development. I agree that Karloff deserved more parts, and to this day am stunned that they passed him over for the movie of Arsenic and Old Lace. That part just makes no sense to me without Karloff and I always pretend that it is him when I see the movie.