Director Robert Siodmak and his brother, Curt, come together to create a highly imaginative retelling of Dracula as they issue a protagonist with ulterior motives which catches even the famed Count off guard. However, the film suffers due to a dose of nationalism, too healthy a serving of special effects, and way too much of Lon Chaney Jr., whom shouldn’t have been in the mix to begin with.
After accepting an invitation from Katherine Caldwell (Louise Allbritton) to join her at her estate called Dark Oaks, which is located in the swamplands of Louisiana, Count Alucard (Lon Chaney Jr.) persuades the young heiress to abandon her fiancé, Frank Stanley (Robert Paige), and marry him in order to gain power within the town and to take advantage of the potentiality afforded him on the new continent. However, the Count does not react well to the disclosure that Katherine only married him in order to gain eternal life so as to live forever with Frank.
I agree wholeheartedly with many reviewers that the film, though initially constricted by its budget, almost superceded its handicap. The script by Eric Taylor, based on a story by Curt Siodmak (the director’s brother), the pen behind many of Universal’s monster flicks, readily compensated for not being able to finance an extravagant Old World production that had become the stock setting for many of its forerunners. Instead, the writers opted for the next, most gothic, land in America–southern Louisiana. However, though well written, the err of the production was casting Lon Chaney Jr. as the Count.
Universal’s depiction of the Count on the reissue cover of the film pretty much sums up the problem of Chaney as the vampire master (aside from the fact that Chaney appears constipated). For the first time, Dracula is granted his mustache as Bram Stoker had intended it. Yet, Chaney wears it as a poor effigy of Clark Gable (hardly a horror antagonist–imagine Hannibal Lecter played by Tom Hanks). Not only is the actor too large for the role, thus depriving the figure of the vampire as suave and elegant, but the charisma of the sexual predator is all but alleviated as a consequence of Chaney’s less-than-convincing delivery as well as his sympathetic eyes. When the Count states that “I like old houses,” the line comes off as unintentionally campy as Chaney pauses, as if unsure of himself. Also of interest in this regard is the fact that Dracula is only seen preying upon males during the film, one of which is a young boy named Tommy Land (Charles Bates).
Distractingly, but not to the point where the actress wasn’t able to supercede the obstacle, Louise Allbritton, going brunette for the role, looks remarkably like Gloria Holden in Lambert Hillyer’s Dracula’s Daughter. What is overwhelmingly distracting is that Allbritton, along with all of the female cast, has her breasts accentuated. Yes, as previously stated, vampires serve as a symbol for sexuality yet Siodmak makes little use of his females’ physical adornments in lieu of the fact that the plot revolves around a covert seduction of the antagonist. Furthermore, another preoccupation of the filmmakers is their decision to utilize and overburden the production with special effects as time and time again, to the point of ad nauseum, we have vampires vaporize and rematerialize onscreen.
The plot itself is intriguing and, if treated to a larger budget and the flair were replaced by sustenance, could have possibly rendered a remarkable product. The only annoyance with the writing proper is that Curt made sure to highlight the fact that “Alucard” was “Dracula” spelled backwards, not just once, but on four separate occasions throughout the film. The premise itself is admirable due to the inversion that it proposes: Instead of having the villain seduce innocents, we are host to the philosophical voyage of a woman in love attempting to retain the adoration of her mate for all of eternity. Sadly, due to the script’s didactic nationalism and moralizing, Katherine is forced to conform by the “proper” members of society as they set out to rectify the situation (this is after the Count renounces his homeland as “dry and decadent”). Also, it was refreshing, albeit somewhat alarming given the time, for the screenwriter to dismiss the legend put forth by his predecessors in that Taylor posits that for an individual to become a member of the undead, a single bite is arbitrary and that a victim must be drained of a substantial amount of blood for a vampiric transformation to ensue. Further refutation of traditional vampire folklore includes the note that someone who has become a vampire as a result of Dracula’s feeding may retain his or her immortality even if the master is put to death.
To put it simply, Robert Siodmak plainly misfired with the third installment in the Universal Dracula series for whatever reason. Given the director’s resume, it wouldn’t have been outside his ability to have moved around some of the more arbitrary constraints which obviously hampered the production. Unfortunately, though creative, Son of Dracula remains one of the greatest “what ifs” of the Golden Age of Cinema.
-Egregious Gurnow
- Interview with J.R. Bookwalter - January 22, 2015
- Interview with Andrew J. Rausch - January 22, 2015
- Interview with Rick Popko and Dan West - January 22, 2015
- Interview with Director Stevan Mena (Malevolence) - January 22, 2015
- Interview with Screenwriter Jeffery Reddick (Day of the Dead 2007) - January 22, 2015
- Teleconference interview with Mick Garris (Masters of Horror) - January 22, 2015
- A Day at the Morgue with Corri English (Unrest) - January 22, 2015
- Interview with Writer/Director Nacho Cerda (The Abandoned, Aftermath) - January 22, 2015
- Interview with Actress Thora Birch (Dark Corners, The Hole, American Beauty) - January 22, 2015
- Interview with Actor Jason Behr, Plus Skinwalkers Press Coverage - January 22, 2015
