Scooby Doo, Where Are You/ Mark of the Vampire (1935)

AND I WOULD HAVE GOTTEN AWAY WITH IT TOO:

My reviews of
Scooby Doo, Where Are You

and Mark of the Vampire (1935) 


Scooby Doo, Where Are You: Which Witch is Which? (Scoobypedia summary): After coming home from a fishing trip, the gang runs into a witch and zombie who have been haunting the swamp and scaring everyone off. 

Mark of the Vampire (wikipedia summary): Sir Karell is found murdered in his own house with two tiny pinpoint wounds on his neck. Dr. Doskil, and Sir Karen's friend, Baron Otto, are convinced that the vampire, Count Mora, and his daughter, Luna, are responsible for the murder, but the Prague police inspector refuses to believe them. Now Sir Karell's daughter, Irena, is the count's next target. Enter Professor Zelen, an expert on vampires and the occult, who's sent into prevent her death. At the same time, secrets are revealed surrounding the circumstances of Sir Karell's death. 

Scooby Doo, Where Are You was my favorite cartoon growing up as a kid, mainly because I was a huge fan of monster movies, so it was always fun to see the Mystery Inc. gang encounter a different monster (albeit fake one) every week. The show would follow a simple formula: The gang randomly bumps into a supernatural being (ghost, mummy, werewolf, etc), gather clues and, through a set of contrivances, catch the monster and unmask it as some poor schmoe out to make a quick buck. Then Scooby Doo would do something comical and everyone (sometimes even the villain) would get a good laugh out of it. 

My favorite episode of Scooby Doo, Where Are You is Which Witch is Which, because it has everything that is essential to Scooby Doo:

1)  Reused animation, or limited animation as it known.

      Scooby Doo, Where Are You often used the same animation over and over again (ex: Close up of Freddy, The Mystery Machine Driving through a swamp) as a way to save money.  Which Witch Is Witch reuses the same shot of the Zombie holding a lantern twice in the episode.

The first instance occurs when the gang is driving down a dirt road and they see a man standing on the side of the road, holding a lantern. Freddy decides to ask the stranger for directions, only to come face to face with this: 

The zombie moans and groans a few times and the gang drives away. A few minutes later they stop off at a General Store and tell the owner Zeke about their encounter with the zombie.  Zeke tells the gang he's seen the zombie with his frog hunting partner, Zeb. In a bracketed flashback we are shown Zeke and Zeb wandering through the swamp with rifles, when they a stumble upon an old, green faced witch shouting incantations over a bonfire, just then (in a long shot) the zombie materializes out of nowhere, then it abrupt cuts to a close up of the zombie...holding the lantern. The frame is slightly cropped so the lantern is not as visible, but it sill occupies a good portion of the frame. What's even more shameful is that flashback happens less than a minute after the gang's first encounter with the zombie, so the image of him holding the lantern is still very much ingrained in the viewer's mind. 

2)   The first person the gang encounters is the villain.  
About 75% of the time the first person the gang encounter turns out to be the villain (or at least in on the hoax).  After the gang encounters the zombie on the road, the first person they encounter is Zeke, owner of the General Store, and a regular expert on the whole zombie/witch phenomenon. When Zeke tell them whole the backstory on the zombie and witch, there are only two conclusions that loyal Scooby Doo followers can draw: 

Either, Zeke is being hoaxed by some pranksters out for personal gang.

Or,
Zeke is in on the hoax, along with his friend Zeb.

Since, there are no other characters in the episode (other than the sheriff) it is definitely the latter.

3)      

      An over elaborate, nonsensical scheme by the villain.  

      It is revealed that Zeke and Zeb hijacked an armored car and sunk it in the swamp, so they could come back for the money later. However, as time passed they forgot where they sunk the armored car, so they donned the disguise of the witch and the zombie to frighten away intruders, while they searched the swamps for the lost loot. Of course, given how sparsely populated the area is, they could have easily carried out their search at normal hours without having aroused any suspicious whatsoever. Sure, they might have succeeded in scaring a few of the locals, but there are always going to be the curious few who want to catch a glimpse of the witch and zombie. I could easily see this turning into an episode of Fact of Faked, in which Ben and the gang decide to test whether or not a video of the zombie/witch is indeed fact.  Or imagine, while donning the disguises of the zombie and witch, Zeke and Zeb encounter an armed local, who is a “shoot first, ask questions later" type, then they would be screwed. 

4)  The villain remains in character, even though no one is around.
This is a common occurrence in Scooby Doo (and most Hanna Barbara mystery cartoons as well) where the villain will still carry on the act of being a monster, even though no one is around to witness it. Often there will be close ups of the villain hiding behind bushes, or just randomly cackling while the Mystery Machine drives away.  In Which Witch Is Which, there is a scene in which the witch (Zeke) and the zombie (Zeb) come across a bag of money and the witch overwhelmed with joy crones, “LOOK AT THE MONEY! MONEY! MONEY! MONEY!” Of course, Scooby is in the bag and hops away. However, prior to Scooby’s hilarious entrance, Zeke and Zeb had no idea anyone was around. In fact, they are convinced that they have successfully scared away those meddling kids and that dog, so why carry on with the act? Are they method actors devoted to their craft or are they just paranoid?

5)   The reveal at the end is more absurd than a paranormal explanation.

The highlight of every episode of Scooby Doo was the reveal at the end, in which the gang would take turns explaining the villains’ motives and how the trickery was done. However, usually their debunking was far more ridiculous than a paranormal explanation . For instance, if there was a ghost involve, usually it was done through the use of film projectors; problem is the projectors the villains used were usually of the 16 mm variety and certainly did not possess the ability to project images onto thin air.  In Which Witch Is Which, it is revealed that the witch’s floating ability was accomplished by a giant balloon shaped like a witch, though it hardly explains why the balloon was cackling while in mid flight or that the balloons look absolutely nothing like the witch the gang witnessed floating on the ship.  The witch appears and disappears through the use of smoke bombs, but usually it’s a split second after the bomb goes off and there’s nowhere the witch could be hiding to throw the bomb from out of view.  Sometimes, the writers of Scooby Doo would often forget to explain away events that seemingly contradict a rational explanation (floating knives for one).  What makes this show so compelling is that you’re often left with more questions than with answers, because of the lazy writing and bad animation.

Scooby Doo, Where Are You essentially revived a common plot device that was prevalent throughout horror films in the silent and early sound era of film, the whole, “it was all a plot” ending. Like Scooby Doo, these films would revolve around a small group of people being harassed by a monster, only for it to be unmasked as a relative/benefactor hoping to keep the inheritance/treasure for himself; probably the famous of this subgenre is Mark of the Vampire. However, there are two notable exceptions:

1) The hoaxers are the heroes. In Mark of the Vampire it is revealed that the vampire storyline is a huge scam concocted by the protagonists into capturing a murderer, Baron Von Zinden, though it’s never really explained why they think such an elaborate scheme would work.  Apparently the sight of the walking corpse of his victim (Sir Karell Borotyn) will frighten Von Zinden into confessing his crime.

2) Scooby Doo, Where Are You plays like a typical mystery thriller (for kids), planting clues throughout the course of the episode, thus tipping off the audience that the monster seen lurking about is a hoax. Mark of the Vampire, on the other hand, plays like a straight horror film for 45 minutes, never so much as hinting that this is an elaborate ruse to catch a murderer. The film goes to great lengths to convince the audience that the vampires are genuine, only to pull the rug out from under them. Even more frustrating is that as soon as it is revealed the vampires are a ruse, they are not seen again until the very ending of the film, in which they are shown taking off their makeup, while  Bela Lugosi rants on about how great he was.  There is no scene in which the characters stand around and explain how the actors portraying the vampires pulled off such clever trickery, thus leaving the audience with more questions than answers.

Like Scooby Doo, the unmasking at the end is far more implausible than a paranormal explanation, mainly because it seems impossible that a troupe of stage actors could pull off such high level trickery. Throughout the course of the film, we are treated to the following scenes:

1)When Count Mora and his daughter Luna are first introduced, they seemingly walk through a giant spider web, leaving it completely intact, thus implying that they possess supernatural powers.  This scene is a direct lift from 1931’s Dracula (also starring Bela Lugosi and directed by Tod Browning), in that film when Dracula is first introduced, he walks through a giant spider web, much to the amazement of the befuddled Renfield. The major difference is that Dracula is indeed a real vampire; whereas Count Mora and his daughter are later revealed to be actors posing as vampires. This fakery makes even less sense, because no one is around to witness this act. They apparently did it just for the hell of it.

2)Luna, through the apparent use of telepathic powers, lures the heroine (Irena) outside and proceeds to bite her neck. Irena is later to be in on the hoax, but as with the “walking through spider web” gag, this is completely unnecessary, as the man that is being tricked is not around to witness it. It would have been far simpler for Irena to let out a scream, pretend to faint, and paint two bite marks on her neck.  Or maybe Count Mora and Luna are method actors, who really get into their parts.

3)The servants describe to Professor Zelen that they saw a bat transform into Count Mora out on the balcony. The butler is revealed to be in on the hoax, but he’s also accompanied by the maid, who seemingly has no idea what is going on. Once again, the real villain of the film (Baron Otto Von Zinden) is not around to hear this account. Who exactly are they hoaxing again?

4)Luna (sporting giant bag wings) is seen gliding from the second floor of the castle down to the first floor, and for once Von Zinden is actually around to witness it. This is a set up that doesn't really seem to effect Von Zinden one way or another, he kind of just nods it off with complete indifference. 

The thing that really gets lost in the narrative of Mark of the Vampire is the fact that the vampire hoax DOESN’T WORK! The sight of vampires lurking about doesn’t frighten Von Zinden into confessing his crime, in fact he never confesses his guilt at all, but rather is hypnotized by Professor Zelen into re-enacting the murder of Sir Karell Borotyn. Essentially, the protagonists could have saved themselves a lot of time and money had they just hypnotized Baron Von Zinden in the first place, rather than hiring stage actors to sell the vampire ruse. But then again, the film would only be a half hour long.

As noted above, the stage actors portraying the vampires often remain in character, even when no one is around to witness them. Throughout the course of the film, Count Mora (Bela Lugosi) and his daughter will be seen lurking about, despite the fact that no one is around to see them. The majority of Lugosi’s role consists of reactions shots of him looking on, while the main characters walk about without so much as batting an eye his way. Even more perplexing is that before the vampires are revealed to be a ploy into tricking the lecherous Von Zinden, there is a scene in which Luna is about to bite Irena’s neck, only to be interrupted by the incompetent love interested Fedor. Luna lets out a creepy hiss, grabs Irena by the hand and runs away, while Fedor is stopped in his tracks by Count Mora. This scene is fairly pointless to the overall narrative of the film and its only function is to give the audience one last shock before we get into the final act, in which the heroes capture Von Zinden. 

There are two facts one needs to know about Mark of the Vampire in order to understand it better:

1)   It is a remake of the 1927 silent film London After Midnight also directed by Tod Browning and starring the great Lon Chaney. London After Midnight’s claim to fame is that is a lost film, the only thing that survives from the production are a series of stills that show Chaney donning genuinely frightening make up. 

2)   Over twenty minutes of footage was cut, which might explain why the film feels so disjointed at times.  Top billed Lionel Barrymore is introduced twenty minutes into the film without any real preamble; he just appears at the heroine’s bed side. It often seems Lugosi’s character has a line, only for the film to cut away to someone else. It is rumored that the cut footage hinted at an incestuous relationship between Count Mora and his daughter, but the film’s wonderful commentary (by Steve Jones and Kim Newman) seems to indicate that it was mostly comedic in nature.

My personal theory is that Browning was remaking not one, but two movies of his: London After Midnight and Dracula. The reveal at the end is taken from London After Midnight, but a lot of the imagery and characters are taken directly from the 1931 version of Dracula:

1)   Bela Lugosi. 

     Even though he’s credited as Count Mora, Lugosi for the most part reprises his role of Dracula for this film, to the point that he even dons the same costume. The major difference being that Count Mora remains an unseen presence for most of the film; Lugosi’s role can be described as being more of an extended cameo than a major role. He appears every now and then to do something spooky, but then disappears while all the principals walk through the scenery. Mark of the Vampire plays greatly to Lugosi’s strengths as an actor; Lugosi never learned to speak English well and often stumbled through his lines, but he had a great screen presence. His lack of dialogue and limited screen time actually add an aura of mystery surrounding his character that was completely lacking in Dracula. The first twenty minutes of Dracula are memorable, mainly because it exploits Lugosi physicality to great effect, but it goes downhill once he is called upon to recite dialogue while enclosed on a small set.

2)  The Wise Professor. 

    Dracula had Edward Van Sloan as Van Helsing, while Mark of the Vampire has Lionel Barrymore as Professor Zelen. They both serve basically the same function: convince the authorities that vampires are real and warn the heroine about the great danger she is in.  Edward Van Sloan is extremely stiff as Van Helsing, though it actually works given that Van Helsing is very humorless and obsessive in his quest to stop Dracula, but Lionel Barrymore is an absolute delight as Professor Zelen, practically stealing every scene he is with his very energetic and often humorous performance. What’s amazing is that in 1935 Lionel Barrymore was an A-list actor, considered to be one of the best amongst his peers, yet here he is in a B horror movie giving it his all.  Most actors often looked down on horror films and went through the motions, but Barrymore genuinely seems to be enjoying himself. Barrymore gives Mark of the Vampire the spark that was desperately lacking in Dracula.

3)  The Bland Leading Man: 

     This was a common trope in most early 30s horror films, the boring love interest to the more interesting heroine. At Universal Studios, this thankless role often went to David Manners, who often did his best not to get in the way of the proceedings.  In Mark of the Vampire the thankless role of Fedor is given to Henry Wadsworth, who maybe the most worthless character in horror history. How worthless is Fedor? He’s the only character (other than the maid and Von Zinden) that isn’t in on the vampire hoax. Apparently, Professor Zelen and company were afraid that Fedor might mess up their scheme, so they decided it would be best not to tell him. He is completely irrelevant to the plot.  As dull as Jonathan Harker was in Dracula, at least he served some function to the overall story; Fedor just plods through the scenery with a baffled look on his face. Dracula has the “love conquers all” ending, in which it is implied that Jonathan’s love for Mina helps bring her back from Dracula’s spell, whereas Mark of the Vampire has Irena apologize to Fedor for not letting him in on the ruse. 

It often feels like Browning and company are sending up the worthless male lead by assigning him the traits that you would typically find in the heroine: There’s one scene in which he recounts to Irena and company how he fainted while walking past Count Mora’s castle and the awoke to find two bite marks on his neck.

4)  The Heroine:  

     Irena is set up as being similar to Mina in Dracula: They both lose someone very close to them (Irena: her father, Mina: Her friend Lucy) and look to be the next victim of the vampire. There are even similar scenes in which both women try to convince their fiancés everything is OK by putting on a happy face, while being summoned by a vampire. There’s also an interaction with a house maid: Mina begs the housemaid to take down the wolfsbane, while Irena laughs when the housemaid starts to panic that she has taken down the bat thorne (both used to prevent the vampire from entering the heroine’s bedroom).  Oddly enough, Count Mora and Irena only have one scene together, and even then, they just exchange glances, while Sir Karyall (his double) tells her to go with Luna. However, our world is entirely turned upside down when it is revealed that not only is Irena NOT a victim, but she’s actually in on the plot to catch Von Zinden. In span of a few seconds, she goes from damsel in distress to hero. Granted, it’s Professor Zelen and the Inspector that capture Von Zinden in the act, but Irena is a pivotal part of their plan and had she faltered, it would have never worked.  Mina, on the other hand, is truly helpless in her predicament and is saved through the intervention of Van Helsing and Jonathan.

It is my opinion that Mark of the Vampire is a vastly superior film to Dracula, especially on a technical level. Dracula, especially the LONG middle section, often feels like a photographed stage play; the camera remains stationary while the actors enter the set, say their lines, and exit. Out of all the Universal Monster films from the 30s, Dracula is the hardest to sit through, largely due to its sluggish pace.  Despite the fact that there’s a vampire on the loose, it never feels like anything is truly at stake.  The characters stand around and talk, talk, talk, but they don’t take any course of action.  It isn’t until the last ten minutes that the filmmakers decide to notch up the urgency level by having Dracula kidnap Mina, forcing Jonathan and Van Helsing to leave the confines of the sitting room to rescue her.  

Mark of the Vampire has a far more cinematic feel to it: in the opening scene we are treated to a tracking shot of an old wash lady walking through a cemetery with a basket, getting startled by a bat, dropping her basket, and running away. Dracula consists largely of long shots with practically every cast member in frame, occasionally cutting to a close up; Mark of the Vampire is more heavily reliant upon editing, often cross cutting between two (sometimes three) events happening at the same time. As the film progresses, the pacing of the films picks up and then slows down again once Von Zinden is hypnotized into re-enacting his murder of Sir Karyall.  

The biggest flaw of Dracula, is the count loses most of his menace once he leaves the confines of his Transylvania castle. The first twenty minutes of the film are wonderful; the filmmakers successfully build up a sense of dread and danger just by the reaction of the villagers faces when Renfield announce he’s going to Dracula’s castle.  The villagers urge Renfield not to go, but when he is adamant that he must. A kindly old lady gives him her cross for protection. This is a wonderful build up to the character of Dracula and the audience is treated to an eerie scene in which Dracula and his brides are seen rising from their graves. Again, Lugosi’s performance is best served in a stylized setting, once you take him out of the context of an old dark castle and put him in the middle of a nicely furnished sitting room, it drains away the menace. It certainly doesn't help that a few shots are framed to make it seem that Dracula is shorter than the protagonists. 

Mark of the Vampire works largely because Count Mora remains an unseen presence throughout most of the film and usually has his daughter Luna do all of his dirty work. We sense he possesses great powers, but never actually see him do anything, which helps retain his mysterious aura. There’s a sense that Count Mora is always one step ahead of the protagonists, hence it is a letdown when it is revealed that he and Luna are fictional ploys used to capture a murderer. 

Mark of the Vampire also improves upon Dracula in building up suspense; the urgency increases with each successive act. The characters do stand around and talk, but at least there are actual scenes of them investigating the area, trying to locate Count Mora and his cronies.

As much as I have nitpicked on both Scooby Doo, Where Are You and Mark of the Vampire for their cop out endings, part of their charm is the fact that both programs provide such simple solutions to seemingly complex scenarios. There's a scene in Mark of the Vampire in the Inspector (Lionel Atwill) intones, "We all thought our vampire scheme was so simple, so certain of success." 

It has been theorized that Mark of the Vampire is actual a parody of horror conventions of the time, this isn't evident the first time around, but on multiple viewings (once you know the twist ending) the humor starts to emerge. There's a sense that the characters are having fun at the expense of the poor Von Zinden; they play pranks on him and tell him all sorts of crazy stories in hopes that it will make him sweat. Plus, the film ends on a joke; Lugosi (doing a nice send up of himself) looks in the mirror and says, "I was greater than any vampire." Then a stagehand tells him to shut up and help him pack. Whether you want to believe this theory or not, Mark of the Vampire, despite its plot holes or because of them, is a rather remarkably entertaining film from the golden age of horror films. 

Mark of the Vampire Credits
Cast: Lionel Barrymore (Professer Zelen), Elizabeth Allen (Irena Borotyn), Lionel Atwill (Inspector Neumann), Bela Lugosi (Count Mora), Carroll Borland (Luna), Jean Hersholt (Baron Otto Von Zinden), Henry Wadsworth (Fedor Vincente), Donald Meek (Dr. J Doskil), Holmes Herbert (Sir Karell Borotyn), Leila Bennett (Maria), Jessie Ralph (Midwife), Ivan F. Simpson (Jan), Michael Visaroff (Innkeeper).
Director: Tod Browning 
Writers: Guy Endore, Bernard Schubert, John L. Balderston
Running Time: 61 minutes