Son of Dracula (1943)

Son of Dracula is one of the most unusual entries in the Universal Monster franchise.  It was released at a time when the series became more kid friendly and usually devolved into a full out monster brawls; the franchise would end on a fairly low note with the ridiculous (but amusing) House of Dracula, in which the Wolf Man is cured of his lycanthropy, the Frankenstein Monster stumbles around for a few seconds, and Dracula, despite being the title villain, is killed off half way through the movie.  Therefore, it is genuinely surprising how sophisticated Son of Dracula is on both a technical and thematic level.

The biggest flaw (and it’s a huge one) is the casting of Lon Chaney, Jr in the role of Count Alucard. Chaney was at his best when playing blue collar simpletons, or lumbering brutes, but is completely out of his element when playing the aristocratic Alucard – he lacks the sophistication and mystique that the role desperately needs.  It is interesting to note that Chaney was only actor to play The Wolf Man, Dracula, The Mummy, and The Frankenstein Monster – no doubt this was a ploy by the studio to capitalize on the famous Chaney name and prove the Junior was just as versatile of an actor as his  prolific father.  The problem is, with the exception of Larry Talbot/ The Wolf Man, there is nothing distinguishable about Chaney’s performances in any of these movies – his portrayal as the Frankenstein Monster is adequate, but it lacks the pathos that Karloff brought to the role.  His performance as the mummy, Kharis, in The Mummy’s Tomb, The Mummy’s Ghost, and The Mummy’s Curse is so lackluster that it could have easily been played by a stuntman. The only memorable thing about Count Alucard is that he possesses super strength, which he never fully uses to his advantage – he throws Frank across a room.  Thankfully, Chaney has very little screen time (about ten minutes total) that is doesn't heavily damage the movie. If one can overlook Chaney’s awkward performance, then you will be rewarded by a genuinely interesting movie.

The movie gets a huge boast by Louise Allbritton, who is excellent as the morbid Kay – one of the more complex women in the Universal Monster series.  At first, Kay doesn’t seem to be any different from any of the other heroines the populated the franchise – she has an interest in the occult, but is happily engaged to her childhood sweet heart, Frank.  When she unexpectedly elopes with Count Alucard, we naturally assume that he has placed her under his spell and is using her to further his own goals– Alucard wants to use Kay’s family plantation for his base of operation.  We, naturally, sympathize with Frank for losing the love of his life to an absolute monster; we hope that he can wrestle Kay from the hypnotic hold that Alucard has over her. After all, Jonathan Harker, with an assist from Professor Van Helsing, was able to rescue Mina from Dracula’s satanic grip, so it is plausible that Frank, with help from Doctor Brewster, can do the same for Kay.  Our happy ending goes straight out the window when Frank accidentally kills Kay while attempting to shoot the Count with the gun – the bullets pass straight through Alucard and strike down Kay. Frank ,on the verge of insanity, confesses his crime to Dr. Brewster, the kindly town physician. Brewster goes to the plantation to check out Frank’s story and, much to his surprise, finds that Kay is very much alive. She tells Brewster that visitors will no longer be welcomed at the plantation and that she can never see Frank again. 

This is a great piece of misdirection by the filmmakers, because the audience naturally assumes that Kay is the victim in all of this and Alucard is the loathsome parasite leeching off her status in life.  However, this proves to be entirely FALSE, Kay is the loathsome parasite and it is Alucard who is being played for a sap – Kay is using him to gain immortality for her and Frank.  She explains her plan to Frank, while he is locked up in a jail cell, and convinces him that he must kill Alucard; she tells Frank the Count’s weaknesses and where to find him.  Kay turns out to be extremely ruthless in her ambition and even tells Frank that they must eliminate anyone that stands in her way - including her sister, Claire. Kay is one of the all time great femme fatales – after all, this isn’t some sleazy insurance salesman that she is duping, but the son of friggin’ Dracula. Allbritton plays the role to absolute perfection; she is vulnerable in the early scenes, but becomes a commanding presence as the movie progresses. It’s easy to believe that the savvy Alucard could fall victim to such a woman, she is pure ice.  Son of Dracula is essentially the inverse of the previous movie, Dracula’s Daughter; the latter is about a woman who desperately wants to be cured of her vampirism, while the former is about a woman who desperately wants to become a vampire.  Both movies greatly benefit from strong female leads and rather downbeat endings.

Robert Paige, as Frank, is a much more interesting than the usual romantic male leads you find in these movies. For instance, compare Paige’s Frank to David Manners’ Jonathan Harker and you will find that Paige brings far more intensity to the role than Manners.  In Dracula, Jonathan Harker is slightly annoyed that Dracula has eyes for his fiancée, Mina – but he never takes any real action. In Son of Dracula, when Frank learns that Kay has eloped with Alucard, he is seething with hatred and is willing to commit murder; Harker probably would have just shrugged his shoulders and walked out of the room slightly irritated. Also, Frank nearly loses his mind after believing that he has killed Kay; she was the crux of his existence and now he has absolutely nothing. When he tells Claire and others that Kay has visited him in his jail cell, they, understandably, believe that he is just hallucinating. 

Evelyn Ankers is given the less showy role as Kay’s concerned sister, Claire. Ankers is, probably, the best known scream queen of the 1940s, and co-starred in seven movies with Lon Chaney, Jr.  It’s odd seeing her in a role that isn’t the love interest; as she was in The Wolf Man, Hold That Ghost, Ghost of Frankenstein, and in many other Universal movies.  Claire isn’t an especially interesting character, but she is at least likable and, more importantly, never grinds the movie to a halt. At least Claire takes action in the story – on the advice of Dr. Brewster, she orders the body of Kay to be cremated. Ankers was a much better actress than given credit for and gives an excellent performance in the Sherlock Holmes thriller, The Pearl of Death, as the obsequious Naomi Drake – a villainess with a penchant for disguises. She must have relished the opportunity to play an unsavory character as opposed to the glamorous goody two shoes she played in most movies. 

There are a few interesting touches that separate Son of Dracula from all the other, run of the mill, monster movies from the 1940s.  For instance, the entire middle of the movie is shown from the perspective of Doctor Brewster. At this point in the story, Kay is a vampire and Frank has been drive to madness, so Doctor Brewster becomes the audience surrogate. He is the first, and only, character to realize that Alucard is an anagram and promptly seeks out Professor Lazlo, an expert on the occult, for advice.  It is also one of the first movies, if not the first, to show a physical vampire transformation; there a few scenes where a bat changes into Count Alucard. This effect was achieved through animation and a jump cut, and, while not up to the standards of today effects, is pretty effective.  The most memorable moment is of Count Alucard hovering over a swamp and slowly approaching Kay.  

Son of Dracula is loaded with so many wonderful visuals, and interesting characters, that I believe it is a superior movie to the Tod Browning-Bela Lugosi original. Lugosi is certainly a better lead than Chaney, but once Dracula moves its setting from Transylvania to London, it turns monotonous – the direction and acting, other than Dwight Frye, is extremely lifeless.  Son of Dracula is a much more cinematic movie and goes by at a rather quick pace.  Robert Siodmak’s direction is top notch and he rarely gives the audience a moment to breathe; there is always a surprise waiting around the corner.  Son of Dracula may not be a classic, but it is easily one of the better Universal monster movies of the 1940s. 

Credits

Cast:  Lon Chaney, Jr. (Count Alucard), Louise Allbritton (Kay), Robert Paige (Frank), Evelyn Ankers (Claire), Frank Craven (Doctor Brewster), J. Edward Blomberg (Prof. Lazlo), Samuel S. Hinds (Judge Simmons), Pat Moriarty (Sheriff Dawes), Etta McDaniel (Sarah), Adeline De Walt Reynolds (Madame Zimba), George Irving (Col. Caldwell).

Director: Robert Siodmak
Screenplay: Eric Taylor. Curt Siodmak (story)
Running Time: 81 min.