Il figlio di Dracula

Son of Dracula (1943) Lon Chaney Jr. plays Count Alucard, who travels to a Louisiana plantation to unite with a love interest. Katherine is his latest and Alucard takes her as his bride, while having to contend with her former love interest who is intent on defeating the count while saving his childhood sweetheart.

This has got to be one of the worst casting decisions ever, especially in the part of a horror icon like Dracula. Lon Chaney Jr. is a fine actor, and is superb as the dim witted Lennie in the 1939 film version of John Steinbach's masterpiece novel Of Mice and Men. Chaney is fabulous as a hulking mentally retarded man who has a heart of gold, only to be continually harassed by the bully who compensates for his short man syndrome. In 1941 Universal studio wanted to rework and release a different take after the film Werewolf of London (1935) was a financial flop, deemed as too similar to the 1931 version of MGM's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Universal cast Lon Chaney Jr. as the The Wolf Man (1941), with refurbished makeup effects, and a fine script by Curtis Siodmak. Wolf Man is the second Universal installment of the werewolf series, and catapulted Chaney into stardom. Chaney was very effective in the role, and was also well suited as Boris Karloff's replacement in the Frankenstein series in Universals fourth installment The Ghost of Frankenstein (1942). I assume Universal felt Chaney could effectively portray the legendary Count Dracula here, or at the very least could capitalize on his success as the Wolf Man; capitalize on his part as Frankenstein, or continue to reap rewards by trading on the name of his more talented father, horror Icon Lon Chaney. Either way, they were wrong.

Chaney has no sex appeal. He is dull and doesn't attempt a Lugosi-esq accent for this role. In The Wolf Man he is able to imbue a man conflicted with his state, but in this film a man dealing with inner turmoil is unnecessary. The conflicted vampire is taken up in latter films, but in 1943 this turmoil is not the path taken by the director Robert Siodmak, the writers brother. I always thought Dracula to be more suited as a leering manipulator who is desired by the fairer sex. Chaney does not look the part. His face is fleshy and he lacks the charisma that is needed here. A starker facial structure or someone possessing more traditional matinée idol good looks would have been a better fit. Chaney looks more likely as a truck driver, or an eventual Elvis aficionado. His pencil thin moustache does not work, nor does his less than slicked salt and pepper hair. He doesn't have a menace, and his expressions are bland.

I guess I could see Universal taking the Count to New Orleans, and capitalizing the Gothic setting. It worked for Ann Rice in her novels written several decades later, but it doesn't look like he would have enough prey in the backwoods and swamps portrayed here. The swamps look good, and the cinematography is well done, but this local seems to be an odd choice. His wife also looks good; Katherine is hot and does have some sex appeal. Where is her Southern accent? No one in Louisiana has an accent? No one here does, they all seem t come from a soundstage, which I suppose is better than the British accent that normally populates a horror film. The dialogue gets campy near the end when one of the policemen states: "You mean to tell me that skeleton is all that's left of Count Alucard?" "It's got his ring with his family crest on it, the same crest that's on his luggage." I don't know whether that is efficient police work, or an oversight in their hurried quest to pronounce Count Alucard dead. Even harder to stomach is the reworking of Count Dracula name, which is nothing more than spelling his name backwards. Twice Dracula is seen reflected in a mirror. I'm pretty sure this is more of an oversight that a reworking of the details of Dracula legend. The movie used a lot of the flying bat effects. It was a large bat, and seemed to be well done, especially for 1943. I thought the movie did a pretty good job with making the bat transform into the Count. The Count and his bride transforming into wisps of smoke is a little much. I think this is the first film to display Dracula with more strength than a human.

Bottom line: I'll give Son of Dracula a 57. Poor casting of the Dracula is unforgivable. This could have been a much better film. It was well shot, and looked good but Lon Chaney Jr. as the Count is a miss.

Lon Chaney, Jr. makes his debut as Count Alucard as Universal Pictures sought to revive the Dracula series. That's Dracula spelled backwards.

The undead legendary count has come to America in response to Louise Allbritton who is a southern belle who dabbles in the occult to the point of morbidity. Allbritton has been acting strange lately which is concerning both her sister Evelyn Ankers and her fiancé Robert Paige. Soon after Chaney arrives both Adeline DeWalt Reynolds, a swamp spirit woman and Allbritton and Ankers father George Irving die under mysterious circumstances.

A change in Irving's will leaves Allbritton the plantation and Ankers all the cash. And then Alucard and Allbritton are married. When Paige suspects something more than an ordinary jilting the action really starts.

There are a pair of Von Helsings in this played by country doctor Frank Craven and Hungarian professor J. Edward Bromberg. As incidents similar to what ravaged his native land start to happen both Craven and Bromberg suspect the undead are alive and well.

Although no one could ever be a vampire like Bela Lugosi, Chaney does a pretty good job in the role completing a monster trifecta of playing Dracula, the Frankenstein monster, and the Wolfman for Universal. He was every bit the horror film master that his father was.

Next to Chaney and maybe in some ways better than Chaney is Paige in this film. Robert Paige who usually played light leading men in comedies and musicals gives a fine dramatic portrait of a man just shattered by the forces he's dealing with and can't comprehend. This might very well have been his career role.

Son Of Dracula has a high place in the classic Universal pantheon of horror films.

Before the era of home video formats, people simply had to rely on written reviews of "Son of Dracula," almost all of which were negative. In particular, Lon Chaney, Jr., has endured years of abuse for his performance as Dracula (or his son, depending on your opinion). But now the film is readily available and the truth is easy to see: it's pretty good. Not brilliant, but pretty good. Chaney's performance is actually one of his best for Universal; certainly his most atypical. Chaney excelled at characters who were out of control and childlike, but his Dracula is supremely in control, and seething with menace. It is his iciest, most restrained performance. Those who still berate Chaney for his "lack of range" should be forced to admit that he played Dracula far more effectively than Bela Lugosi could have played Lennie. Interestingly, the rest of the cast is equally "miscast:" doomed hero Robert Paige was normally a musical leading man, while femme fatale Louise Albritton was usually a blonde comedienne. Both are quite effective in the horror genre. Frank Craven does well as the folksy doctor who is forced to take on the Van Helsing role (though J. Edward Bromberg is the official Van Helsing surrogate). This is one of the most unusual Universal horror films, in that it is more horror noir than melodrama--fitting, given that it was directed by noir master Robert Siodmak. It also represents the only time Dracula, or any relation thereof, is seen outside of Europe. "Son of Dracula" contains one of the creepiest scenes in any Universal horror film, the one involving "Queen Zimba" (played by the delightfully ancient Adeline de Walt Reynolds), and the most downbeat ending. All in all, "Son of Dracula" is one of the most interesting Universal efforts from its second horror cycle, and the fact that it has endured such a bad rap over the decades is totally unfair.

"Son of Dracula" (Universal, 1943), directed by Robert Siodmak, from an original story by Curtis Siodmak, the third in the cycle of Universal thrillers to center around the Dracula legend, and the first of the 1940s, ranks one of the best in the series. Its star, Lon Chaney Jr., famous for his previous role in the horror cycle as Lawrence Talbot in THE WOLF MAN (Universal, 1941), which would be followed by some more sequels throughout the 1940s, might have seemed an unlikely choice in playing the blood- sucking vampire, but on the contrary, Junior Chaney brings new life into the old vampire, sporting the usual black cape and an added touch of a mustache. Overlooking the hypnotic glassy eye stare created at best by Bela Lugosi in Dracula (Universal, 1931), he very well has proved himself as the fine horror film actor, for the time being anyway.

Unlike the previous Dracula outings (Dracula and Dracula'S DAUGHTER), which had taken place either in Transylvania or England, SON OF Dracula is set on American soil and stays there. It begins somewhere in the South where Frank Stanley (Robert Paige) and the family physician friend, Doctor Harry Brewster (Frank Craven) are at a train station awaiting for the arrival of an honored guest to Katherine Caldwell (Louise Allbritton), Count Alucard, whom she had met previously while visiting in Budapest, and is to be driven over to the Caldwell estate, but all they find are his crates and boxes (some of which consists of his native soil). That very night after a gathering in her home, Katherine's father (George Irving) mysteriously dies, with Dr. Brewster examining the body and finding two marks found on the late colonel's neck. Having noticed earlier on one of the crates that the name of Alucard spelled backwards is Dracula, Brewster decides to telephone Professor Lazio (J. Edward Bromberg), the well-known authority of the Count Dracula legend, who, after learning telling him all the details, warns Brewster that Katherine is in great danger, and intends on leaving Memphis to pay Brewster a visit to see what can be done. But it's too late. Katherine, who has a morbid fascination with death and eternal life, has already abandoned her fiancé, Frank, whom has loved her since childhood, to marry Count Alucard. They ghoulish couple obtain a honeymoon cottage in an old house at Dark Oaks. Frank follows them there to get Katherine back and threatens Alucard to leave town. Ignoring his threats, this leaves Frank to take out his revolver and shoot Alucard, but in turn he has killed Katherine, who was standing behind her husband. Finding that the bullets have gone through Alucard and into Katherine, Frank rushes out of the house to tell Dr. Brewster what has happened. Brewster comes to the cottage to find Alucard, and much to his surprise, sees Katherine very much alive. When Frank arrives with the authorities, they find Katherine dead in her coffin. After the arrival of Professor Lazio, more dark secrets are eventually revealed.

Reportedly dismissed as just another horror film upon its release, SON OF Dracula does have its share of bonuses that would have made the 1931 Dracula a visual experience had such advanced technology in special effects been available, along with some real clever touches, including the visiting count using an alias by spelling his name backwards; a very creepy musical score, compliments of Hans J. Salter, dark atmospheric background and fine effects ranging from a cloud of vapor forming into the presence of Dracula, to his transformation from bat to human figure, etc. Aside from Lon Chaney's carnation of Dracula, Louise Allbritton stands out a close second with her creepy appearance, ranging from her unusual dark and gloomy hairstyle to icy facial expressions. Even before she becomes the wife of the mysterious Count, her Katherine is already obsessed by the supernatural. Her sister, Claire, played by Evelyn Ankers is the logical half of the Caldwell sisters, and although she doesn't get to belt out a scream or two as she did in the aforementioned films, her presence adds to the story, as does J. Edward Bromberg's Professor Lazio, the authority of the Dracula legend. Bromberg's role could have very well been Professor Van Helsing (as previously played in the first two Dracula films of the 1930s), but instead, his role was inspired by him. Robert Paige, another Universal contract player, does well with his Frank Stanley performance, rising above the usual mediocre love interest-types of the day.

The supporting cast includes Samuel S. Hinds (Judge Simmons); Etta McDaniel (Sarah); Patrick Moriarty (The Sheriff); and Adeline De Walt Reynolds as Queen Zimba, the fortune telling gypsy, who after warning Katherine of her destiny and danger in marrying a corpse, she is met with a destiny of her own when encountered by a vampire bat that puts an end of her fortune telling forever. Reynold's brief bit as the fortune telling old hag is reminiscent to the kind of role Lucille LaVerne (of silent and early talkies) that made her famous.

Regardless of the misleading title, Count Alucard is never mentioned as Dracula's son, but as Count Dracula himself. SON OF Dracula, at 78 minutes, is the last really good and near original Dracula film of the 1940s. Before Bela Lugosi would do one more encore as Dracula in 1948's ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN, the Dracula character would be revived again in two quickie installments (HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN in 1944; HOUSE OF Dracula in 1945) with John Carradine taking over as the Count, but only minor secondary performances.

SON OF Dracula, which played on the cable television's Sci-Fi Channel, American Movie Classics, and Turner Classic Movies (TCM premiere: October 1, 2017), as well as availability on both video cassette and DVD, is recommended viewing for a dark and gloomy Halloween night, or any night for that matter, particularly for classic horror movie fans. (***)

I thought "Son of Dracula" was the pits when I was a kid. I simply found it slow and tedious and lacking in the kind of mesmeric atmosphere that makes the best vampire entertainment really tick. But, reviewing the film recently, I found myself enjoying it thoroughly. Go figure...

It's still no masterpiece, of course. Shoehorning Count Alucard/Dracula into a Louisiana swamp-and-plantation setting has always struck me as a weird and arbitrary move. (Though Dracula does get some interesting dialog about how he's attracted to America because it's a youthful and vigorous land.) And the human protagonists are too drippy for my tastes. The supposed hero is Frank Stanley, but his character is too thinly developed to be truly sympathetic. In fact, in an early scene he expresses a sort of jerky glee when the local voodoo woman drops dead of a heart attack, so I suppose you could say he's aggressively unsympathetic!

As usual, the vampires stand head and shoulders above the boring humans. Some people are critical of Chaney's performance, but I think he's pretty good. He's definitely a different sort of vampire from Lugosi - he's less ethereal, and more aggressively powerful. You could say he foreshadows Christopher Lee's forceful portrayal of Dracula in the 1950s-70s films from England's Hammer Studios. Louise Allbritton is even more effective in her role as the female vampire, and, in an interesting twist, she's allowed to have a set of motivations and ambitions that are totally different from Dracula's. In fact, in many ways she's the main character.

In the end, then, I think this movie stacks up pretty well to other films in the Universal series. It's not as eerie as "Dracula" or "Dracula's Daughter," probably because it's a more modern and technologically advanced film. (The primitiveness of the early entries in the series actually makes them scarier!) But it's certainly easier to watch than its predecessors, thanks to its more glossy look, full music score and occasional nifty special effects. You gotta love that mist stuff...

On a side note, I do think that Cheney is playing Dracula's son, and not the original Dracula himself. I'm surprised to see so much controversy about that point on this site. The film is called "Son of Dracula," after all, and J. Edward Bromberg identifies Alucard as a "descendant" of Dracula. Sure, Alucard admits to being a "Dracula" at one point, but not necessarily THE Dracula. As father and son, they would have the same surname - right? Oh, never mind, this is giving me a headache!

One more odd matter of continuity. Bromberg's character says at one point that Dracula was destroyed "in the 19th century." But, since the Universal films had a contemporary setting, wasn't he destroyed in the 20th century in this particular universe? Just thought I'd mention that.