Dracula's Daughter
Rating: 3.5/5
By: Nathaniel Simpson
Dracula is one of the most famous and iconic monsters in film history, made famous by the performance from Bela Lugosi and then expertly portrayed by actors like Christopher Lee and Gary Oldman. When Lugosi's version of the character is killed by Van Helsing (Edward Van Sloan) in the final moments of the 1931 film, Lambert Hillyer's Dracula's Daughter picks up right where Tod Browning's film leaves off, exploring the repercussions of the actions of both Dracula and Van Helsing. The film does a great job concerning the vampire aspects of the film, as well as a good performance from Gloria Holden in the titular role, but as a whole, the movie is lacking the mystical and terrifying atmosphere from the first film, settling on a more grounded approach that doesn't work at times throughout the picture.
Dracula's daughter, whose name is Countess Marya Zaleska, doesn't want the taste for blood that her father has cursed her with. While she has eternal life, and promises her partner-in-crime Sandor (Irving Pichel) immortality as well, she doesn't want to keep killing innocent people to satisfy her thirst for blood. So, when she finds out her father has died, she thinks she is one step closer to getting rid of her craving for blood, and tries a method that will free her from this curse. When it fails, she turns to psychiatrist Dr. Garth (Otto Kruger), who is also defending Van Helsing in the case of him killing Dracula. However, even though she wants Garth to help her satisfy her cravings in other ways, she finds herself wanting to turn Garth into a monster like her, forcing him to be her mate for eternity.
The one thing I noticed about this movie is how well done the vampire aspect is here. From the way that Marya stalks her prey to the fantastic sequence where she lures an unsuspecting girl on a promise to pay her to model for a painting, Hillyer understands how to perfectly capture not only the terror and suspense of the audience knowing it's not going to end well for her victims, but the sexual tension that is present here. There is something alluring and sexual about the way Marya approaches her victims and capture them; consider Lili (Nan Grey), who is about to model for the painting I mentioned earlier. She feels very comfortable with Marya's presence, but there are strong homosexual undertones between the two. You don't know if they're just friendly, or if there is going to be more going on as the camera cuts away. This is what is expected of the vampire creature, and I think Hillyer captures it perfectly throughout the movie.
In terms of the story, I think there is a very compelling plot and does a good job of continuing the story. However, I think it shows that the filmmakers sometimes lose their way throughout the course of the film, adding in scenes that not only go on for too long, but simply feel like they don't need to exist within the scope of the picture. The pacing is off at times, and sort of rushes the ending where the good guys come in and save the day. They also try to tackle too many storylines at once, and some get lost in the mayhem of trying to tie it all in together. While you think that the story of Van Helsing will be prevalent due to the events of this film's predecessor, it sort of flips the tables and decides to tell a completely different story as its main conflict. I think if they edited the film down and only stayed concerned with telling one story, it would have worked a lot better here. Consider the scenes that exist between Garth and Janet Blake (Marguerite Churchill). I think many of their scenes could have been edited out or trimmed down to less than thirty seconds.
Holden does a good job of playing this sort of female vampire here, and she embodies this sort of female version of Dracula. From the way she holds herself to her mannerisms to the way she speaks so beautifully haunting, she understands the job that needs to be done to make such a compelling character. I think Van Sloan and Kruger are good for the most part, but play sort of forgettable and throw-away characters. While Lugosi was obviously the star of his film, the other actors were able to hold their own against him and give some standout performances. Here, however, it seems like Holden is the star, and everyone else is unimportant. While this could have worked, I think it makes the film seem too long and drawn out due to its multiple plot lines and clunky storytelling.
When analyzing this film on a horror basis, depending on whether it contains good vampiric elements, this movie definitely succeeds, rivaling some of the moments from the movie before this. But, it does contain numerous flaws, especially in the story and characters. This isn't a bad movie by any means, and is a decent follow-up to the story Tod Browning and Bela Lugosi told. But, as a standalone film on its own merits, there are much better vampires movies compared to this picture.
Comments
Post a Comment