Didn't realize he was in this movie till I watched it tonight for the first time in years. I'm just surprised he took such a small role in a major motion picture. Perhaps his star status wasn't as big as I thought it was during the time period of Universal's classic horror movies?
shareHe probably did it due to contractual obligation to Universal. Most actors at the time had a contract to a single studio and were required to do so many movies a year.
the NRA - supporting gun rights for terrorists. Why does the NRA hate America?
Thanks altterian. Totally forgot about actors bound by a single studio contract in the old days. But the question I have for you involves your IMDB signature. NRA hates America?
share[deleted]
altterian is correct that many actors during Hollywood's 'Golden Age' were restricted by contractual obligations to the studios who showcased them. There were downsides (inability to pick and chose assignments) and upsides (guaranteed employment, studio support when needed); in Lugosi's case he held concurrent contracts to both Universal and Monogram Studios during the early to mid 1940's, and worked on both stage and radio.
It's interesting how each studio treated Bela; Substandard Monogram starred Lugosi in Z-Grade horrors like "The Corpse Vanishes" and "Return of the Ape Man" while for the most part Universal threw Lugosi humble roles in movies like "Black Friday" and "Night Monster". Although Lugosi was contracted to Universal through 1944, he never appeared in a Universal Horror after he worked on "Frankenstein Meets The Wolf Man" in late 1942; his contract allowed the studio to use the actor's name in publicity blurbs, and he was obliged to appear at studio press junkets, but they wouldn't star him in a film.
Either one of the studios loaned him out (meaning Lugosi would get his salary plus the loaning studio would get a surcharge) or Lugosi made an independent deal with Columbia Studios in 1943 to appear in the moody "Return of the Vampire", which was produced by Sam White, brother of the gentleman (Jules White) who produced the Three Stooges shorts for that company. Columbia was still a second tier studio but it was the last time he would get star billing in anything but a Z-minus picture, and he's not bad in it.
[deleted]
Yes, but as the saying goes, there are no small parts, only small actors (I paraphrase, probably clumsily). The Wolf Man was an A level picture, and Universal was rounding up every well known actor available who would be right for that kind of film (and maybe a few that weren't) to make it appear as all-star as possible, this at a time when Uni was a second tier outfit. They did pretty well with casting the film, and Bela Lugosi shines in his small but plum role, a perfect fit for him; and he was very good playing the tormented Gypsy fortune teller. Lugosi wasn't always the best judge of what projects were good for him and his career. In the case of The Wolf Man, he chose wisely. It was a small role, but he gave a star turn all the same.
share[deleted]
Are you trying to say that Dracula is also a werewolf?
shareTechnically he is as he transforms into a wolf in both the Bela Lugosi movie and the novel.
shareRight but Dracula doesn't need to wait for a full moon to make the transformation
shareThat is right. In the book he actually escapes the boat as a wolf. And people around witness it and think the wolf/Dracula is a poor terrified dog who rode on the boat. Funny, isn't it?
shareWasn't aware of that. But I don't read books since its much easier to watch the movie. Plus its impossible to text while reading a book
shareAre you actually saying you never have a moment your whole day where you aren't texting? Cause that's wrong. Also books are often better than the movie. Although I like the 1931 film Frankenstein, the book is a bit better. It gives Frankenstein's monster a bit more depth than in most of the Universal movies. Also you could listen to an audiobook while texting.
shareI don't have the attention span to read a whole book. It gets boring very quickly for me. I never considered audiobooks, but that would mean I'd have to use my imagination while listening. I rather see the movie and watch it thru the directors eyes
shareThat's too bad. Cause the books are often very different from the movies.
share