MovieChat Forums > Son of Dracula (1943) Discussion > So, is he or isn't he the Son of Dracula...

So, is he or isn't he the Son of Dracula?

posted 12 years ago by Skye_Reynolds
18 replies | jump to latest

The title should be a hint, but then they drop the alias of Count Alucard partway throughout the film and begin openly referring to him as Count Dracula. He's even credited as such at the end. There's also no mention made of the original Count, only a few passing references to the Dracula family which contradict the timeline established by the first film - the last of the Draculas dying in the late 1800s as opposed to the 1930s. The absence of a direct reference to the original count also undermines the logical assumption that Alucard simply inherited the title of Count Dracula from his late father.

It seems like it points in the direction of Alucard really being Dracula, but then why should they have such a misleading title? I can appreciate the film wanted to potentially do a twist, but I would think that the name Dracula would bring in more money than the Son of Dracula. It seems foolish not to openly admit it if they're one and the same.

Either way you look at it, something doesn't make sense. It's like they wanted to play both sides of the field. I don't think that the John Carradine films offer any insight either as those bore little in the way of continuity. Does anyone know for certain if Count Alucard is officially the Son of Dracula or merely an alias?

[–] Ozu_Teapot 11 years ago

Perhaps somewhere there are original shooting scripts which might show whether it was originally intended to establish if Chaney Jr. was playing Dracula or his son, or documents which would reveal the why the studio chose the title, but going by what happens in the film I agree that everything points to him being the original Dracula. I'm pretty sure there is even a point in the film where Katherine says he IS Dracula.

I wonder if they chose "Son" because they thought audiences would be confused because at the end of the original Dracula the Count was left dead ("really dead") and was still "dead" in the first sequel Dracula's Daughter. It might even simply be that they looked at that first sequel and "Son" just seemed natural after "Daughter" without paying attention to what happened in the film! Of course there is nothing in the film to establsh exactly how Dracula has been revived which doesn't help us at all!

Personally I think Universal really missed a trick by not calling it Bride of Dracula. It would fit perfectly with the storyline!

[–] kartoon-1 11 years ago

I made a topic here that it could have been interesting to have revealed that Frank was his descendant, hence his 'son'. Check it out and see what I mean.

[–] jdstewart 11 years ago

"The Bride of Dracula"

I like that.

[–] simeon_flake 11 years ago

It's been awhile since I watched it, but I do believe there is a point in the film where J. Edward Bromberg's character says Alucard could be a descendant of the original Count Dracula. Plus, I just personally believe that the title of the film is literal and that Chaney is playing a "son" of Dracula. Just my 2 cents.

[–] christopher_greenleaf 11 years ago

He is the original Count Dracula NOT his son, that is made clear in the script. The title was changed for marketing reasons.

[–] Skye_Reynolds 10 years ago

Personally I think Universal really missed a trick by not calling it Bride of Dracula. It would fit perfectly with the storyline!

It might have been a little awkward to have Bride of Dracula come after Dracula's Daughter, but it really fits the film's content. It might also benefit from Bride of Frankenstein's success, but then it also might suffer when compared to the same. I don't know. If Alucard is supposed to be Dracula himself, then Bride of Frankenstein is a much more fitting title.

He is the original Count Dracula NOT his son, that is made clear in the script. The title was changed for marketing reasons.

Thanks. I can't imagine why they would think Son of Dracula would be better for marketing purposes though. The title implies that Dracula himself is dead and that they're forced to rely upon the next best thing; his never before mentioned son. That's a title which is guaranteed to draw less of a crowd than the original Dracula.

If they didn't think that audiences would believe that Dracula could return from the dead after being staked, then they should have just gone ahead and officially made him Count Alucard. Credit him as such in the cast list, replace references to him being Dracula with references to him being "the last of the Draculas," and have him reference his father. Otherwise, they should have called the film by another name and eliminated any confusion.

---
"In literature, it's called plagiarism. In the movies, it's homage" ~ Roger Ebert

[–] simeon_flake 10 years ago

When you make mention of the script, are you referring to the original shooting script? If so, that doesn't necessarily make it concrete that Chaney isn't Dracula's son.

Remember, the 1st script for "The Wolf Man" had Chaney as an American mechanic who was no relation to Claude Rains. Basically, this is just my roundabout way of saying I still believe the title of the film is literal.

[–] JoeKarlosi 10 years ago

I consider him to be the SON OF DRACULA. That's what it says in the title, and the doctor in the film says he is possibly a descendant of Count Dracula.

Just because he is referred to as "Dracula" at some point within the movie means nothing, as "Dracula" is merely a surname. Therefore, even Countess Zaleska (aka Dracula's Daughter) would be able to say "I Am Dracula".

Besides, Lon Chaney looks so different in the film that I think it works better considering him another Dracula.

It would have been very easy for Universal to call the movie RETURN OF DRACULA, or something like that, if he was playing the original vampire. Why call the movie "SON" and confuse everybody otherwise?

[–] lorenzb-2 10 years ago

He is Count Dracula, not his son. That's obvious if you follow the story. Universal made great movies, but was not all that great on maintaining continuity between them. But IMHO that just makes them more fun.

[–] simeon_flake 10 years ago

I guess the bottom line is, people will be arguing the "is he or isn't he" question until the sun burns out--so don't expect this issue to get resolved anytime soon...

[–] ChristianeK 9 years ago

I think he was son. After all, as a son of the Count Dracula, he had inherited the title...

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pawtrax67 8 years ago

I guess Universal promotional team figured if you had Son of Frankenstein, Dracula's Daughter, why not Son of Dracula.
It should have been called "The Curse of Dracula" and have Alucard be one of his decedents, or Dracula attacked a pregnant woman (Something that could probably never been shown or discussed in 1943).

[–] genesisclimber7 8 years ago

It is clearly established in the movie that he is the actual Dracula.

---
Aren't you relieved to know you're not a golem?

[–] Carycomic 8 years ago

More likely, either the adopted son or the son-in-law. ;-D

[–] Carycomic 8 years ago

Seriously, though, Skye; check out my new Universal Monster Chronology. Maybe that will finally answer your long-standing question.

[–] millsey72 (9530) 2 years ago

Yes he is Draculas son. Also Dracula had a daughter and each of his kids got their own Universal film