Carradine as Dracula? - House of Dracula (1945) Discussion

he sucked (figuratively).Not a good casting.

reply

I thought he did a basically solid job for the limited screen time he had in HoD and HoF. His look was somewhat closer to how Dracula is described in Stoker's book (tall, thin man with moustache who speaks excellent English), except Dracula in the book has a longer, thicker moustache, heavy eyebrows, pointed ears, and didn't wear a tuxedo.
I would've much prefered Bela Lugosi to have done these films. Anybody know why he didn't?

reply

[–] HooterHunter 17 years ago

If I remember correctly, I think by the time these movies came around he was too old and was trying to break out of the typecast. He may have already dealing with his addictions, too. I do agree...he is the definitive Dracula for me though.

reply

[–] bromstaker 17 years ago

I don't think it was a case of Lugosi being too old. He was quite effective just 2 years before in Return of the Vampire, and he looked/performed great as Dracula in Abbot & Costello Meet Frankenstein in '48.

reply

[–] alexis_240 16 years ago

Considering this film was made in 1945, I doubt that Lugosi was trying to release himself from his typecasting problem. It was far too big to be dealt with and besides the parts he was offerred began to dry out leading him to near poverty which was why he agreed to work with Ed Wood. The studio was probably not interested in an addict or they wanted someone with a smoother accent.

reply

[–] Slainmonkey 9 years ago

Bela Lugosi wasn't on good terms with Universal during the time of shooting this because he suffered a spinal injury during the shooting of Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, which also lead to him developing a morphine addiction. I dunno how it was settled by the time Abbott and Costello was made, but that's why he didn't return to the role in House of Frankenstein and this movie.

reply

[–] mlraymond 17 years ago

I love his interpretation. There have been many enjoyable performances from different actors, but Carradine has a certain odd magnetism in the role of Dracula that is uniquely his own. The piercing eyes, the tall, thin frame, the elegant evening clothes, that ominously seductive bass. The bit where he's casting his spell on the blonde nurse, as she plays the piano, is great stuff, as is his opening scene where he introduces himself to Dr. Edelman.

And when he crossed the bridge, the phantoms came to meet him

reply

[–] dooncan 17 years ago

I've never seen an actor play Dracula portray him with a moustache before. It was a nice touch - and unique.

I thought Carradine was a better Dracula in this than Lon Chaney, Jr. was in Son of Dracula.

My fingers ... ... they're breathing!

reply

[–] jlinendoll 17 years ago

Chaney had the mustache in Son Of Dracula, and was actually quite good. Very imposing and, along with John Fulton's special fx, quite memorable IMHO.

reply

[–] OgreVI 15 years ago

I know this thread is ancient, but...
I love Carradine as Dracula. I really think that, if they'd cast Carradine instead of Junior in Son of Dracula it might have been a good movie. As it is, I can hardly bear to watch it.

Death is...whimsical today.

reply

[–] mam13143 15 years ago

I agree that Son of Dracula which I just watched again is so very boring and Chaney is just awful as Dracula (Count Alacard!) Plus a poor script and uninspired acting from all around it seemed. As to Carradine as Dracula, well a better acting job no doubt but didn't project the sinister and evil presence of Legosi - something all of the others miss.

reply

[–] mam13143 15 years ago

I agree that Son of Dracula which I just watched again is so very boring and Chaney is just awful as Dracula (Count Alacard!) Plus a poor script and uninspired acting from all around it seemed. As to Carradine as Dracula, well a better acting job no doubt, but he didn't project the sinister and evil presence of Legosi - something all of the others miss. Even Capolla's Dracula missed the boat on that too, treated the movie almost as if it was a biography instead of a tale of horror and terror.

reply

[–] aerostonefloyd-1 14 years ago

Once again adding to the "ancient" thread with my two cents, I think Carradine's mustache looks perfectly ridiculous as well as the one Laurence Talbot (the Wolfman) has! Of course I just think that mustaches are completely goofy anyways, but all the more so on fictional characters whom are supposed to inspire terror and scares.
Of course what can one really expect out of a film that tries to combine all three Universal monsters in one celluloid package and only manages to sully the originals with a odd, hunchbacked Igor assistant ripoff and stupid mustaches!!

That being ranted, all things considered it wasn't a terribly horrible sequel and is rather fun if you just forget how great the originals are.

reply

[–] jbirtel-1 14 years ago

From what I read in the Universal archives: Lugosi very much wanted the role in 'House of Frankenstein'; but he was already committed to a road-show performance in another part of the country. He was, however, available for 'House of "D"'.

Universal was still upset over the post-production elimination of his dialogue for his speaking performance as the Frankenstein Monster in 'Frankenstein Meets The Wolf Man'. The additional 'panic' editing that was done, diminished Lugosi's acting opportunities. As a result, Lugosi's actual screen time is, incredibly, just over 5 minutes.

When 'House of Frank...' was a box office success; the producers offered John Carradine to reprise the role for 'House of Dracula'.

Lugosi was only offered to work for Universal one final time for 'Bud Abbott & Lou Costello Meet Frankenstein'. And many feel (I agree), he played Dracula better the 2nd time. Carradine personally thought Lugosi was the better Dracula.

reply

[–] death_jamm_productions 14 years ago

he was terrible, carried no menace whatsoever

No Justice Just Us

reply

[–] OgreVI 14 years ago

Who, Carradine or Junior?

Death is...whimsical today.

reply

[–] Loomis_Orange 14 years ago

Jr.

Served with the style of a real neurotic
the easy style of a true psychotic
J C Clarke

reply

[–] OgreVI 14 years ago

Ah. Then I agree totally, even though I love the man.

Death is...whimsical today.

reply

[–] crawlfan-1 17 years ago

It was a new portrayal of Dracula, and as a die-hard fan of Dracula, I'm always open to seeing Dracula with a new face.

I do think that Universal made a mistake, not casting Bela Lugosi as the Count. That man IS Dracula.

reply

[–] alexis_240 16 years ago

Maybe they didn't cast him because they thought he was dead! His addiction to painkillers was very notorious and as far as I know that was the case in Abbott and Costello meet Frankenstein, the studio thought he was dead even though they did cast him eventually. Remember Ed Wood, the Tim Burton film? Every producer depicted in it reacted that way when Wood would tell them about Lugosi: 'Lugosi, I thought he was dead'

reply

[–] jlinendoll 16 years ago

Not likely, he was just under contract to them a year or two earlier. Lugosi was touring in ARSENIC & OLD LACE at the time, and that may have conflicted. Or they may have had Carradine available and penciled him in.

reply

[–] RiversEnd 16 years ago

Lugosi is the ultimate Dracula, however I did like Carridine in this portrayl! He does have that evil gaze! His tall thin stature is a plus! I liked the animated transformations from Vampire to bat! Let's face it, following Lugosi as Dracula is a challenge! I think Carradines performance in this one was better then H of Frank, although I like H of Frankenstein beetter then H of Dracula.

Where the Rivers End in Virginia!

reply

[–] teejay6682 16 years ago

i thought carradine was suprisingly good in HoF and HoD if you're open to different interpretations of the character. carradine had a unique quality previous posters of spoke of. fine actor as are his sons.

reply

[–] JPfanatic93 16 years ago

Good enough, but no Lugosi or Lee.

reply

[–] The_Dying_Flutchman 15 years ago

Yes, Lee was the best, but Carradine is much closer to the book. Ask a sailor.

Nothing is more beautiful than nothing.

reply

[–] mercury4 15 years ago

Actually I thought Christopher Lee was much closer to the book. Lee made a movie in 1970 called Count Dracula. If you want to know what Dracula looked like in the book look no further than Christopher Lee in that movie. He had the mustache, the height. He was Dracula. But as far as the Dracula that we all know and love, Bela Lugosi was the best. He had the look. He was much scarier than Carradine. Lugosi also had the accent and the charm. Carradine had neither. Carradine was a good actor, but when it came to Dracula, he was nothing special. I was so glad they brought Bela Lugosi back for Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein. Every scene Lugosi was in, his presence was felt. His performance was great in that movie. That charm he had in Dracula back in 1931 was still there. Lugosi was the best Dracula in my opinion. Christopher Lee was good in the Dracula movies that he made, but they were very different. I couldn't picture Christopher Lee in the 1931 Dracula.

reply

[–] The_Dying_Flutchman 15 years ago

I have seen the Italian or was it Spanish "Count Dracula" with Lee and it is closer to the book, but even so Carradine to many was impressive. Of course, Lugosi invented the character and he knew more than the rest about the Transylvanian myths having been born and raised in Hungary. Transylvania was once a part of Hungary. His accent, his eyes and the way he used his hands were the best. He got much of his training in silent films and that helped immensely with his body language. I have never considered Max Schreck as anything other than a freak show. Lee's Horror of, Taste the Blood of and Scars of are my favorites of his. I recommend the dvd of Scars for the commentary by him which is good fun.

Nothing is more beautiful than nothing.

reply

[–] TorontoJediMaster 15 years ago

Well, the best Dracula portrayal ever was done by Louis Jourdan (in the 1978 BBC miniseries Count Dracula).

However, as far as these films go, Lugosi was better in the part. However, John Carradine was very good too. I think Carradine's best attribute was his voice. It gave him a presence in the part that elevated his performance. Yet, he wasn't as good as Lugosi was in Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein. There, Lugosi truly dominated the film.

reply

[–] The_Dying_Flutchman 15 years ago

Louis Jordan's portrayal was ok, but that version is the closest to the book. Too bad there really has never been a great 3 hour flick presented like the book. I was also disappointed in Coppola's Dracula even though Gary Oldman (now there's a name) played the old man vampire very well. Also, he pronounced the Transylvanian names correctly. One of the few.

Nothing is more beautiful than nothing.

reply

[–] The_King_of_Cool 15 years ago

I liked Carradine in the role. Nobody can top Lugosi, but Carradine does a good enough job. No complaints from me.

FULCI LIVES!

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] The_Dying_Flutchman 15 years ago

The greatest Dracula starred Doodles Weaver, but that version is unfortunetly lost.

Nothing is more beautiful than nothing.

reply

[–] pitsburghfuzz 15 years ago

my opinion was that he was a poser in a haloween costume. that is how most draculas are compared to lugosi.

reply

[–] YGoodwriter 14 years ago

Carradine was a good character actor but he was totally miscast as Dracula. If I were to make a list of best-to-worst performances as Dracula, Carradine wouldn't be very high up. (Lugosi, Oldman and Lee were the best.)

reply

[–] Kingfrak 14 years ago

I love him as Dracula. I like that he plays it nothing like Bela. I enjoy him in the role more each time I see it.

reply