After the demise of Dracula (1931) and Dracula's Daughter (1936), it was only natural that the third film in Universal's movie series would be Son of Dracula. This film is not the direct sequel that Dracula's Daughter was as it takes places well after the supposed demise of the original Count Dracula. This film has the original Dracula's supposed demise having happened in the 19th century, something that is obviously not true in the previous movies but is in line with Bram Stoker's original Dracula novel.
In this film, Dracula comes to America, when Katherine Caldwell (Louise Allbritton) invites a certain Count Alucard (Lon Chaney Jr.) to her New Orleans plantation. Noticing a similarity between the name Alucard and Dracula (Alucard is Dracula spelled backwards), Professor Brewster (Frank Craven) begins to except that he might have some relation to the famous vampire. When strange things begin to happen, and he finds that there is no such persona as Count Alucard. these suspicions become more than simple hunches.
The third entry in this series is a surprisingly strong horror film. While it may not keep those used to modern horror movies up at night, it is still is a tense and exciting film. The climax is especially exciting, suspenseful and cinematic. This scene will stay in your mind long after the film finishes. This movie also features many more effectively creepy scenes that are helped by a wonderful sense of atmosphere. While a Dracula story set in New Orleans may seem strange at first, the filmmakers make great use of the swamplands. The depiction of these swamplands at night is pure horror filmmaking at its best. The use of moonlight, fog, shadows and great cinematography make these swamplands seem like the stuff nightmares are made of. All the visuals in this film are simply wonderful. The special effects by John P. Fulton (a mainstay on the Universal monster films starting with The Invisible Man (1933)) are fantastic and hold up extremely well today (this marks the first time we see Dracula turn into a bat onscreen).
This movie does have its flaws though. The idea that Count Dracula would try to hide his identity by taking the obvious pseudonym of Count Alucard is simply dumb and hard to believe. The romance is also not that interest here. Especially since the romantic male lead (Robert Paige) is quite underwritten and bland.
This movie was directed by Robert Siodmak and marks the only Universal monster film that he directed. However, he was very talented director that deserves to be better know. His filmography includes the brilliant German silent arthouse film, People on Sunday (1930, which includes no real story and no professional actors) and many film noir classics including The Killers (1946). He brought a real film-noir feel to the early scenes that works perfectly here.
This marked the only time Count Dracula was played by Lon Chaney Jr. Lon Chaney Jr. was not only the son of one of the most respected actors of the silent era but a well-respected actor in his own right. This was especially due to his role in the brilliant film version of Of Mice and Men (1939). He had already made his mark on the world of Universal monsters with his lead role in The Wolf Man (1941). The same year as Son of Dracula, would reprise his role as the Wolf Man in Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943). He remains a controversial choice to play Dracula as he is so drastically different from Bela Lugosi, due to his large physique, American accent and lack of the sophisticated elegance that Lugosi brought to the role While it took me a while to get used to this different take on the character, he eventually won me over. His menacing and purposely understated performance works quite well here making him feel more like an unstoppable force of nature than the seductive depiction Bela Lugosi gave. If he had played the character in the 1931 film, this performance wouldn't have worked but it fits this movie.
While this movie did not cause the sensation that Frankenstein (1931) or Dracula did, it was a hit at the box office. It received mixed reviews from critics. Some praised Siodmak's direction, while others criticized it as being too derivative of early Universal horror films. The film would be reissued to theaters in 1948.
A review in Film Bulletin stated, "Horror hokum to the n'th degree, 'Son of Dracula' is made-to-order for thrill devotees who will crowd the houses and bring in hefty grosses. Where its parent picture of a dozen years ago was weirdly unbelievable - and extremely shuddery, this one is utterly fantastic - and occasionally ridiculous. And Lon Chaney Jr. is unable to give his portrayal of Count Alucard (Dracula spelled backwards) the eerie quality that Bela Lugosi originally imparted to the vampire role. An excellent production, with numerous weird and imaginative effects and some suspenseful moments in the story will raise chills among many members of the average audience. There will be the customary audible shrieks, but also many unexpected laughs - in the better class theatres. However, the highly exploitable title - and an above average cast for horror films - makes this a fair attraction for all situations."
I love the way that theater owners used to go out of their way to promote films for themselves. The following is a short article from an issue Showman's Trade Review dated March, 26, 1949 (considering the date, this article was probably talking about an incident that occurred upon the 1948 reissue).
"A believer in the efficiency of street ballyhoo in exploiting pictures is manager Lou Fuhrman of the Temple, Cortland, N.Y. For 'The Son of Dracula' he sent a masked man, weirdly costumed through the streets with copy stating he was the son of Dracula and 'See me at ........' For 'Blood and Sand' he sent a man carrying a glass of tomato juice in one hand and a glass of sand in the other parading about town. Sign copy announced film's opening date."
Ballyhoo, Sep 1960
Resources Used
https://lantern.mediahist.org/
https://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/90801/son-of-dracula#articles-reviews?articleId=1358247