A man is found in
a crypt with two dead bodies. He admits having murdered and
mutilated one of them and calmly declares it a service to mankind
because the victim was a vampire. A woman tormented by what she
believes is a family curse that involves the undead. Both seek the
aid of psychiatrist Jeffrey Garth (Otto Kruger). Dracula's Daughter,
a direct sequel to Tod Browning's 1931 Dracula, is less bloodcurdling
than the first film but more mired in its passions, more intimate,
and every bit as dark.
Gloria Holden
plays the title role, a true heir to the royal family of Count
Dracula and not merely a vampirized spawn. Like Dracula, she has a
need to drain humans of their blood to survive. Unlike her father,
she sees it as a curse that has twisted her soul. When she hears
Garth speak of freeing his patients of their obsessions, she risks
exposing her secrets to him for the chance to live normally. Holden
makes for a strange, haunted creature, at once deathly still and yet
animated by anguish and an undercurrent of temper. Her eyes go from
a zombielike stare to flashes of need or pain in an instant while in
the same instance the calm in her voice seems intoned by another
person entirely. Successor to Lugosi indeed, she has exactly the
strength of presence and the exotic air demanded by the role.
Zaleska is a true royal, haughty in bearing when her true colors,
unhesitating to use or take the lives of others. It's debatable how
much she is motivated by conscience or remorse.
Dr. Garth has been
called in to defend the man found with the bodies, Edward Van Sloan
reprising his role as professor Von Helsing (Wait, what? Von
Helsing?) Garth is a steadfast man, sure in his convictions and
abilities. No vampire talk will deter him from learning the truth
of these mysterious deaths. This new woman in his life, the
Countess, might prove a distraction though...he's smitten with her,
and that's making his assistant Janet more of a pain in his side than
usual. Truth is, Janet is in love with him.
Complications of
infatuation and frustrated desires are what Dracula's Daughter is all
about. Zaleska may or may not be infatuated with Garth. She has a
jealous assistant of her own, the creepy Sandor whom she has promised
to turn into a vampire in reward for his loyalty. Sandor doesn't
love her, but he is in love with an ideal she represents –
murderous power, and immortality. She is his goddess. He has no
tolerance for her humanity.
It's a nearly
perfect movie with a deft touch for manipulating mood and a rich
chiaroscuro cinematography. An early scene easily manages to be
hair-raisingly creepy with suggestion alone while still lightly comic
(two police watch the bodies at night). Next, witness the funeral
pyre scene for a lesson in evoking mood with lighting and score.
Listen to the verbal dancing of the dialog as Sandor defeats his
mistress' will to be cured or Garth spars with Janet. It's a film as
smooth as cognac and flows as easily. At an hour and eleven
minutes, this lady really moves.
Only two things
sour the movie for me, and both owe to viewing it removed from the
social prejudices of its time.
I don't care much
for Garth, the man is arrogant and thoughtless. A man's man in his
day, no doubt. His arguments with Janet are meant to be playful but
after the first few you can sense genuine hostility in him – he's
not entirely playing. Later a patient he's been consulted on dies
under his observation, and not for a moment does he acknowledge
responsibility for pushing her when he should have been heedful of
her condition. Garth's ego is no mistake of a script witty enough to
recognize it, as Janet delights in tripping him up at every occasion
and Zaleska plays him with transparent flattery...I just don't like
him much.
More bothersome,
though, is the matter of Zaleska's sexuality. Today we'd recognize
her with a shrug as bisexual, but this is the 1930s we're talking
about. Her desire for women is characterized as an “obsession”,
regarded by the Countess herself as an unwanted indecency, and
ultimately presented as destructive. It's been suggested to me that
her character is shown in such sympathetic light (true enough) that
we are not meant to assume a homophobic slant but merely a
representation of her own ambivalence. I wish I could buy that, but
given the era I can't.
No comments:
Post a Comment