Editorials
Language Is No Barrier: The Spanish Version of ‘Dracula’ Remains a Lesser-Known Universal Monsters Classic
“Listen to them. The Children of the night. What music they make.”
It’s a line embedded into pop culture and horror history. In no small part due to the lasting overall impact of Tod Browning and Bela Lugosi’s iconic adaptation of Dracula, which recently celebrated its 90th anniversary. While most of us know this particular version like the back of our hand, did you know there’s another version that also celebrates its 90th birthday this month?
By the 1920s, American film studios began to see the profitability of selling their films to international markets. While silent films could be translated to foreign markets with relative ease, the rise of the sound film era by the late 1920s proved to be far more difficult. This was long before the days of overdubbing and major audio modifications that we have in filmmaking today. As a solution, studios came up with what at the time seemed like an ingenious solution: to film an entirely separate version specifically made to be sold to international markets. The most famous of these films you ask? Dracula, directed by George Melford for Spanish-speaking markets.
Universal, in a cost saving initiative, used the same sets that Browning used on his own film. Tod Browning would direct his scenes in the daytime and in the evening Melford and company would show up and shoot their version. Essentially Universal was making the exact same movie twice for multiple markets, which in retrospect seems like a nightmare. But without the common availability and invention of dubbing, there was no other way around it.
For Melford’s Dracula, the role of the infamous vampire was given to Carlos Villarias. A native actor from Spain, Villarias brings a different energy to the role. Whereas Lugosi’s portrayal brings a sense of nuance to the blood-drinking villain, Villarias’ Count is at times a bit more unhinged. A choice that works in its own right for this unexpected adaptation. The role of Mina was reworked into Eva for the Spanish version and portrayed by the wonderful Lupita Tovar, who is Mexican Cinema royalty. Not only was she in this version of Dracula, but she was also in the film Santa, which was the first fully sound Mexican film production.
Melford was allowed dallies to the Browning production and during the day spent time studying them. Keen on making his film stand out, the Spanish-language version contains more elaborate cinematography and effects. There are less tracking shots, but overall the film is framed like a stage play (ironic, since its source material is the 1924 Broadway play rather than the novel). It’s almost like witnessing the film for the first time if you’re a fan of the more popular and accessible Browning adaptation.
Dracula premiered on March 11, 1931 in Havana, Cuba followed by a premiere in New York City on April 24 later that year. Reception at the time was insubstantial and the film was quickly forgotten to time. Or so we thought. Like the infamous Count himself, the Spanish-language version of Dracula resurfaced in 1977 where it was partially screened at the Museum of Modern Art in New York. This inspired Universal to eventually release the completed film to home media in the early 90s where it found a new appreciation for its differences to its English counterpart. Since then it has been included as a special feature to Lugosi’s film and is widely accessible today.
Time for me to get a little personal for a moment. In the late 90s the Spanish-language version of Dracula was a way for me to bond with my late grandfather. A native from Mexico, his first language was Spanish and he struggled to understand and follow English-speaking media in his older age. Not being a fluent Spanish speaker myself, I would try to seek out subtitled movies for us to watch. One of these being Dracula. We would watch it together and he would love it; the experience was instrumental in my blossoming love for the horror genre as a whole as a kid. He’s gone now, but Dracula will always remind me of the time and experience I got to spend with him, loving horror movies together.
Though the Spanish-language version of Dracula hasn’t reached the pop culture heights of the Browning/Lugosi adaptation, it stands in its own right as a unique adaptation of the same source material. It also represents a paradigm shift that Hollywood and filmmaking as a whole were facing at the time. It exists in this strange place where we were moving from the past and into what the future of the format would be. With this version being widely accessible as a special feature of the English version, now is a good time as any to celebrate this lesser known Universal Monsters classic from the golden age of monster films.
The problem with filming sequels back-to-back is that, unless you can afford expensive reshoots, there’s no easy way to adjust course in between movies if fans react badly to where the story is headed. That’s why it’s important to have a complete narrative thought out well in advance lest you accidentally kill a budding franchise.
However, this isn’t always the case. Every once in a while, it seems like the cinema gods smile upon certain chaotic productions and gift moviegoers with complete franchises that feel like more than the sum of their hastily produced parts. Ted Nicolaou’s Bloodlust: Subspecies III is precisely one of these miraculous pictures, with the raw talents of the artists involved (as well as the continued support from Romania) turning the feature into an effective conclusion for a series that kind of made things up as the filmmakers went along.
That’s why I’d like to invite my fellow readers to join me on this third part of our journey through the Subspecies franchise as we look into Bloodlust and talk about how it remains a surprisingly satisfying finale to the original trilogy.
A Trilogy Planned on the Fly
Released only a year after Bloodstone found plenty of success in rental stores and mail-in VHS catalogues worldwide, 1994’s Bloodlust was produced at the same time as its predecessor in (mostly) the same locations and with the same team. This means that the movie benefited from all the same upgrades as Bloodstone, with the crew now being more experienced with the ins and outs of surviving a low-budget Romanian production and the cast really settling into their characters.
At this point, everything from location scouting to the makeup process had been streamlined, with Wayne Toth and Norman Cabrera, the main duo behind special effects, even switching out time-consuming prosthetics for latex gloves in order to speed up Anders Hove’s monstrous transformation. The titular “subspecies” demons were also once again relegated to a mere cameo appearance due to the laborious puppetry required to bring them to life.
The only real hiccup came from the fact that actress Denice Duff had replaced the first film’s Michelle (Laura Mae Tate) and was immediately expected to portray the character as both an innocent victim in part II and as a secondary villain in part III. According to behind-the-scenes interviews, the hectic production schedule that blended two different movies meant that Duff would often find herself having to alternate between two incredibly different versions of Michelle during the same shooting day – though it’s obvious that she’s having more fun with Bloodlust’s more traditionally vampiric version of her character.
In the finished film, we pick things up immediately where the previous entry left off as Rebecca (Melanie Shatner) is forced to leave her vampire sister Michelle (Duff) behind in the dungeons of Castle Vladislav due to the rising sun. This allows Mummy (Pamela Gordon) to use Michelle’s blood to revive the vicious Radu (Hove) so that he may continue his quest for the coveted Bloodstone – a magical artifact that perpetually drips the Blood of Saints.
Meanwhile, the dreamy US embassy agent Mel (Kevin Blair) agrees to help Rebecca plan a rescue mission, though they’re unaware that Radu has become infatuated with Michelle during his attempts to guide her growing bloodlust. This all culminates in a climactic confrontation meant to tie up all of the series’ loose ends in one of Full Moon Pictures’ most ambitious productions.
The Evolution of Radu
Like its predecessor, Bloodlust: Subspecies III was also warmly received by fans who argued that the series was an even bigger success than Full Moon’s other major horror franchise, Puppet Master. This praise wasn’t unanimous, however, as 1994 had seen the rise of a more modern breed of sexy vampire popularized by Anne Rice, with old-school Nosferatu like Radu being viewed as obsolete when compared to the likes of Lestat and Gary Oldman’s take on Dracula.
In a way, one might argue that Nicolaou’s film is something of a swan song for the classic vampire story, as Bloodlust combines all of the traditional elements we tend to associate with these tales into a single tragic yarn that ties a neat little bow on Radu’s story as well as the old-fashioned monster movies that he represents. The finale remains shocking despite the fact that this is the third time we see Radu get brutally killed onscreen, with the brief tease that he may one day return feeling more like a nod towards the nature of evil rather than sequel bait.
The film dabbles a bit in gothic romance and even explores the inherent power fantasy behind transforming into an immortal creature of the night, but the filmmakers never lose sight of Radu as a demonic force even when he’s willing to betray his beloved Mummy for Michelle’s sake. In fact, his twisted “love” for his fledgling makes him even creepier as we get the feeling that his passion comes from a dark and disturbing place.
Anders Hove is at his absolute best in this film, with the effects department boosting his moments of what the younger generation would call “aura farming” whenever Radu emerges from shadows like a 90s version of Count Orlok. There are even a couple of surprisingly effective jump-scares here, which is why I’d argue that Bloodlust cements Radu as one of the most memorable cinematic vampires of all time despite his humble origins.
Subspecies Saves Its Best For Last
Nicolaou and Vlad Panescu also saved the best for “last” (more on that in a bit) regarding the film’s visuals, with the cinematography and overall atmosphere of Bloodlust absolutely surpassing what we saw in the previous films. Everything feels appropriately climactic this time around (including the wonderful soundtrack that was co-composed alongside an authentic Romanian orchestra), and I appreciate how this is the fastest-paced entry in the trilogy since the film doesn’t need to waste time setting anything up.
Bloodlust still suffers from some of the same low-budget blemishes as its predecessors, but there’s so much creative passion here that no amount of wonky effects work or stilted dialogue can get in the way of appreciating the flick’s gothic grandeur. That’s why it’s not surprising that the movie’s definitive(-ish) ending would later be retconned as fans begged for more Radu.
Of course, the next entry in this series would be a different kind of vampiric endeavor altogether, with the filmmakers attempting to engage with the same trends that ultimately killed Radu and his antiquated kin. That, however, is a story for another time. For now, I’ll merely insist that Bloodlust: Subspecies III remains a highlight of Full Moon’s expansive catalogue and is definitely worth seeking out today.
You must be logged in to post a comment.