Mark of the Vampire (1935) review

2. Mark of the Vampire (1935)

Directed by: Tod Browning

Produced by: Tod Browning, E.J. Mannix

Screenplay by: Guy Endore, Bernard Schubert

Starring: Lionel Barrymore, Elizabeth Allan, Béla Lugosi, Lionel Atwill, Jean Hersholt

A few years ago, I reviewed the remains of the Lon Chaney silent picture “London After Midnight,” one of the most sought-after lost films in horror history; specifically, it was the 45-minute slideshow reconstruction by Turner Classic Movies released on DVD in 2002. In recent times, more details about the lost film—the last known copy being destroyed in an MGM vault fire in 1965—have come to light, but nothing to suggest a miraculous rediscovery. So for now, let’s have a look at the 1935 sound remake “Mark of the Vampire,” also directed by Tod Browning and starring Béla Lugosi in Chaney’s role as a vampire suspected of the murder of local nobleman Sir Karell Borotyn (Holmes Herbert), which triggers an investigation even as more attacks occur, with varying degrees of supernatural belief. It’s a decent enough movie with all the craft and aesthetics you’d want; however, the awkward tone and insipid climax prevent it from being much more than a curiosity piece.

The story opens with Sir Karell found murdered in his house with a pair of small wounds in his neck; his friend Baron Otto von Zinden (Jean Hersholt) and Dr. Doskil (Donald Meek) believe he was killed by a vampire, specifically Count Mara (Lugosi) and his daughter Luna (Carroll Borland), much to Police Inspector Neumann’s (Lionel Atwill) skepticism. When Sir Karell’s daughter Irena (Elizabeth Allan) becomes the next target, they and her fiancé Fedor (Henry Wadsworth) recruit occult expert Professor Zelen (Lionel Barrymore) to help protect her, while also staking out a nearby castle to hunt down the vampires before there’s any more bloodshed, as the mystery of Sir Karell’s death comes to light.

So the story manages to differentiate itself enough from “Dracula,” although there are certainly character archetypes that will seem familiar. Zelen is much like the vampire expert Van Helsing, Irena is the pretty ingénue a la Mina, Fedor has similarities to Jonathan Harker—keep in mind, these characters’ roles vary depending on what Dracula adaptation you’re talking about, but I digress—and they establish plenty of the same lore: the superstitious villagers, ways to ward off vampires, etc. But one big difference is that it’s modern rather than set in the Victorian era, so it’s seen by naysayers as much more unlikely. Of course, Lugosi had played the titular vampire in Browning’s adaptation, and he still undeniably looks the part; he’s got that sinister, hypnotic stare and is photographed well, along with Carroll Borland as Luna, but they don’t speak until the last minute, which is part of another issue entirely, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

Even without Lugosi in much of the action, this is a talented cast; Lionel Barrymore is believable as Zelen, Universal regular Lionel Atwill has the proper stoicism and command as Neumann, but one who really stands out excellently is Elizabeth Allan as Irena. Though reportedly not thinking much of the film, she has this undeniable charisma and spunk; she just makes you feel for what’s happening to the character. But as I alluded to, the tone is rather inconsistent, as most of the action is played straight but you’ll also have these over-the-top reactions that end up unintentionally hilarious. Donald Meek is particularly offensive in this regard; his shrill voice and blustering mannerisms might work in “You Can’t Take It with You,” but they don’t make for a convincing doctor. I also marvel at an exchange where the Baron tells Sir Karell’s employers that he’s been murdered, then says there’s no cause for alarm.

With that said, the film is entertaining for how well it exploits all the classic tropes; but in the last ten minutes, all the goodwill it builds up undoes itself, and I must explain why, so beware of spoilers. Without giving everything away, it’s revealed that the vampires are actors hired as part of investigating the murderer’s identity. First of all, that creates a number of plot holes regarding certain bat-centered visuals and character experiences. Second of all, it makes for a climax that has all the dramatic tension of a made-for-TV courtroom drama. Browning kept the twist hidden from the cast and crew until the last few days of shooting, hoping for more authenticity, but most of the cast disliked it, Lugosi in particular. I know it’s similar to “London After Midnight,” but here the way it’s edited and scripted is so hackneyed it just sucks all the life and momentum out of the story to the point that it almost feels like a parody. Also, while it was common in 1920s Hollywood films for supernatural phenomena to be fraudulent, the ‘30s had movies that embraced real vampires, werewolves, mummies, etc., so there’s not much juice in the concept of such an elaborate fake.

“Mark of the Vampire” was one of MGM’s only horror films in a time when Universal dominated the market, and while no means bad, you can kind of see upon viewing why it didn’t catch on as well as the others. By this time, Browning’s once-fledgling filmmaking career had taken a dive after the poor reception of “Freaks,” a movie that only achieved cult status decades later, following his death. If they had fully committed to a mystical story, I’d be more forgiving of this effort; but as it is, it’s okay. It’s a short movie, clocking in at an hour long, although reportedly it was 80 minutes in the initial release, with MGM making plenty of cuts that have never been restored. Maybe that’s why there’s no explanation for Count Mara’s gunshot wound, or why the mention of a time jump seems so out of the blue. But if you feel like watching a simple black-and-white vampire mystery, it’s an easy time-killer.

My rating: 6.5/10