The blood was her lifeI don’t want to talk about the man behind the candle. Seriously, don’t even look at him, forget he’s even there. And, believe me, I know how hard it is – it’s Bela Lugosi, you’re thinking, for gum’s sake. Yes, this is true. The man in the Wayne Newton ruffled shirt and cravat (why don’t men in movies wear cravats anymore?) is Bela DRACULA Lugosi himself, in fine post-career-highpoint fettle as Count Mora in Tod Browning’s MARK OF THE VAMPIRE (1935). It’s a neat movie, maybe even classic by now, a remake of Browning’s silent (presumed) classic (presumed because nobody alive today has seen it) LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT (1927), which had starred Lon Chaney (penciled in for the lead in DRACULA before cancer took his life in 1930). Atmospherically shot by future multiple Academy Award nominee and winner James Wong Howe, the movie is only so-so as horripilating entertainment but every frame of it could be hung on a museum wall. And the jewel in this creepy crown is Carroll Borland, pictured above and slightly behind the guy I would prefer that you ignore for the time being. Carroll Borland was a 20-year-old Berkley student and movie extra who got her big break in MARK OF THE VAMPIRE, playing Count Mora’s daughter Luna. (Allegedly, the fledgling actress had played a minor role in a stage production of DRACULA starring Lugosi and had impressed herself upon him to the point where he brokered her effective big screen debut.) In MARK OF THE VAMPIRE, Borland has no dialogue throughout (save for a line at the very end) and limited screen time but remains nonetheless a startling and beguilingly necro-erotic figure in her gauzy burial gown, her complexion the color of milk, with gimlet cat eyes and a disconcertingly lush mouth that draws you in, spider-to-fly-like. In the role of Luna, she is at once little girl and ancient harridan, part poppy, half harridan, a naif to whom all hooved satyrs knelt. You see her softness, her plumpness, and yet you sense there are razors within the tulle. To gaze into her eyes is to know at once she’d slice you to ribbons and laugh at your flesh unraveled into a bloody coil around your ankles. That’s half the attraction, I think… and maybe more than half. I got to see Carroll Borland in person a few months before her death in February of 1994. Near the end of her life, she was an amusingly brassy older broad who wasn’t trying to play the Lady of Mystery nearly sixty years after the fact. She was squat and kind of homely and seemed like she knew a lot of dirty jokes. No longer threatening, you wanted to kiss her on the cheek. Apparently she made up a lot of stuff about her relationship to Lugosi over the years, claims that were discounted over time. But I don’t hold that against her; she’d had the experience of her lifetime and she wanted to preserve it, compound it, magnify it, re-live it. Now over 70 years past the making of MARK OF THE VAMPIRE, she is in her own right as legendary as her beloved costar. They say that cartoonist Charles Addams patterned the character of Morticia Addams after Borland’s Luna; years later, another Hollywood hanger-on, Maila Nurmi, went to a costume party dressed as Morticia and wound up becoming the enduring cult figure Vampira, whose interpretation of the character had a lot to do with Carolyn Jones’ look in the role on the short-lived but undying ABC sitcom THE ADDAMS FAMILY. Vampira and Morticia have inspired a lot of Goth makeovers over the years but we have Luna to thank as a sort of undead Germaine Greer, paving the way for her sisters in graveyard earth. What comes around goes around, I guess. Especially with vampires. 5 Responses The blood was her life
LUGOSI in mark of the vampire was perfectly cast, all he had to do was to walk thru the role! by the 40s he was making a string of poverty row Z productions that would shame any actor. his absurd accent combined with his drug addiction made him a very poor actor indeed. i always felt the VOODOO MAN was the nadir of his career. karloff even with his lisp and british accent was a more accomplished actor, there was really no contest between the two. I would disagree with you, John, that Lugosi’s accent was absurd. I find it glorious to listen to – it electrifies (well, sometimes) the most banal and clunky of lines. It is odd that Lugosi was often given a whitebread surname that sat incongruously with his heavily accented English but that just made the guy seem all the more mysterious. I don’t think Lugosi was a poor actor at all… he inhabited every role assigned to him and made the character larger than life… and sometimes larger than un-life. The world is fully of genuinely poor actors, more today than ever (tune into any SCI-FI CHANNEL movie and you’ll see what I mean), while Lugosi remains unforgettable. Fifty years after his death, and we’re still talking about him. We’ll just see if Phillip Seymour Hoffman rates this kind of adoration in 2058. RHS, it’s hilarious that you would use SCI-FI Channel movies as examples of terrible actors. I always have SO much hope that one of these will be good — the loglines are always so promising and right up my alley, but man, they are uniformly horrible and totally disappointing. (I did sort of like the one with the Manitcore in it, with the soldiers in the Middle East — not sure why that didn’t stink quite as much, or maybe it did but I think I liked the monster). Not sure about Phillip Seymour Hoffman in 50 years — and I sure won’t be around to find out! — but I’ll sure take him over the indistinguishable crop of younger actors. Having worked in the film industry in the early &70’s I can tell you first hand that there are alot of actors working that will never have one-tenth the talent that lugosi had during his film career. he always used his accent to the character’s advantage & never overplayed or overstaged his roles… He never got the girl [except in the "return of Chandu"] and never complained about it. Totally unlike actors today. His acting talents are sorely missed in today’s industry….. Leave a Reply |
Archives
Featured Sites
Popular terms
3-D
Actors
Actors' Endorsements
Animation
Anthology Films
Awards
Books on Film
British Cinema
Character Actors
Chicago Film History
Cinematography
Classic Films
College Life on Film
Comedy
Comic Book Movies
Czech Film
Dance on Film
Digital Cinema
Directors
Disaster Films
Documentary
Drama
Early Talkies
Editing
Educational Films
European Influence on American Cinema
Exploitation
Family Films
Film Composers
film festivals
Film Noir
Film Scholars
Filmmaking Techniques
Food in Film
Foreign Film
French Film
Gangster films
Genre spoofs
Guest Programmers
HD & Blu-Ray
Holiday Movies
Hollywood lifestyles
Horror
Horror Movies
Icons
independent film
Italian Film
Literary Adaptations
Martial Arts
Melodramas
Method Acting
Mexican Cinema
Monster Movies
Movie Books
Movie locations
Movie Stars
Music in Film
Musicals
Outdoor Cinema
Parenting on film
Polish film industry
political thrillers
Pre-Code
Producers
Race in American Film
Remakes
Road Movies
Romance
Russian Film Industry
Scandals
Science Fiction
Screenwriters
Semi-documentaries
Silent Film
silent films
Social Problem Film
Sports
Sports on Film
Stereotypes
Studio Politics
Suspense thriller
Swashbucklers
Television
The British in Hollywood
The Hungarians in Hollywood
The Russians in Hollywood
Theaters
Underground Cinema
VOD
War film
Westerns
Women in the Film Industry
Women's Weepies |
Browning’s silent (presumed) classic (presumed because nobody alive today has seen it) LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT (1927). TCM, of whom everyone here is obviously aware, showed LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT a year or two ago and I was excited about it but in the end I couldn’t finish watching because such an overwhelming amount of the film was missing. Of the first twenty minutes I watched it seemed as if 18 were just pictures of carriages, full moons and Lon Chaney’s face. By the twenty minute mark it was clear that sometimes if a film is lost it’s probably best to not try and combine stills with what remains to make a movie. With LOST HORIZON a very small amount of it uses stills so it works but LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT felt like a failed restoration project.
And Luna is terrific but I have always found Browning to be one of the most prosaic directors of early Hollywood. His films have a lifelessness to them that isn’t even energetic enough to be classified as undead, just dead.