When Tod Browning made Dracula in 1931, Bela Lugosi was not the first pick to play the immortal role of Count Dracula, Lon Chaney Sr. was, the man of 1000 faces. Unfortunately Chaney died shortly after getting the part and then it went over to Bela, whose performance was great, but I do have to agree with Stephen King on this, Lugosi's Dracula is not a very scary Dracula:



Especially as he pointed out, with lines like 'I never drink...wine', that's not scary. But you see his Dracula and he doesn't really look scary, he looks very classy, very suave, etc., he looks charming, Lon Chaney not so much.



Even without makeup he could look menacing, but WITH makeup, especially as he had previously played a vampire in the forever lost film London After Midnight:



Yes THIS as Dracula could've been VERY scary I think, what's everyone else think?

Ya never know. Chaney's Dracula could have flopped, although he certainly possessed a more menacing look. But something about Lugosi mesmerized the movie-viewers. He had that pale look and the voice.

Interesting that Chaney's son would become the werewolf, though.

I enjoyed Bela Lugosi as Dracula. Don't forget it was a sign of the times too people back then thought Dracula was real scary but for us today, after being subjected to many slasher and blood and gut vampire movies, how can Lugosi's Dracula be scary to us. Lugosi brought Class to the role.

Tony Marino wrote:

I enjoyed Bela Lugosi as Dracula. Don't forget it was a sign of the times too people back then thought Dracula was real scary but for us today, after being subjected to many slasher and blood and gut vampire movies, how can Lugosi's Dracula be scary to us. Lugosi brought Class to the role.

I don't know about that. The older movies are always going to have the ability to frighten some watchers.



This is always going to be scary to some people.

Supernova wrote:

I don't know about that. The older movies are always going to have the ability to frighten some watchers.



This is always going to be scary to some people.

Maybe to a child yes. I remember being frightened as a child by the Phantom, Dracula and Frankenstein and the Mummy gave me nightmares. As an adult now, I just look at them as Classic Monsters, not scary to me at all.

I don't know how old most people were when they saw The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari:




and for it being one of the cheapest looking horror movies ever made (paper backgrounds), people are still scared by it and by Conrad Veidt's performance in it. That's one thing I like about older movies, the more simpler scares can easily stand the test of time more so than some others can.

Supernova wrote:

I don't know how old most people were when they saw The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari:




and for it being one of the cheapest looking horror movies ever made (paper backgrounds), people are still scared by it and by Conrad Veidt's performance in it. That's one thing I like about older movies, the more simpler scares can easily stand the test of time more so than some others can.

True, I think genuinely scary movies have more of an effect on people rather than seeing someone getting split in two or their head severed. I seem to recall Dr. Caligari when I was a kid and it scared the hell out of me. I am by no means an expert on what scares people but I wonder what kind of effect it would have on today's audience??

It's hard to say how scary Lugosi was or wasn't when pondering it through today's lense, but he added elements of charisma and magnitude that became essential to the character.

Impact wrote:

It's hard to say how scary Lugosi was or wasn't when pondering it through today's lense, but he added elements of charisma and magnitude that became essential to the character.

I think Lugosi gave Dracula his swagger.