Chaney as Dracula?

[Illoman]

Saw this article on line today:

http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/public/default.asp?t=1&m=1&c=34&s=264&ai=113373

and it brought up something I am unclear on: was Lon Chaney Sr considered for the role of Dracula that Lugosi finally got or not? I remember reading it both ways. Does anyone know definitively the answer to this?

[Haunted hearse]

This appears to be the case, and there is a book out which explores this.
http://www.amazon.com/Dracula-Starring-Lon-Chaney-Alternate/dp/1593934785
Product Description
Late 1929. The Stock market crash. At MGM Studios Irving Thalberg was involved in a power struggle. Lon Chaney's contract was coming up for renewal. Tod Browning, MGM's famed director of the macabre genre for the studio, had left and signed a contract back at his home studio, Universal. Carl Laemmle Jr was made production head of Universal for his father and he wanted to do a film version of Dracula. Carl Sr. agreed, as long as they had Lon Chaney as the star. Early in August of 1930, Carl Junior, still attempting to sign Chaney for the role, ordered a treatment to be authored by Louis Bromfield. By Mid August he was teamed with screenwriter Dudley Murphy and they began work on the script. Then in the middle of the negotiations, Lon Chaney unexpected by everyone in the film industry, died on August 26th. This volume of the Alternate History of Classic Monster Films we present the full first Bromfield treatment, the incomplete first draft screenplay by Bromfield and Murphy. In addition, when Dracula was finally produced, more in the fashion of the popular 1927 play than the Bram Stoker novel, as was intended by Laemmle for Chaney - A silent version of the Lugosi Dracula was prepared for theaters who had not yet converted to sound. We have also included a complete Title list from this version. Also included in this volume is a translated version of F.W. Murnau's shooting script for the first screen version of Dracula - filmed in Germany in 1922 and called NOSFERATU, a symphony of horror. Murnau's hand annotations are included in bold print throughout the script.   

[Mike Scott]

"Alternate History of Classic Monster Films"

Doesn't that mean "Made Up History of Classic Monster Films"?

[Illoman]

"Alternate History of Classic Monster Films"

Doesn't that mean "Made Up History of Classic Monster Films"?

That's my opinion as well. Some of these Riley books have come under attack. I had heard of this one but had read dubious things about it.

[Sean]

I've heard that.  I also heard of other actors, too.  

Enthusiastic young Hollywood producer Carl Laemmle, Jr. also saw the box office potential in Stoker's gothic chiller, and he legally acquired the novel's film rights. Initially, he wanted Dracula to be a spectacle on a scale with the lavish silent films The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923) and The Phantom of the Opera (1925).

Like those films, Laemmle insisted it must star Lon Chaney, despite Chaney being under contract at MGM. Tod Browning was then approached to direct this new Universal epic. Browning had already directed Chaney as a fake vampire in the (lost) 1927 silent London After Midnight. However, a number of factors would limit Laemmle's plans: Firstly, Chaney himself, who had been diagnosed with throat cancer in 1928, had succumbed to his terminal illness. Furthermore, studio financial difficulties, coupled with the onset of the Great Depression, caused a drastic reduction in budget, forcing Laemmle to look at a cheaper alternative, which meant several grand scenes that closely followed the Stoker storyline had to be abandoned.

Decision on casting the title role proved problematic. Initially, Laemmle was not at all interested in Lugosi, in spite of good reviews for his stage portrayal. Laemmle instead considered other actors, including Paul Muni, Chester Morris, Ian Keith, John Wray, Joseph Schildkraut, Arthur Edmund Carewe and William Courtenay. Lugosi had played the role on Broadway, and to his good fortune, happened to be in Los Angeles with a touring company of the play when the film was being cast.[2] Against the tide of studio opinion, Lugosi lobbied hard and ultimately won the executives over, thanks in part to him accepting a paltry $500 per week salary for seven weeks of work, amounting to $3,500.[1][2]

[Mike Scott]

Some of these Riley books have come under attack.

Oh, the Riley book! Yeh , I heard about this. It's supposed to be a "What If".

It might be fun to do that at the UMA board, but I don't know if I'd wanna buy a book like that?

[Count_Zirock]

This is all pretty extensively covered in David J. Skal's book "Hollywood Gothic." If you don't have a copy in your collection ... bad! Bad monster fan! Bad! Now, go get in the corner.

[fibbermac]

"Alternate History of Classic Monster Films"

Doesn't that mean "Made Up History of Classic Monster Films"?

I think a few words in defense of the Philip J. Riley books are in order.

I own several of them and wish I could afford to buy them all. These are the ones I own:

A Blind Bargain: Gave me a wonderful insight into this lost Chaney classic. Since it is unlikely that a print of this film will surface in my lifetime, I am extremely grateful to have the film recreated through script and still photographs the way this book does. Such recreations are not nearly as good as watching the films themselves, but in the case of a lost film like this one (or a film project that never made it beyond the planning stages), I feel that the author is providing a wonderful service to Monsterkids like me. How else can we experience these films which are unavailable for viewing?

Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman: Rather than a "Made up history of classic monster films", the original shooting script fills in the portions of the film cut out after poor preview showings. Although you don't get to hear Lugosi speak the Monster's lines, you get to read what they were and understand the film's original storyline better. It gave me a real appreciation for the travesty done to Bela Lugosi in having every single line of his dialog excised from the film.

Dracula's Daughter: This book had a script for a sequel to Dracula which had a rather prominent role for Lugosi - as the origin of Dracula is told in flashback sequences. The eventual "Dracula's Daughter" which was made was a totally different story. It was fun to read, but as this story never came close to actually being made, it is more like reading a simple work of fiction than reading a film book like the ones mentioned above.  Had this story ever been filmed as conceived, it would have been amazing!

The Mummy's Curse: Reading this book was a depressing experience for me. The script has a lot of additional material which didn't make it into the final film. Unlike "Frankenstien Meets the Wolfman", where material was edited out in a misguided attempt to improve the film before it was released, "The Mummy's Curse" appeared to be cut during filming in an effort to reduce costs. The book gave me an inside look at what Universal monster films had become at the end of the golden era. Final decisions appear to be dictated by the budget more than the artists and directors involved.

The Phantom of the Opera: I've only just begun to read this latest acquisition of mine. From what I've read so far, I've gained great insight into the make-up used by Chaney in the film. I also am learning that the plot isn't quite as preposterous as I had thought before. But rather, much of the background stories for the characters and other things explaining motivations for characters simply aren't part of the copies of this film we have available to us today.

Illoman, if you want an answer to your question and don't mind forking over the price of the book, I'd suggest buying Riley's Chaney-as-Dracula book. It sounds like a great read to me. I suspect those who claim these books are a "Made up history" have never read them.

[Illoman]

I think a few words in defense of the Philip J. Riley books are in order.

Illoman, if you want an answer to your question and don't mind forking over the price of the book, I'd suggest buying Riley's Chaney-as-Dracula book. It sounds like a great read to me. I suspect those who claim these books are a "Made up history" have never read them.

Fibbermac, I won several of the MagicImage books including a few you mentioned and like them a lot! I didn't mean to cast doubts on Riley's reputation, rather I'm just seeking information. On other boards I'd read some things and I just was just mining the vast knowledge of the UMA folks. I really just wanted an answer to the question if indeed Chaney was supposed to play Dracula for Universal or not, as again I had read it both ways.

I own a couple of Skaal's books and would like to read Hollywood Gothic. Thanks for the suggestion, Count!

[Haunted hearse]

Considering Tod Browning was the Director, and Universal decided to make the movie prior to Chaney's demise, the simple answer to the question if Chaney would have played Dracula is yes.  if somebody has reasons that Chaney would not have played Dracula, I certainly would love to hear them.

[Illoman]

Considering Tod Browning was the Director, and Universal decided to make the movie prior to Chaney's demise, the simple answer to the question if Chaney would have played Dracula is yes.  if somebody has reasons that Chaney would not have played Dracula, I certainly would love to hear them.

Well, I've got Hollywood Gothic on reserve at the library. So as soon as I find out anything I'll post about it.

[Mike Scott]

I suspect those who claim these books are a "Made up history" have never read them.

"Alternate History", by definition, can't be true, otherwise you'd just call it "History".

This isn't one of the "Universal Filmscript Series" books, it's a "what if".  Nothing wrong with it, if you like that kind of thing.

[Bonomo]

Fibbermac, I won several of the MagicImage books including a few you mentioned and like them a lot! I didn't mean to cast doubts on Riley's reputation, rather I'm just seeking information. On other boards I'd read some things and I just was just mining the vast knowledge of the UMA folks. I really just wanted an answer to the question if indeed Chaney was supposed to play Dracula for Universal or not, as again I had read it both ways.

I own a couple of Skaal's books and would like to read Hollywood Gothic. Thanks for the suggestion, Count!

Illoman, Hollywood Gothic is a really, really interesting book and I highly reccommend it. As for the Chaney as Dracula book, I have it, and I've never understood what all the fuss was about as far as it being "fake" or whatever. It's a collection of some telegraphs from when Universal was trying to recruit Chaney, and some other ones that I can't remember specifically, then it reprints a shooting script of Dracula and Nosferatu. At the end it has a rare autobiographical article by Chaney from an old movie mag, which for me makes the book worthwhile right there. But yeah, it's mostly a reprint of an old Dracula and Nosferatu script, so I personally don't have any reason to believe that it's not genuine, it's not like the script lists who plays Dracula. From what I understand Chaney was never 100% attached to the project at all so I guess maybe the title of the book could be misleading, but all in all I like the book and I'm glad I have it.

[Bonomo]

Also to answer your original question yes Chaney was definitely considered and sought after for the role, and Lugosi, which you will discover when you read Skaal's book, was so far down the line it's actually pretty shocking.

[Illoman]

Also to answer your original question yes Chaney was definitely considered and sought after for the role, and Lugosi, which you will discover when you read Skaal's book, was so far down the line it's actually pretty shocking.

Bonomo, thanks for the info. Yeah, I recall reading about how Lugosi actually had to lobby for the part since he was so far down on the list. It's a shame. I also just found out Helen Chandler really didn't want to play Mina, but wanted to get the lead role in a film version of Alice in Wonderland. She was basically told to play Mina so she did.