What would Chaney's Dracula have looked like?

[Pauspy]

Well, here it is, lon Chaney's birthday (April 1st), and I can't help wondering about something. Chaney was, of course, up for the role of Universal's Dracula before he passed away. What would it have looked like? I know he didn't like to repeat himself, so it probably wouldn't have looked like the "vampire" in London After Midnight. I assume it would be horrific, and i can picture sort of an adaptation of Eric the Phantom, who always looked vaguely "undead" to me.

What are yor thoughts? What would Chaney have done with Deacula??

[Count_Zirock]

http://www.universalmonsterarmy.com/forum/index.php?topic=15369.0

More specifically...

Haven't had a chance to scan in the images, but here are some cellphone snaps from Mad Monster Party #1 of Lon Chaney as Count Dracula.

I'd posted this on another site to mixed reviews. I tried to show Sr. in two versions. One is based on the Stoker description and the other on the Lugosi stage version from the same era:

[Paul L]

Yes, based on his interpretations of Erik & Quasimodo, I feel Chaney would've followed Stoker's description as close as possible.

[DoctorDeath]

This is sort of off-topic, but I've always thought that Lugosi's onstage makeup for Dracula was really interesting. Anyone know why he abandoned it for the film?

[Dr Spankenstein]

Did Chaney actually shot any footage as Dracula?  I didn't think he did any screen tests, etc...for Dracula.  Clearly I'm wrong. 

[zombiehorror]

Did Chaney actually shot any footage as Dracula?  I didn't think he did any screen tests, etc...for Dracula.  Clearly I'm wrong.

Those photos are only "what if's", they aren't real!!

[DoctorDeath]

Yeah those are all speculative photos. But we can dream. Everyone assumes sometimes that his Dracula would have looked a lot like his vampire makeup from London After Midnight. I think, since it was Chaney, he would have chosen something completely new and different. It would probably have been grotesque and not suave at all. Our idea of Dracula would be completely different today.

[Dr Spankenstein]

Those photos are only "what if's", they aren't real!!

Ah, got it!  Cool photos, though!

[zombiehorror]

This is sort of off-topic, but I've always thought that Lugosi's onstage makeup for Dracula was really interesting. Anyone know why he abandoned it for the film?

I think you kind of answered your own question!!

It [Chaney's make up] would probably have been grotesque and not suave at all. Our idea of Dracula would be completely different today.

Much like Bela's creepier stage make up, I would assume that Universal wanted to present a more dapper/handsomer representation of Dracula!

[Haunted hearse]

I think you kind of answered your own question!!

Much like Bela's creepier stage make up, I would assume that Universal wanted to present a more dapper/handsomer representation of Dracula!

Masybe not.  Universal would have been more willing to let L.C. call the shots than a relative unknown (prior to Dracula) like Bela.  Bela was not exactly the first pick for the movie.  Fortunately Lugosi ended up doing the film, and (besides Sloan, and a few atmospheric sets at the begining and end) that's what makes the film trully worth watching.  Chaney may have decided to do something trully inventive when it came to doing the makeup for Dracula, rather then just repeat what he did in "London After Midnight".

[zombiehorror]

Masybe not.  Universal would have been more willing to let L.C. call the shots than a relative unknown (prior to Dracula) like Bela.  Bela was not exactly the first pick for the movie.  Fortunately Lugosi ended up doing the film, and (besides Sloan, and a few atmospheric sets at the begining and end) that's what makes the film trully worth watching.  Chaney may have decided to do something trully inventive when it came to doing the makeup for Dracula, rather then just repeat what he did in "London After Midnight".

UH?!?  Whether Dracula's makeup was or wasn't Lugosi's decision is moot!?  Would they have gone for a more grotesque makeup with Chaney...probably!  But once Bela was awarded the role they probably went with using his natural charms for the look of Dracula and to help sell the picture to a female audience.

[jerod]

Ah, got it!  Cool photos, though!

The Lugosi stage photos are legit, but the Chaney ones are just my interpretation. I still like the "pointy ear" version, but honestly I feel he would have went for the other version which is more a traditional Stoker novel description like the later Christopher Lee 1970 version:

[DoctorDeath]

I think you kind of answered your own question!!

Much like Bela's creepier stage make up, I would assume that Universal wanted to present a more dapper/handsomer representation of Dracula!

Haha! I guess I did answer my own question. As much as Chaney was incredible, I really am glad that Lugosi ended up playing Dracula though. Just wish he was in the film more. Always my complaint with classic horror films! Less boring romantic couple, more monsters!!!

[marsattacks666]

Honestly, I cannot imagine Lon Chaney as Dracula. Obviously we are all aware that the film would have been completely different. Bela exuded charm and a dark romanticism. He(Bella) conveyed a ghost-like persona and
aesthetic. Bela Lugosi was made for the role of Dracula.

As for Mr. Chaney. I truly think that Lon Chaney was an extremely talented actor and makeup artist. Through
facial expressions and hand gestures, Chaney conveyed his acting abilities with utmost ferocity.  Lon
attacked his roles with a kind of unopologetic, impenitent sarcasm.  Chaney was a above-and-beyond
wonderful actor. With that being said, Chaney's role as Dracula would have been a mistake. The longevity
and legend of the Dracula film would have never surpassed with Chaney. As it does even today with Bela.

[Haunted hearse]

UH?!?  Whether Dracula's makeup was or wasn't Lugosi's decision is moot!?  Would they have gone for a more grotesque makeup with Chaney...probably!  But once Bela was awarded the role they probably went with using his natural charms for the look of Dracula and to help sell the picture to a female audience.

Lon Chaney Jr. did a real good job doing his own makeup for "One Million Years B.C.".  It never showed up on camera, because the studio insisted it had to be done by a union representative.  Lon Chaney was known for his make up skills, and that would have been a selling point to audiences in 19321, because Chaney was legendary for his makeup skills, hence the name "Man of a thousand faces".  With sound coming in, it was also hoped Chaney would be also known as the "Man of a Thousand voices".  Lugosi came into Dracula as an unknown, and would have little say in what kind of make up was used for the character.  As far as how good the Chaney Dracula would have been in comparison to Lugosui's Dracula, nobody will ever know, because if Lon Chaney had made "Dracula", I doubt there would have ever been a Lugosi version.