What would Chaney's Dracula have looked like?

[Haunted hearse]

I qouted your text, becuase you were attempting to explain how something someone posted "changed my mind". That wasn't true.

[zombiehorror]

That was all about Lugosi doing his own make up, it had absolutely nothing to do with whether Chaney was ever up for the part of Dracula!  I wasn't even involved in that conversation until my last post!

[Haunted hearse]

How about this.  Instead of trying to turn this into a personal criticism of another poster, we focus on what this thread should be about-which is what Chaney's Dracula would have looked like?  As far as the idea that Chaney would not have played Dracula, I'm as convinced he would have played Dracula, as others here are certain he wouldn't.  What would cause me to reconsider is some documentation.  So far, nobody has been able to authenticate their claim that Chaney would not have played Dracula.  A good way to back up a claim that Chaney wouldn't have played Dracula; would be something such as a letter from Chaney, or an interview he may have made that he was declinning the part, or had no interest in doing so. Maybe a memebr of Chaney's family might have information to that affect.  Are there any documents from MGM that made it clear that they were opposed to allowing Chaney to play Dracula?  Documentation will go along way to proving, or disproving something.

[zombiehorror]

How about this.  Instead of trying to turn this into a personal criticism of another poster, we focus on what this thread should be about-which is what Chaney's Dracula would have looked like?  As far as the idea that Chaney would not have played Dracula, I'm as convinced he would have played Dracula, as others here are certain he wouldn't.  What would cause me to reconsider is some documentation.  So far, nobody has been able to authenticate their claim that Chaney would not have played Dracula.  A good way to back up a claim that Chaney wouldn't have played Dracula; would be something such as a letter from Chaney, or an interview he may have made that he was declinning the part, or had no interest in doing so. Maybe a memebr of Chaney's family might have information to that affect.  Are there any documents from MGM that made it clear that they were opposed to allowing Chaney to play Dracula?  Documentation will go along way to proving, or disproving something.

So do you think Lugosi did or didn't have control of his own make up!?  And do you believe he did or didn't apply it himself!?

[Count_Zirock]

Isn't that the whole point, that there's really no conclusive evidence one way or the other as to whether or not Chaney would have played Count Dracula if he hadn't died? From what I recall reading, he died before development was far enough along to even start producing deal memos for casting.

[Haunted hearse]

And Count, since there is no conclusive evidence, I see nothing wrong with people speculating on what the make up would be.  As  far as wether or not Lugosi applied his own makeup, I'm no expert, but I think at this point, Univesal had it's own makeup department, although since Lon Chaney had making himself up for films for years, I would not be supried if he made himself up for the Dracula Role (Should he had ended up doing it).  I would think there would have been some difference for stage make up and screen make up, so I'm not sure how much someone who's whole experience had been making himself up for the stage, would have been when it came with doing his makeup for the screen.

[Wich2]

>So far, nobody has been able to authenticate their claim that Chaney would not have played Dracula.<

It's hard to prove a negative, HH.

But read the folks who have really done the scholarly heavy lifting: Gary Don Rhodes and David J. Skal. They say that the odds are all against it - there's no evidence that it was ever going to happen, just FM-era fan wishes that it would've.

And most of all, Chaney himself (who had a lot of juice as a star) had NOT liked Uni, and DID like MGM, where he was tightly contracted.

Best,
-Craig

[Haunted hearse]

Chaney's dislike of Universal, didn't prevent him from returning for Phantom of the Opera.  Universal didn't like paying him his price, but they still did.

[Wich2]

Another scholarly voice is Michael F. Blake, author of the two definitive works on Chaney Sr. From one:

It looks from the record like,"...he was never loaned out (by MGM) to Universal, but was freelancing at the time he began work on PHANTOM..."

Re: Chaney doing DRACULA:

"This is highly unlikely due to Lon's star status at the studio (MGM) ... Universal made a request for Lon's services in 1929 to do some dialogue scenes for a part-talkie reissue for PHANTOM... and Louis B. Mayer turned them down."

-Craig

[Haunted hearse]

Another scholarly voice is Michael F. Blake, author of the two definitive works on Chaney Sr. From one:

It looks from the record like,"...he was never loaned out (by MGM) to Universal, but was freelancing at the time he began work on PHANTOM..."

Re: Chaney doing DRACULA:

"This is highly unlikely due to Lon's star status at the studio (MGM) ... Universal made a request for Lon's services in 1929 to do some dialogue scenes for a part-talkie reissue for PHANTOM... and Louis B. Mayer turned them down."

-Craig

That Louis B. Mayer turned down a request from Universal to allow Chaney to do dialouge for the Phantom reisue, is the strongest evidence I've seen that Chaney would not have done Dracula.  I knew Michael Blake in high school, and even then, he was heavy into reseraching Lon Chaney.

[Count_Zirock]

Wasn't Chaney's contract at MGM set to expire soon, which would've freed him up to do Universal's "Dracula"? Granted, Chaney was only even considered after Conrad Veidt left Hollywood. And, after thumbing through "Hollywood Gothic," it appears Tod Browning was already aware of Chaney's terminal illness before pre-production on "Dracula" began. So, in all likelihood, Chaney might have been talked about prior to Universal actually securing the rights to the novel and stage adaptations. But, once those rights were locked up, Chaney was already terminal. Perhaps Browning spoke to him about it during visits to his dying friend, but it appears there was never an actual offer from the studio. At the time of his death, Chaney was technically still under contract at MGM, having just done the talkie remake of "The Unholy Three." Had Chaney not become sick, and had he decided not to renew his contract with MGM? Too many ifs, really. Had Conrad Veidt not returned to Germany, apparently the role was already his for the taking.

[Haunted hearse]

I know Chaney didn't like being pushed around, and Louis B. Mayer was an A**hole of epic proportions.  maybe a better question would be if Chaney would have renewed his MGM contract.

[Wich2]

But Mayer treated his Big Ones well. Like Lionel Barrymore for years after, Chaney seems to have been pretty content with that treatment.

[Count_Zirock]

From what I just re-read in "Hollywood Gothic" (1st edition; I really need to pick up a copy of the 2nd edition), "The Hypnotist"/"London After Midnight" started out as an unauthorized adaptation of "Dracula" so close to the source material that Browning was told, "Change it." This may be why the final story is pretty weak. Skal refers to it as Browning's "rehearsal" for "Dracula."

[John Pertwee]

Well, sure - almost nothing is TOTALLY impossible...

But back then, at the height of the Studio Era? Such a combo never happened.

-Craig

In 1938, MGM had Clark Gable under contract, and Selznick wanted him for Rhett. It was a great deal for MGM since they had their biggest star in what would be the biggest film of all time, and got distribution rights for the film.

Selznick wanted Warner Bros. starlet Olivia de Havilland for the role of Melanie, but Jack Warner refused the loan out until de Havilland got Warner's wife to intercede in her behalf.

In an alternate universe, we may get to see a Chaney Dracula. Until science gets us there, we can enjoy the music of The Beatles (Everyday Chemistry) from the universe where they never broke up...