The Code-Era Lesbian Vampire in Dracula’s Daughter
A Brief Overview of the Sapphic Subtext in the Underrated Universal Classic
In a back alley in early twentieth century England, Countess Marya Zaleska invites a young woman named Lili back to her house to pose for a painting. Marya’s eyes linger with lust as she watches the young woman undress. The Countess slowly stalks towards the beautiful young woman, putting her in a hypnotic state, while romantic strings score the candle lit scene. The sexual tension between the two women that charges this sequence is palpable to anyone who is not completely oblivious. It may be shocking to notice these homoerotic undertones in an “old” movie, but this scene is just one of the many reasons that people point to Dracula’s Daughter (1936) as having clear sapphic implications, and being an early work of lesbian cinema. Though it has been hindered by code-era censorship, the numerous lesbian undertones are, a perhaps problematic, example of early homosexual horror cinema.
The film’s sapphic subtext can be felt throughout the entire picture. From the beginning of the genre, vampire fiction has always had a long history of homoeroticism, tracing its roots back to one of the progenitors of the genre, even pre-dating Dracula himself: Carmilla by Irish author Sheridan Le Fanu, which is purportedly one of the inspirations behind this film.
It is often seen by literary historians that Carmilla is one of, if not the, first works of British fiction to deal with lesbianism and sapphic relationships (AFI Catalog). With a purported source material like that, it is no wonder Dracula’s Daughter has such clear sapphic implications. The sequence where Marya (Gloria Holden) chooses Lili (Nan Gray) as her next victim is often pointed to as the most prevalent example. The Countess tells Lili to undress, while looking upon her with what can be interpreted as a lustful gaze. Along with dialogue earlier, wherein Marya explicitly states that she primarily targets young women, the filmmakers clearly want you to assume that the Countess is sexually attracted to these women. This is further proven by original advertisements for the film, posters carrying the tagline “Save the women of London from Dracula’s Daughter!” Additionally, in a scene described as the “longest kiss never filmed” (Hanson 198), many critics have noted that Marya longingly hovers over her captive Janet (Marguerite Churchill) for what feels like an eternity, seeming like she’s leaning in for a kiss rather than a bite. If the filmmakers did not want audiences to make the connection between Marya and homosexuality, they failed miserably.
The Hays Code Restricted What Could Shown be on Screen
Although there were clearly intentions to make Marya an overtly lesbian character, the Production Code Administration (PCA) would cut this plot thread with its unforgivingly sharp censorship scissors. The PCA ruled the 1930’s era of Hollywood with an iron fist. All studios, no matter how powerful, bent their knee to them… and Universal Studios was no different. While the Oscar’s first best picture winner Wings (1927) featured a lesbian couple nonchalantly during the famous tracking shot (the picture is also notable for the first on-screen gay kiss in a feature film), by the time that Dracula’s Daughter was released nearly a decade later, the landscape of what was “allowed” in film was much different due to the introductions of the code, popularly referred to as the Hays Code. Implemented in 1930, the code drastically changed what was allowed in films.
“The whole sequence will be treated in such a way as to avoid any suggestion of perverse sexual desire on the part of Marya or of an attempted sexual attack by her upon Lili.” — Joseph Breen, PCA
PCA head Joseph Breen told Universal to change the sequence between Marya and Lili the day before it was to be shot, writing: “The present suggestion that […] Lili poses in the nude will be changed. She will be posing her neck and shoulders, and there will be no suggestion that she undresses, and there will be no exposure of her person. […] The whole sequence will be treated in such a way as to avoid any suggestion of perverse sexual desire on the part of Marya or of an attempted sexual attack by her upon Lili.” (Worland 126). The code would not allow for homosexual characters to be depicted in film, even if they were portrayed as villainous, such as Countess Marya. Therefore, the filmmakers had to be sly about how they depicted characters such as Marya, leading to the infamous “queer coded villain.” Thus, the filmmakers were forced to make the sapphic implications much more covert in the final cut of the picture.
Countess Marya is a Prime Example of the Negative ‘Queer Coded Villain’ Trope
The idea of the “queer coded villain” has unfortunately always been popular in horror. Today, we recognize this to be highly problematic, as it equates being gay or queer with being monstrous, horrifying, and predatory, especially in the case of vampires. In the film, if viewed through the lens of the Countess indeed being lesbian, Marya is depicted as a predator towards young women, something that would have scared general audiences in the 1930’s. As can be seen in the New York World-Telegram’s review of the film at the time, which condemned the lesbian implications (Russo 48). As her vampirism intrinsically equated with her lesbianism, audiences of the time would have picked up on the implications of the storyline where Marya attempts to cure her vampirism through psychiatry, which is clearly evocative of conversion therapy. The Countess’ affinity for women, and the lesbian implications of this, was seen as part of what made her such a terrifying monster. Although there definitely is a place for queer villains, the complexity of the situation can be best explained like this: we can have fantastic villains who happen to be queer, but they should not be villains because they’re queer. And more villains who are queer should represented, as villains can be many people’s favourite parts of a story. And as long as they aren’t any perpetuating problematic tropes about LGBTQ+ people, there will always be room for incredible queer villains. [Such as Mrs. Danvers in Rebecca (1940), Miriam Blaylock in The Hunger (1983), Silva in Skyfall (2012), Philip and Brandon in Rope (1948), and Norman Bates in Psycho (1960)]
The Legacy of Dracula’s Daughter
Although the problematic side is undeniable, the code-era censorship debatably made a classic film all the more interesting by having lesbian subtext at a time where homosexuality in film was not allowed. The undeniable sapphic implications in Dracula’s Daughter have left a controversial legacy early queer representation in film, which some celebrate, while others condemn as another example of gay people being vilified by the media. If re-adapted into the modern era with a more appropriate lens, Countess Marya Zaleska could be revamped into an iconic lesbian villain that would give the controversial legacy of Lambert Hillyer’s 1936 film Dracula’s Daughter a triumphant ending.
Dracula’s Daughter is available for rent on demand and on physical home media. I recommend Universal’s Dracula: Complete Legacy Collection which contains the six (seven including the Spanish language 1931 film) original Universal Dracula movies for an extremely reasonable price!
Works Cited
Hillyer, Lambert, director. Dracula’s Daughter. Universal, 1936. || Worland, Rick. “Monsters Among Us: Cases of Social Reception.” The Horror Film: An Introduction, Blackwell, Malden, 2007, p. 126. || Russo, Vito. The Celluloid Closet: Homosexuality in the Movies, Harper and Row, New-York, 1981, p. 48. || “AFI Catalog of Feature Films: Dracula’s Daughter.” AFI.
