Bela Lugosi was only paid $3,500 for his role in Dracula
It was the film that made him a legend.
Bela Lugosi was able to take a character like Dracula and turn him into an icon. Already a well-known figure from Bram Stoker's 1897 novel, Lugosi's portrayal of the vampire has become the quintessential Dracula. It's without a doubt one of Lugosi's most popular roles, and the 1931 film became an instant classic for Universal Pictures.
According to Robert Cremer's book, Lugosi: The Man Behind the Cape, Bela Lugosi had to fight for the role of Dracula. But once he had won the role, the reward wasn't as sweet as he might have hoped.
"The course of a quarter century would be set by his appearance in Dracula, but the ultimate effects would not become apparent for six years," wrote Cremer. "In the meantime, contract negotiations with Universal dragged on. Universal was well aware of its strong bargaining position, and Bela was summarily reduced to a junior partner in the negotiations.
According to Lugosi's agent, Evan Hoskins, Lugosi was still angered by the direction of negotiations years after they had been settled, even after Dracula had been released to universal acclaim. Hoskins argued that despite taking on the role serving as a turning point in Legosi's career, he still bore a scar from taking less money than he felt he deserved.
"Bela was hopping mad, and I know for a fact that he never really recovered from that, especially since the film went on to make millions for the studio," said Hoskins. "Every revival of the picture was a reminder to him that he could have been a wealthy man."
According to Hoskins, Lugosi was paid $500 per week over a period of seven weeks while the film was shooting. All in all, that's about $3,500 for Lugosi's entire performance which has since earned a place in cinema history. However, at the time, no one, cast or crew alike, had any idea how much potential Dracula would have. This is likely why Lugosi accepted the deal as it was. "There was no such thing as royalties in those days, so if you didn't get it upfront, you didn't get it at all," Hoskins said. "He knew there were five hungry actors waiting to get the part, so what could he do but accept the terms?"
17 Comments
$3500 then would be $6 MILLION plus in today's money.
"'The course of a quarter century would be set by his appearance in Dracula, but the ultimate effects would not become apparent for six years,' wrote Cremer. "In the meantime, contract negotiations with Universal dragged on. Universal was well aware of its strong bargaining position, and Bela was summarily reduced to a junior partner in the negotiations.
"Bela Lugosi was only paid $3,500 for his role in Dracula..."
None of the above makes much sense unless one knows that Lugosi had succesfully played Dracula for several years ON THE STAGE, which the article omits entirely.
As for
"Bela Lugosi was only paid $3,500 for his role in Dracula"
That SHOULD read Bela Lugosi was paid only $3,500 for his role in Dracula.
"Only" is an expression of diminution; the farther you place it from the word or term you're trying to diminish, the less effective and more awkward it is. Please learn to place it in the proper place in the sentence.
Where everyone can take a guess or make comments to other quizzers.
There will be extra bonus movies for just coming by. Including entertainment for all. Feel free to ask questions, copy movie links and just plain join in the fun via communication. The MQ will be up until the movie is guessed and an hour to look over and pick out what you wish. Have fun doing so. There are no wrong answers but the first one to guess the correct movie gets their names put up for getting it correctly. Good luck and enjoy. See you @ https://www.metv.com/quiz/which-bugs-bunny-are-you-today