Bela Lugosi was only paid $3,500 for his role in Dracula

It was the film that made him a legend.

Universal Pictures

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?"

Are you sure you want to delete this comment?
Close

17 Comments

IwatchingME 25 days ago
"Only paid $3500 in 1931". Adjust for inflation....$1 is inflated by 1971 times for 2024. Meaning?
$3500 then would be $6 MILLION plus in today's money.
19611313 IwatchingME 18 days ago
6 million? Very hard to believe.
Avie 26 days ago
"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.

"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.
LoveMETV22 Avie 24 days ago
Sorry Avie if your only purpose is to correct grammar, then perhaps another website would be better suited for you. Most users overlook it!
LoveMETV22 Avie 24 days ago
Sorry if it bothers you but most don't care about erroneous or typographical errors! Sorry that's just life!
19611313 LoveMETV22 18 days ago
I actually found his point quite intriguing and informative.
19611313 LoveMETV22 18 days ago
And you are mistaken. Yes, some such as yourself do not care. But do not assume that most do not care.
texasluva LoveMETV22 6 days ago
Come one come all to the MeTv Friday Night Movie Quiz.and check out the early Bird vids for quizzers.
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
musicman37 26 days ago
The studio took advantage of Bela, since he was an immigrant and didn't speak the language very well (he was also unknown to movie audiences).
Runeshaper 28 days ago
Lugosi was the perfect Dracula. I'm glad he took the part, but I agree that he should have been paid more.
BrittReid 28 days ago
Love the flick and Bela, but Dracula was not very scary.
tomtriox BrittReid 28 days ago
By our standards of today. Supposedly, in 1931 some women fainted just seeing Lugosi on screen.
tootsieg 28 days ago
My favorite Dracula movie. Very creepy.
justjeff 29 days ago
No one (in general) can predict the popularity or failure of a film. $3500 in the Depression years of the early 1930s was still quite a lofty sum.

According to in2013dollars.com: $3,500 in 1930 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $65,845.06 today!
JHP justjeff 28 days ago
and all the buld he wanted to drink :)
Are you sure you want to delete this comment?