Dracula (1931)

[von chaney]

yawn!

that was anal retentive and boring

[The_Return]

Originally posted by hollywoodgothiq


DRACULA has the Count tempt Renfield with thousands of rats (only described, not shown, sadly)

Ive never read the book and Ive only seen Nosferatu once so I wont get in on the debate...but I had to comment on this point.

Renfield's monologue at that point is easily one of the highlights of the film. Dwight Frye at his all-time best. If they had decided to show it, the effect would have been horrible and looked as bad as the infamous bat scene.

[hollywoodgothiq]

I agree that Dwight Frye does a good job with the dialogue. I just wish the scene had been visualized.

Of course, I imagine it in my head as it should have been, not as it probably would have been, given the limitations of time, money, and technology.

[hollywoodgothiq]

Originally posted by von chaney
yawn!

that was anal retentive and boring

Again, we agree on something...

[alkytrio666]

Originally posted by hollywoodgothiq
Must admit I'm surprised anyone would challenge me over the fact that more of Stoker's novel makes it into the Lugosi film than into NOSFERATU. I'm afriad a point-by-point comparison would grow anal rentive and boring pretty quickly, so let me just touch on a few obvious issues:

And yet the storyline couldn't have been any more different from the book.

Renfield visits Count Dracula, where he goes permanantly insane. Dracula doesn't appear during the day, which is wrong in general (which actually is the same idea as the "vamp goes poof in the light" theory you blamed on Nosferatu). Dracula actually stays with Harker and Van Helsing-very smart, yes and exactly how the book was :rolleyes: .

Listen, I'm not saying you don't know your stuff.

I am saying you don't seem to be open to ANYONE else's opinion and don't seem to realize that there are strong ideas supporting both films, neither of which are close to Stoker's vision.

So, yes: I DARE challenge you.

[hollywoodgothiq]

Ah yes, but your challenge is an idle one that ignores the substance.

My point was that more of Stoker finds its way into DRACULA than into NOSFERATU. I never said it was absolutely faithful or that the Lugosi film did not also include a lot of stuff that wasn't in the movie. In fact you even quoted the phrase I used to describe how much of the Stoker material is used: "distorted to suit the film."

Thus we get the opening sequence, which is heavily influenced by the book, but with Renfield replacing Jonathan Harker, so that when Dracula shows up in London, Harker will not recognize him.

Different yes, but it is quite an exaggeration to state that "the storyline couldn't have been any more different from the book." The 1931 DRACULA is very much a condensed, telescoped version of the book, minus the chase back to Transylvania and with a lot of stuff from the play thrown in.

As for not being open to anyone else opinion, like John Cleese in the argument clinic, I'm taking a contrary position. The convention wisdom is that NOSFERATU is a masterpiece ("a thrill unequaled to this day," Denis Gifford calls it in A PICTORIAL HISTORY OF HORROR MOVIES). I disagree. Since the NOSFERATU-philes have had eighty-four years to make their case, and since I've read the praise and seen the movie many times, I feel entitled to make my opposiing case.

I've already said it is not my intention to destroy anyone's enjoyment of NOSFERATU, but I have no reservations in pointing out that the film's reputation as a masterpiece rests on rather shaky ground. One of the looser pebbles in this foundation is the assertion that the flm "comes closets to what Stoker was all about" (James Hart's words to me when I interviewed him for Cinefantastique magazine). It's an attempt to shore up the film's standing by granting it whatever cache comes with being "faithful." But NOSFERATU isn't really faithful to Stoker's novel at all.

I suppose one could make an argument the the divergence from the original text represents an improvement. That would be a worthwhile point to debate. But claiming "faithfullness" as a point in NOSFERATU's favor is an untenable position.

[Posher778]

This movie is very good, like, stunningly amazing. 10/10

[hollywoodgothiq]

Originally posted by alkytrio666
Dracula doesn't appear during the day, which is wrong in general (which actually is the same idea as the "vamp goes poof in the light" theory you blamed on Nosferatu).you.

Actually, it isn't the same thing.

Stoker tells us that vampires rest in their coffins by day, and the 1931 DRACULA tells us the same thing. Stoker confuses the issue by having the Count appear in daylight from time to time, so it is clear that daylight is not lethal to him. IN keeping with the novel, the Lugosi film never says anything to indicate that daylight would make the vampire go up on a poof of smoke. The same was true of the first sequel DRACULA'S DAUGHTER in 1936.

Only later, in the 1940s, did Universal Pictures climb on board the bandwagon that NOSFERATU started, when they had the SON OF DRACULA dissolve into a skeleton from the first rays of the sun -- a death they repeated for Dracula himself in HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN and HOUSE OF DRACULA.

[alkytrio666]

Originally posted by hollywoodgothiq
Thus we get the opening sequence, which is heavily influenced by the book, but with Renfield replacing Jonathan Harker, so that when Dracula shows up in London, Harker will not recognize him.

Nosferatu also had the opening sequence, but with the Count coming in a horse-drawn carriage to pick HARKER up (which in and of itself is more faithful to the book). And in Browning's Dracula, by having Harker "not recognize" Dracula by changing the entire character development, the story also changes. Part of the book was the horrific realization of Harker discovering the same monster that held him captive in his castle is after Mina.

Originally posted by hollywoodgothiq
Different yes, but it is quite an exaggeration to state that "the storyline couldn't have been any more different from the book." The 1931 DRACULA is very much a condensed, telescoped version of the book, minus the chase back to Transylvania and with a lot of stuff from the play thrown in.

I disagree completely.

[hollywoodgothiq]

Disagree if you must. But the facts don't support your assertions.

Yes, having Harker not recognize the Count changes the story. I've already said the material was distorted in translation to film.

But having Hutter/Harker recognize Orlock is not a plot point in NOSFERATU, either. The film abandons the plot progression of having the Van Helsing character identify the vampire and teach the young men how to defeat him; the Nina character figures it out and does it for them.

Admittedly, the Harker character in the 1931 DRACULA is pretty useless, but the Hutter/Harker character in NOSFERATU is just about completely passive.