Dracula (1931)

[midge05]

! :D !


Just watched this, Tod Browning is a genius.

And how ace is Bela Lugosi!

[phantomstranger]

No matter how many other "Dracula"s there are Lugosi will always BE THE Dracula. This one is one of the true great classics of film. I love it.

[The_Return]

I consider this easily the best horror film of all time. The performances, the sets, Tod Browning's directing...everything. Im not very partial to the recently scored version...one of the coolest things about the orignial film was the lack of music in certain [AKA most] scenes. It gave it a sort of unnatural feel, made it all the more eerie. Oh well, I have both versions on DVD + the score-less version on VHS:D

[mikeywalsh]

I'm sorry I think I have to disagree. It is regarded as one of the earliest Dracula stories but as we all know, 'Nosferatu' pre-dated it and has a much more foreboding atmosphere and also a better conception of what a moster is. Browning did better with 'Freaks' and much as I love Lugosi I wouldn't think too many folk seriously consider him an excellent actor/performer. I have nostalgic sentiment for 'Dracula' 1931 but it's more based on watching the film as a small child and loving it rather than thinking it's still a brilliant film now. I would recommend the Spanish language version, filmed at the same time, it uses the camera much better although it's not as iconic a titular performance as Lugosi's.

[Zero]

agreed - the spanish version is much more interesting in terms of cinematography - of course the story goes that the spanish crew shot at night and got to see the english crew's dailies - therefore they could repeat the shots they liked and innovate where things didn't work in the english version.

still, historically speaking, the 1931 Dracula is the beginning of the american horror film

[The_Return]

Originally posted by mikeywalsh
I'm sorry I think I have to disagree. It is regarded as one of the earliest Dracula stories but as we all know, 'Nosferatu' pre-dated it and has a much more foreboding atmosphere and also a better conception of what a moster is. Browning did better with 'Freaks' and much as I love Lugosi I wouldn't think too many folk seriously consider him an excellent actor/performer. I have nostalgic sentiment for 'Dracula' 1931 but it's more based on watching the film as a small child and loving it rather than thinking it's still a brilliant film now. I would recommend the Spanish language version, filmed at the same time, it uses the camera much better although it's not as iconic a titular performance as Lugosi's.

Shreck's performance relied 100% on makeup. He basically just stood there the whole movie...and you say he's better than Lugosi? Sure, he usually isnt exactly a quality actor, but he certainly polished his shoes and pulled up his socks for this one. Every gesture, every word, every facial expression...wow. Absolutly amazing.

[mikeywalsh]

Sorry, I wasn't implying that Max Schreck was a better actor than Lugosi nor that Schreck's performance in 'Nosferatu' is better than Lugosi's in Dracula. I don't think Lugosi has ever been better than he was in 1931 but Schreck in 'Nosferatu' certainly has a lot of presence, I think that may be more than just make-up. Nosferatu just seems a much more 'adult' film than 'Dracula' 1931 but granted it's not nearly as much fun. Richard Dyer (I think) has an excellent essay on gay images and stereotypes in 'Nosferatu', for anyone interested in gay readings of horror films I'd recommend Dyer hugely.

[Haunted]

I love the '31 version of Dracula. I remember reading about the film in elementary school. I got a slight crush on Lugosi. When I finally saw the film a few years later (late elementary school or early middle school), I was glued to the screen. My mum even thought it was cool that I was experiencing this film for the first time.

This is a cardinal sin in horror fandom, but I have not seen Nosferatu all the way through, but I really want to. My b-day is coming up, and I think I'll request some of the classics I have not seen ever or in a long time, and some of the Italian films I'm dying to see.

[alkytrio666]

I LOVE Nosferatu. I think it is amazing, in my top 10 movies of all time.

You guys are gonna shooty me for saying this, but I have yet to see Dracula (1931).

I own the Legacy Collection, but I'm halfway through the book (which is the best book I've EVER read) and don't want to watch it 'til I'm done.

But boy am I looking forward to it.

[The_Return]

It strays a fair bit from the novel, just so you're warned. While nowhere as good a film, Coppola's 1992 version is much more faithful.

[alkytrio666]

Originally posted by The_Return
It strays a fair bit from the novel, just so you're warned. While nowhere as good a film, Coppola's 1992 version is much more faithful.

So I've heard. I bought both, and I'm planning on a Drac marathon when I finsih the book. Return, you know if I was anywhere near Canada you'd be invited. But I'm not.

[Zero]

Originally posted by The_Return
It strays a fair bit from the novel, just so you're warned. While nowhere as good a film, Coppola's 1992 version is much more faithful.
apparently - the original plan was for a more faitful (epic) adaptation and Lon Chaney as the star -- two things happened 1) The Great Depression hit and squashed Universal's big budget potential and 2) Chaney died of lung cancer.

Interestingly, Carl Laemmle Sr. hated the idea of making Dracula - it was Jr. who pushed the project - - - so we all owe thanks to CL, Jr.

[The_Return]

Son of Dracula on the Legacy collection is really good, too. Dracula's Daughter left alot to be desired....and I havent watched House yet. Contrary to popular belief, I think Cheney Jr. did a great job as the Count in Son of Dracula.

[hollywoodgothiq]

The 1931 DRACULA is a flawed film that survives on the strength of the performances by Lugosi, Edward Van Sloan, and Dwight Frye Junior.

Whatever its weaknesses, it is not have so overrated as NOSFERATU, which survives mostly on the basis of its undeserved reputation -- it's German and it's silent, so it must be a masterpiece!

Talk about the emperor's new clothes... this one is absolutely stark naked.

[alkytrio666]

Originally posted by hollywoodgothiq
The 1931 DRACULA is a flawed film that survives on the strength of the performances by Lugosi, Edward Van Sloan, and Dwight Frye Junior.

Whatever its weaknesses, it is not have so overrated as NOSFERATU, which survives mostly on the basis of its undeserved reputation -- it's German and it's silent, so it must be a masterpiece!

Talk about the emperor's new clothes... this one is absolutely stark naked.

I agree with your Dracula comment. Dracula is a pretty damn good film, but no where near the book. It's performances make it easier to accept this.

Nosferatu, however, is a different story. Have you seen Nosferatu? And, if so, do you consider yourself a tolerant movie watcher? I think Nosferatu is an amazing film, it's pretty well adapted from the book (for what they had to work with) and it's very chilling. It also sprouted the vampire genre, but nothing else (with the exception of maybe the 1992 Dracula film) touches it.

[hollywoodgothiq]

Have I seen NOSFERATU? Let me tell you about it!

I first saw it in 16mm in a junior high school class -- a version edited down so it could be screened in a one-hour class (no Renfield character, for example). The movie was borin and dated, and generated lots of laughter -- but hey, we were just kids, so what did we know?

A few years later, I saw a complete version courtesy of PBS. The movie was longer but no better -- just as stiff and dull as I remembered.

Then the movie showed up on video, with the frame rate corrected so that the film ran at the right speed -- approximately 18 fps instead of the 24 fps second of sound movies. Once again, the film was longer, slower and duller -- and absolutely no better.

But still, I continued to give the movie a chance. In the 1990s it screened at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences theatre in Beverly Hills, with a restored score performed live. The print was straight from Germany (with German subtitles that were translated on a second, smaller screen off to the side). This print was billed as a complete one, and I do indeed recall being surprised by occasional bits and pieces I had not seen before. Again, the movie was longer but no better (although the live music was a pleasant diversion).

Of course, the film came out on laserdisc and DVD, and there was much brouhaha about restoring the image so that all the detailing of the sets could now be seen. Great, I thought, now I can actually watch the paint dry!

Finally, some low-budget distributor put the thing out on video yet again, this time with a soundtrack comprised of songs by the Goth-rock group Type-O Negative. Once again, I subjected myself to this misbegotten false classic, and once again it bored me to tears. (In this case, the music made it even worse than before.)

So yes, I have sat through the film many times and given it every chance, but the bottom line is it's a tired movie whose reputation is built almost entirely on the details surrounding it.

It's perceived as being part of the German Expressionist movement that gave us CABINET OF DR CALIGARI, and it was directed by a man who went on to make great films later (like FAUST). Because of this, we're supposed to think that some of this greatness rubbed off onto NOSFERATU, but it didn't.

Having said all that, I will admit to liking one brief moment, which I saw in the German print that screened with the live music. Just before an intermission break, after Krolock/Dracula has killed the crew on the ocean voyage, there is a nice shot of the unmanned boat riding the waves, and the subtitle reads, "The ship of death had a new captain." It's a nice touch.

Bottom line: every step of the way, people tell me this movie is a masterpiece. Every time a "new and improved" version is released, I check it out and give it another chance. And every time, my original perception is confirmed.

[Zero]

to each their own. . . i actually really respect older silent films and sometimes think current filmmakers 'tell too much' as opposed to the older more choppy silent films.

i saw a restored version of Metropolis in London a few years back that was really amazing. but, that's just me.

[hollywoodgothiq]

I meant no blanket slur against silent films. I'm always happy to sit down and watch METROPOLIS (or HAXEN or THE GOLEM or THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA).

I just think people give NOSFERATU too much "benefit of the doubt" because it's old, German, and silent. If they extended half that much courtesy to the 1931DRACULA, we would never again here complaints about that film's staginess and slow pace; we would just focus on the virtues: the atmospheric art direction and Lugosi's performance.

[alkytrio666]

Originally posted by hollywoodgothiq
I meant no blanket slur against silent films. I'm always happy to sit down and watch METROPOLIS (or HAXEN or THE GOLEM or THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA).

I just think people give NOSFERATU too much "benefit of the doubt" because it's old, German, and silent. If they extended half that much courtesy to the 1931DRACULA, we would never again here complaints about that film's staginess and slow pace; we would just focus on the virtues: the atmospheric art direction and Lugosi's performance.

Yes, you hit it right on the dot. I only pretend to like Nosferatu because it's German and silent. You know me much too well. :rolleyes:

Listen, pal, just beacause YOU don't like a movie, doesn't mean it isn't great.

[hollywoodgothiq]

Don't know you, don't pretend to.

But I am familiar with a certain kind of thinking that overlooks egregious flaws in old movies because they have an established reputation.

In my posts regarding the Lugosi DRACULA I've admitted I something similar myself, ignoring that film's shortcomings because they are outweighed (for me at least) by its virtues.

The difference is I at least admit the flaws exist. Unfortunately the defenders of NOSFERATu prefer to turn a blind eye to the molassas-like pacing and the anti-Semitic subtext.

[urgeok]

i think one of the things that Nosferatu had going for it is the unforgettable image of the ratlike vampire which is so much more interesting and threatening than the suave european as he is usually portrayed.

[Zero]

Originally posted by hollywoodgothiq


The difference is I at least admit the flaws exist. Unfortunately the defenders of NOSFERATu prefer to turn a blind eye to the molassas-like pacing and the anti-Semitic subtext.

i've read a few criticisms of the 31 dracula that claim its antisemitic as well (the medal the count wears bears a striking resemblance to the Star of David and the scene where Renfield talks about rats and the parting of the red mist is strikingly similar to the parting of the sea and the exodus) - - -now please let me be clear, I'm not saying Dracula is antisemitic, only that i've read some film critics arguing that. . .probably to the extent their is antisemitic imagery its more a product of that period (20-40s) when antisemitism was rampant (and not just in Germany)

[hollywoodgothiq]

This only further underlines my point: it's okay to take aim at DRACULA, but NOSFERATU is off limits.

This is especially egregious in the case of the accusation of anti-semitism, because the charge really doesn't hold up in regards to DRACULA. Most obviously, the Count's medal looks nothing like a star, let alone a Star of David. (It's actually a circle, with lines radiating out from the center. These lines may give the impression of being the points of a star in long shots, but they are not.)

As for NOSFERATU, well, the film is a metaphor for post-World War I Germany, with the lifeblood of the Fatherland being drained away by Orlock, whose makeup and appearance suggest Shakespeare' Shylock more than Bram Stoker's Dracula. Fortunately, the virtuous Rhinemaiden's sacrifice destroys the evil, so that Germany can rise again... and we all know what that led to. (At least Werner Herzog had the good sense to tag a highly ironic ending onto his remake.)

[Zero]

Originally posted by hollywoodgothiq
This only further underlines my point: it's okay to take aim at DRACULA, but NOSFERATU is off limits.

This is especially egregious in the case of the accusation of anti-semitism, because the charge really doesn't hold up in regards to DRACULA. Most obviously, the Count's medal looks nothing like a star, let alone a Star of David. (It's actually a circle, with lines radiating out from the center. These lines may give the impression of being the points of a star in long shots, but they are not.)

As for NOSFERATU, well, the film is a metaphor for post-World War I Germany, with the lifeblood of the Fatherland being drained away by Orlock, whose makeup and appearance suggest Shakespeare' Shylock more than Bram Stoker's Dracula. Fortunately, the virtuous Rhinemaiden's sacrifice destroys the evil, so that Germany can rise again... and we all know what that led to. (At least Werner Herzog had the good sense to tag a highly ironic ending onto his remake.)


hmm. . . well to continue the debate: if a viewer can freeze frame the medallion on Dracula (and on high quality tv screen) it is not a star of david - that said, at quick glance as its shown it is easy to mistake the two.

as for metaphor - let's not forget that the first sweeping anti-immigration laws were passed in the US in 1920, 24 and 29 and mainly targetted eastern europeans (and these laws were deeply driven by antisemitism). So, there was a huge level of antisemitism in the US in the early 30s and many of the stereotypes that are evident in Nosferatu are also evident (though in a less 'caricatured' way in Dracula - with the addition that Dracula is a shrewd business man, another stereotype)

[hollywoodgothiq]

There is no doubt that Dracula represents the fear of the "Other" -- that's what most horror films do. In this case, the "Other" is definitely foreign but hardly Jewish. He's a suave Continental, someone who's supposed to look too smooth to working class Americans, with this distrust of the nobility and the aristocracy -- something to which Jews do not belong (at least in the caricatured sense).

[Zero]

Originally posted by hollywoodgothiq
There is no doubt that Dracula represents the fear of the "Other" -- that's what most horror films do. In this case, the "Other" is definitely foreign but hardly Jewish. He's a suave Continental, someone who's supposed to look too smooth to working class Americans, with this distrust of the nobility and the aristocracy -- something to which Jews do not belong (at least in the caricatured sense).

hmm, but he only appears aristocratic (when he actually lives in a decaying mansion). . . i'm reminded a bit of Gentlemen's Agreement and the fear of the 'Other/Jew' passing in society

suffice to say, both films are steeped in antisemitic imagery (which is almost unavoidable in the early 30s and depictions of monsters ---need we mention Frankenstein?)

[hollywoodgothiq]

Oh please! He "only appears aristocratic" because he lives in a decaying mansion? All the more reason to see him as part of a corrupt, decaying nobility sucking the life out of a youthful, younger society. It definitely plays into an "us verses them" mentality, but it has nothing to do with anti-semitism (except in the vague general sense that Jewish people often get put into the "them" category").

[urgeok]

does that mean when dracula turned 15 he had a Bat Mitzvah ?
i thought that was just for the gals ?

oi vey !

[Zero]

Originally posted by urgeok
does that mean when dracula turned 15 he had a Bat Mitzvah ?
i thought that was just for the gals ?

oi vey !
no - but he has a large collection of dreidels

[von chaney]

i've always thought it strange how the count has almost always been depicted as an aristocrat from lugosi onwards. how did that happen?
in the book we first see dracula as a grey old man who lives in a ruin of a castle and sleeps in coffins full of of earth. even when he travels to england he stays at carfax abbey, again a ruin. Shreck got this pretty close, even lugosi and lee got the coffins and castles more or less spot on, but somewhere along the way lugosi,lee and all decided he should be a tall dark and suave count.
however, not wanting to sound as though i am sitting on the fence here, but i am a great fan of all the counts more famous portrayals.
the only thing that does surprise me is that after nearly 100 of film there has yet to be one that is truly faithful to the book.

[hollywoodgothiq]

Okay, I'll point out the obvious: Dracula, in the novel, is a count, making him an aristocrat from his very inception. This is not a later addition. harker describes him as "courtly" and "courteous."

And Castle Dracula is not a ruin. Harker refers to the "extraordinary evidence of wealth," particularly the gold table service of "immense value." Also: "The curtains and upholstery of the chairs and sofas and the hangins of my bed are of the costlierst and most beautiful fabrics, and must have been of fabulous value when they wer made, for they are centuries old, though in excellent order."

Max Shreck in the over-rated NOSFERATU --with his bald head and rat teeth -- really has little to do with the author's conception. Both Lugosi and Lee, in different ways, come much closer.

Of course, there is one big difference between screen Draculas and the book, and this comes from the Hamilton Deane play in the 1920s. In the book, Dracula is a shadowy character who is mostly off-screen. In the play he is transformed into a character who moves unobtrusively in upper-crust society; hence, the tie and tuxedo image that persists to this day.

[The_Return]

Hollywoodgothiq, you need to post more often. This is a great thread.

[von chaney]

fair point about the book. in all fairness its been a few years since i last read it. i think i may have been corrupted by some of the films.

but come on now,lugosi better than shreck???? don't get me wrong, i love dracula 1931,it was the start of an era (albeit before my time,ahem). but lugosi was nearly as wooden as his coffin. the set was superb,probably the best there has ever been,but the acting did have its drawbacks, although dwight frye is excellent.
but shreck get's everything right.the scene where he is stalking down the corridor of his castle,the classic moment of his shadow creeping up the stairs. and the way he rises from his coffin has never been bettered.

either way,they are both classics and i'm going to crack open a few beers and watch them back to back.
cheers!!

[hollywoodgothiq]

I didn't know the debate was about which was better; I thought it was about which was closer to the book.

Just to cite one more example, Jonathan Harker tells us that Dracula speaks excellent English, but with a strange intonation -- a perfect description of Lugosi's line readings.

[von chaney]

when it really comes down to it, nothing has been that faithful to stokers novel,sadly.

without meaning to jump forwards 70 years, but gary oldman's version is the closest i've seen, just a shame about all that mushy nonscense with winona ryder. at least we never had to endure that with lugosi!!

[RagbagGeorge]

this movie is sooo bad and funny! the actor guy that plays dracla is hilarios!

[von chaney]

do you mean gary oldman and co?

ryder is dreadful, innit!
and not hopkins finest hour.

best of all is reeves. what an accent!!!

[RagbagGeorge]

maybe i dunno who waz in it it was blak and white and really chessy and stupid and funny

[The_Return]

Where to start...


Hell with it, Im not even going to reply to this moron. I guess even retars are entitled to there own opinions...

[RagbagGeorge]

ur really mean to me return:(

[urgeok]

Originally posted by The_Return
Where to start...


Hell with it, Im not even going to reply to this moron. I guess even retars are entitled to there own opinions...


nothing funnier (and i do it myself) than spelling dumb, stupid, idiot, or retard wrong in a post when you're pissed at someone :p

[The_Return]

Originally posted by urgeok
nothing funnier (and i do it myself) than spelling dumb, stupid, idiot, or retard wrong in a post when you're pissed at someone :p


Erm...:o

I guess it is kinda funny though:p

[von chaney]

you said it mate, learn to sepll poepel!!!!

[RagbagGeorge]

im sry i dont spell good i hate english class i dont see why i have to talk right on the net. not like im getting marks for how i type

[von chaney]

yes the count did have a deep accent, and while lugosi got it across very well, it didn't exactly require much acting on his part, it was how he spoke anyway, and he had to learn his lines pheonetically which just gave him a deeper accent on the film.

back to max shreck however, of course he had no lines to speak in those days, but he still gives a performance which has lasted years and easily scares as much as lugosi.

surely another reason which shows shreck really was the better actor??

[hollywoodgothiq]

Rather an odd and unconvincing argument, don't you think?

Now you're not judging just the result but what it took to achieve them -- a rather dubious proposition at best. Whether Lugosi's accent took lots of effort or none at all is immaterial to our enjoyment of the performance.

As for Shreck being the better actor, I frankly find the assertion silly. His "performance" consists of walking around in the rat makeup.

Ultimately, Shreck and NOSFERATU offer a very simple sort of scare -- Ooh, it's ugly!

The more seductive nature of Lugosi's Dracula is much more sophisticated.

[RagbagGeorge]

shrek was a funny movie:D

[hollywoodgothiq]

Yeah, almost as funny as NOSFERATU!

[alkytrio666]

Originally posted by hollywoodgothiq
Yeah, almost as funny as NOSFERATU!

Have you read Dracula?

[hollywoodgothiq]

Gee, I had hoped the answer to that question would be clear from my previous posts in this thread. I guess I'm not trying hard enough.

[von chaney]

are you kidding??
just walking around in make up, it was the silent era!! what did you want him to do??
let's look at the bigger picture here.

nosferatu IS a great film, made so by the story, the acting (yes i say acting) the impressive make up and the superlative use of light and shadow to create a dark, brooding atmosphere.

10 years later how did tod browning improve on this?
a great castle (maybe the best in my opinion, see i do like this film!!), some of THE classic lines ever spoken in cinema history, BUT...
how did he deal with creating dark shadows at various key moments in the film? by leaving a huge piece of cardboard over a table lamp which is clearly in shot as lugosi does his thing. 10 years of progress?? thats laughable you have to admit.

but of course it does take more than one person to make a great film. so what about the rest of the cast?
nosferatu's admittedly is not much to get overly excited about,but they hold their own.
but in browning's dracula the support cast are dreadful with the excepion of Frye.
van helsing is ok, no worries there.
but harker, mina are the worst i've ever seen. (maybe they would have been better playing it silent!!) and whats with the maid and servant? are they supposed to be comedy relief? their performance is the most horrific of the film.

dracula1931 severly lets itself down here.

[alkytrio666]

Well gee, oh god of vampires, maybe some of us enjoy Nosferatu because it was closer to the book than Dracula 1931.

Quit being such a smartass about your opinion, and maybe realize people will have different opinions. All I asked was if you'd read the book, but you had to go into another rant. I'm done trying to have an educated opinion about this matter with you.

[von chaney]

i'm with you alky.

both film's are great, i just enjoy them for what they are, innit!!

it's great to here such passionate opinions though.

yeah, i've read the book, still my all time fav.

[hollywoodgothiq]

Originally posted by alkytrio666
Well gee, oh god of vampires, maybe some of us enjoy Nosferatu because it was closer to the book than Dracula 1931.

Quit being such a smartass about your opinion, and maybe realize people will have different opinions. All I asked was if you'd read the book, but you had to go into another rant. I'm done trying to have an educated opinion about this matter with you.

I'm confused. I thought you had asked me whether I had read the book. Since my reply consisted of two sentences, I don't see how it qualifies as a "rant."

I do feel compelled to point out that, regardless of their relative cinematic qualities, on a plot level NOSFERATU is not closer to the book than the 1931 DRACULA. Much more of Stoker makes it into the Lugosi flm -- although, admittedly, most of it is distorted to suite the film.

[hollywoodgothiq]

Originally posted by von chaney
are you kidding??
just walking around in make up, it was the silent era!! what did you want him to do??


No, I'm not kidding. I do find it interesting the actual quality of the film sometimes seems to be secondary in your consideration to the facts behind the film. For example, Lugosi deserves no credit for his performance because he really talked that way; but all praise must go to Max Shreck for stalking around in bald head and rat teeth because... well, because it's a silent movie, so what do you expect?

I'll tell you what I expect: a performance. For a point of comparison, Lon Chaney gives a brilliant one in PHANTOM OF THE OPERA -- and he's not only hidden by makeup but by a mask as well!

let's look at the bigger picture here.

nosferatu IS a great film, made so by the story, the acting (yes i say acting) the impressive make up and the superlative use of light and shadow to create a dark, brooding atmosphere.

I may be willing to give the film some credit for atmosphere, but not for the story. I think it's an impossible challenge to write a plot synopsis that would come close to justifying the film's feature length. There are a handful of memorable moments (the ship, nosferatu rising from the coffin, the sun turning him into a puff of smoke), but mostly nothing happens for very long stretches of time. The film could easily be cut down to under an hour -- and in fact has been, for 16mm prints, whichi s the first way I ever saw the film. Unfortunately for me, the running time has gotten longer every time I've seen it since.

[alkytrio666]

Originally posted by hollywoodgothiq
Much more of Stoker makes it into the Lugosi flm -- although, admittedly, most of it is distorted to suite the film.

I wholehearditly disagree- please explain.

[knife_fight]

Originally posted by hollywoodgothiq


Finally, some low-budget distributor put the thing out on video yet again, this time with a soundtrack comprised of songs by the Goth-rock group Type-O Negative. Once again, I subjected myself to this misbegotten false classic, and once again it bored me to tears. (In this case, the music made it even worse than before.)



I have nothing of value to add, but I wanted to say that I have this version on dvd and the only way I can stomach it is on Mute.

[von chaney]

ah hollywood, i think we will have to agree to disagree on just about everything.

end of the day its just yours and my opinion, which probably means buggar all to anyone anyway.

i do find it interesting however that while you seemed to find fault with most of my previous thoughts on these films, you seem to make no comment on the last ones i mentioned regarding D.1931.
poor supporting cast, chunks of cardboard sloppily left in shot for whatever reason, of this there can be no denying. (funny how the spanish version filmed at the same time didn't rely on cardboard cutouts to help their special effects, ahem!).

and the other thing you seem to have failed to pick up on is that i have several times mentioned how i feel that both nosferatu and dracula are equally iconic films.
with nosferatu widely acknowledged as a classic, you appear to be unable to find any qualities in this film or give a BALANCED argument for your opinions. at least thats how it seems.
that said, mine may not be the best either, but i have tried to recognise that they do actually have their pro's and con's.

it's just that nosferatu is better!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[hollywoodgothiq]

As a general rule, balance is bullshit. In fact, attempts at balance are screwing up a lot of reporting in our mainstream media, because whenever something critical is reported, there is some arbitrary attempt to "balance" it with some opposing viewpoint -- whether it's valid or not.

Ergo, I feel no need to "balance" my comments about NOSFERATU. It is slowly paced, mechanical, dull, and frankly overrated. There may be redeeming virtues, but I see no need to enumerate them -- the film has its defenders, so I'll let you do the work.

As for disagreeing on everything, I should point out that my very first post on this topic acknowledged that DRACULA is flawed, but it survives on the strenth of three performances: Lugois, Frye, and Van Sloan. So when you list a litany of flaws in the film but except those three performances, why should I respond? You're just giving a more detailed account of something I've already acknowledged.

It is never my intent to destroy someone's joy, whatever its source. You and everyone else can go right on enjoying this film. But it is severly flawed in a way that belies its reputation as a masterpiece.

[hollywoodgothiq]

Originally posted by alkytrio666
I wholehearditly disagree- please explain.

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:

DRACULA has the three vampire brides in Transylvania; NOSFERATU does not.

DRACULA has the vampire turn into a bat and a wolf (the later not shown, sadly); NOSFERATU does not.

DRACULA retains the book's Christian imagery (crosses, Eucharist); NOSFERATU does not (although Herzog's remake, curiously, does restore some of this.)

DRACULA features a Van Helsing character who realizes that Dracula is a vampire and marshall the knowledge to destroy him; NOSFERATU does not (yes, there is a Van Helsing character, but he is useless).

DRACULA features a Renfield character who aids and abets the vampire while incarcerated in an asylum (although what he actually does is vague to the point of non-existance); NOSFERATU does not (yes, there is a lunatic character, but his only real plot function is to send Hutter to visit Orlock).

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

DRACULA gives the Count two female victims: Lucy who succumbs and becomes a vampire, and Mina, who is saved from a similar fate; NOSFERATU does not (there is only one girl, and she does not become a vampire from Orlock's bite).

DRACULA has the Count taint Mina by forcing her to drink his blood (again, only described not shown); NOSFERATU does not.

DRACULA has the Count destroyed by being impaled (not quite the same as the book, but at least it's in line with the methods described in the book); NOSFERATU does not (the film invents the idea that vampires go poof in sunlight).

Anyway, you get the idea...

[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.

[alkytrio666]

Originally posted by 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.

So would it be fair, then, to say that neither Nosferatu nor Dracula '31 were anywhere close to the novel?

[hollywoodgothiq]

No, it would not.

It would be fair to say that neither one makes use of the relatively small plot point of having Harker recognize the Count back in London.

But the 1931 DRACULA is a cliff notes version of the book, with elements of the play thrown in. The essential differnce between the film and the book is that Dracula does not lurk in the shadows; he is openly invited into the polite society that he is preying on.

This is a pretty major divergence, to be sure. But the important plot points remain in common: an Englishman goes to Transylvania to seel some property to the Count; the Count travels to England by boat, killing everyone on board; in England he preys upon a girl named Lucy, who dies and becomes a vampire; Dracula sets his sights upon Mina, Jonathan Harker's fiancee, as his next victim, but Harker and Dr. Seward receive help from Professor Van Helsing, who identifies Dracula as the culprit; Dracula kills his fly-eating assistant Renfield; and then...the comparison ends because Universal ran out of money and couldn't afford to film the chase back to Transylvania.

Admittedly, my plot summary is filled with broad generalizations so that the words will suit the book and the film equally. If you look at specific details, they are quite different. But then you get into the philosophical question of how exact the details have to be, in order to qualify as "being faithful." Neither NOSFERATU nor DRACULA features the ending from the book, but NOSFERATU's ending is a completely original invention not derived from the text in anyway. The ending in DRACULA is at least a dim echo of the book.

[hollywoodgothiq]

Oh, one tanget I forgot to mention -- on the subject of faithfulness to the source material...

There are three productions of DRACULA that claim to be faithful to the book: the film version of COUNT DRACULA (1970), the BBC tele-version COUNT DRACULA, and the Coppola-directed BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA. For differing reasons, I can't stand any of them.

[urgeok]

i read somewhere that hands down - this was the most faithful of all by far to the source material :

[alkytrio666]

Originally posted by hollywoodgothiq
No, it would not.

It would be fair to say that neither one makes use of the relatively small plot point of having Harker recognize the Count back in London.

But the 1931 DRACULA is a cliff notes version of the book, with elements of the play thrown in. The essential differnce between the film and the book is that Dracula does not lurk in the shadows; he is openly invited into the polite society that he is preying on.

Well, we're never gonna get anywhere. Agree to disagree.

[hollywoodgothiq]

Fine with me.

May we give the last word to Leonard Wolf? I was reorganizing some stuff last night and happened upon my copy or "A Dream of Dracula," in which the scholar writes:

...Browning's DRACULA, with all due allowances for its slow pacing and its mistaken emphais, has the cool poise of a masterpiece in the horror of black and white. The film is strong because Browning, like Stoker, respected the vampire in his own terms. The theme of blood as embodied in the un-dead who drinks the life of beautiful maidens is in the foreground. The result, as with Stoker's DRACULA, is that the undeviating simplicity of the plot stirs up a rich cloud of mythic materials which, when it settles, gives the audience a well-found sense that it has been watching both a prototype and a classic. Murnau, on the other hand, was making something else. For one thing, his is a mideval imagination, and all he asks of the vampire story is that it should give him an occasion for a visual danse macabre. If NOSFERATU cannot have film descendants in the vampire genre, it is because Murnau had other things in mind: architecture, politics, and the triumph of love, for instance. Both films are equally classics, but in quite different genres. Browning's is American sexual horror at is innocent best; Murnau's is German distilled paranoia, portentous, dreamlike, and cold.

[von chaney]

nice to see the debate still raging.

i am shocked, SHOCKED!!

i had to write in 'cos i actually agree with hollywood on something at last.

you are right about the so called faithful adaptations of dracula in later years, although i am intrigured by your opinion ( surprise surprise) on them. while i doubt that any of them will ever be hailed as great classics, although coppola's tried,surely they do have some redeeming qualities.

lee's 1970 adaptation of the count does suffer from an obvious lack of budget and suspect direction from jess franco, but lee gives probably his most satisfying performance as the arch vampire, and there is good support from lom and kinski. but not lee's most memorable outing thats for sure.

the bbc's effort could have , and should have been better. i have only seen it once, many years ago ,but my lingering recolection of this film is just how long it was and some dubious special effects. a shame, but not a total disaster.

i did like coppola's version on the whole, although reeves and ryder are a bit wet. oldman i like apart from when he's getting mushy with mina. i thought the introduction of vlad quite clever too, but there is something to suggest that maybe coppola tried a bit too hard on this film.

but to say you hate all of these sounds a little strong, surely? they all bring something different to the story in their own way.

to say you HATE them all is like saying nosferatu is not a classic....just incomprehensible!!!

[hollywoodgothiq]

Seems like this is a topic for a whole new thread, but here goes...

The Jess Franco COUNT DRACULA is shabby, filled with a constant barely motivated use of the zoom lens to underline every tiny, little incident. Christopher Lee himself once summed up the philosophy behind the movie thus: "Get it on camera and slightly in focus, and it will make money somewhere, if not a lot." It's basically schlock, with some interest for its curiosity value.

The BBC COUNT DRACULA seems to have almost as many defenders as NOSFERATU, and it is equally overrated, equally bad -- probably more so. The television values are just not up to the job of telling the story, and the pacing is frankly dull. The last time I even tried to watch any of it was during a convention timed with the 100th anniversary of Stoker's novel. I sat through five minutes of two guys working in Seward's sanitarium as they look out the window and see some boxes arriving at Carfax Abbey -- a scene that should have lasted fifteen seconds, all visual (we get the point when we see the boxes and know they house the Count's coffins). Instead, the scene goes on for what seems like another five minutes while the two characters sit around and discuss the fact that the abbey has been rented by some foreign count -- exposition we in the audience already known. It's a pointless, stupid way to tell a story and deserves contempt.

As for the Coppola film, it's filled with wonderful production values, but it is an absolute mess, based more closely on THE DRACULA TAPE than Stoker's Dracula. Trying to cast the Count as a romantic hero is ridiculous, and Mina's pretty much a dim bulb if she falls for the Count's overtures. The film pretends she's his one and only true love but ignores that she's simply becoming part of his harem, which already includes three previous brides. Oerall, I think the approach is worthy of a daytime talk show: "Vampires, and the Women who Love Them" -- today, on Oprah.

[von chaney]

you're a harsh man hollywood, but i do generally agree with what you say about franco's and bbc's dracula.

but while coppola's may not quite reach it's full potential it's really not that bad.
i thought coppola was trying to bring the story to a modern audience and on the whole did well. i've heard of dracula as a romantic hero many times before, not just in this version.
as for mina being a bit dim (yes she is), wasn't the count using his "powers" on her also? i never really thought of him attempting to make her his 4th bride in this version as the apparant love story between them was so prolific. i had the impression he wanted mina as his one true love.

in other films, lugosi for example, i would definately go along with your comment. it appears that dracula is after mina for the sake of possession alone.

i saw it as the same film, just simply from a different perspective.you sound as though you feel much of the film was laughable.

but as you say, this has little to do with 1931!!

[alkytrio666]

Actually, as far as atmosphere, plot, etc., I believe Coppolas hit the closest home to the book.

[von chaney]

totally.

this film drips with atmoshere at times. i loved the scene where lucy is staked in her coffin.

and what a pleasant change to see a film where van helsing goes to the castle to decapitate the 3 bride vampires.

my only major hang-up is reeves and ryder, never really took to them, but other than that i think its a pretty decent film.

[hollywoodgothiq]

This really should be a new thread, but anyway...

As far as plot, the Coppola DRACULA is about as far away from Stoker as one could imagine. Yes, it includes a great number of incidents from the novel, but so what?

The whole "reincarnation of lost love" plot has nothing to do with Stoker. It's borrowed from the Dan Curtis TV version of DRACULA, which in turn was recycling a plot from Curtis's soap opera DARK SHADOWS (wherein Maggie Evans was the reincarnation of Barnabas Collins' beloved Josette). Along the way BLACULA used the same idea, but if you really want to trace the idea to its filmic origin, you have to go back to the 1932 version of THE MUMMY.

In any case, inserting this plot into the middle of DRACULA makes nonsense of the story: the Count comes to England to reunite with his lost love Mina, but before he gets to her, he stops for a dalliance with Lucy! And yet we're supposed to buy into his great romantic love for Mina, but doesn't seem the least bit perturbed that her great romantic "lover" has been sharing bodily fluids with her best friend!

Absolutely idiotic, and clearly geared for dumb teenage audience that would enjoy treacly Harlequin romances.

[alkytrio666]

Well it's certainly as close to the book as the 1931 Dracula...much closer, actually.

It has some romance mixed in...but at least it keeps the ORIGINAL Harker story, for Christ's sake.

And at least they go into some more depth of his stay at the castle, the ending, etc.

[alkytrio666]

P.S. Don't get me wrong through all of this- I LOVE the 1931 Dracula.

But I love it as a movie, not as a book adaption.

[hollywoodgothiq]

This may be a semantic difference rather than a substantial one, but the Coppola DRACULA is not closer to the plot of Stoker's novel.

The plot of the book (stated rather baldly) is that the Count invades England to spread the taint of vampirism. The key word is "invades."

The 1931 DRACULA tells this story, filtered through the play.

The plot of the Coppola film is: Dracula goes to England to find the reincarnation of his lost love. This plot is dressed up with a lot of incidents borrowed from the novel, as was Fred Saberhagen's riff on stoker, THE DRACULA TAPE. This is why I said before that Coppola's film is really an adaptation of Saberhagen's novel, not Stoker's. (This idea is not original to me.) As if to underline the point, Saberhagen gets co-credit on the official movie-tie in novelization of BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA -- a book that shouldn't even exist if the Coppola film were, as claimed, a completely faithful filmization of its source.

As for keeping the original Harker story, it is nice to see Jonathan (and not Renfield) travel to Transylvania, but the film does not keep the Harker story in any meaningful sense. The book's story (among other things) is about how this young Englishman is psychologically devastated by his experience in Castle Dracula, but under the tutelage of Professor Van Helsing, he overcomes this setback and destroys the monster -- a symbolic rte of passage into manhood, underlined by the fact that he goes on to father a child by Mina.

In the Coppola film, Harker gets his knife into Dracula but doesn't destroy him. That's left to Mina, turning the ending into a silly attempt at romantic tragedy. Like everything else in the film, it retains elements from the book but undermines them in service of its Harlequin romance approach to vampirism.

[Zero]

yeah . . .

but wouldn't it be cool if dracula fought freddy krueger and in the final battle they both jumped into Transformers Robots and battled it out in the middle of Tokyo. . .



wow, that'd be cool

[wvhorrorfan]

i prefer the classic dracula

[filmmaker2]

Dracula should never speak, it messes it up when he speaks, and you should be able to ascertain what he is thinking through his body language. You know, like a mime does it. And he should only be played by a marionette type puppet, made of fiberglass, with green skin, like avocado green...he should sort of wobble a bit, and when he wants to leave the puppeteer can just YANK! him, you know, out the window and into the night.