Comments on: Dracula (1931)

by: paulwjm

Fri, 18 Jan 2008 18:58:43 +0000

I think Edward Van Sloan should also be mentioned too though, as his emphatic nature is again very hooking. One can never dismiss this film entirely regardless of opinion about Lugosi, if only for the opening Transylvanian act. It’s interesting to note that the sequel (Dracula’s Daughter) ends with a sequence in Transylvania, almost sandwiching the two films which could be viewed back to back as one complete story.

Thanks for the comments.

by: John Hodson

Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:39:41 +0000

Lugosi’s performance has been tagged as having an ‘otherworldliness’, and I’ll go along with that rather than several thick slices of ripe, cured pork. Without his iconic impersonation there is not much else to hoot about - it is Lugosi that makes the film the classic it undoubtedly is (well, and Dwight ‘heh-heh-heh’ Frye). Browning simply hasn’t access to the visual pyrotechnics that Whale employs to such stunning effect in ‘Frankenstein’, but the Hungarian is hugely enoyable. I love it.

Nice piece.

by: paulwjm

Thu, 17 Jan 2008 19:25:08 +0000

It is stagy and you’re right about Lugosi’s performance in one respect - it’s very much a matter of taste whether you enjoy it or not. Whether it should be labelled as ‘good’ acting is debatable but I personally find him very watchable.

I’ve seen the Spanish version a couple of times (including the other night just a couple of days after the review) - while I agree with some of your points I do think it’s a bit too long (nearly half hour longer than the English language equivalent) plus I definitely disagree regarding your suggestion about Carlos Villarías’s superiority over Lugosi in the role - I thought he let the side down a tad. I did appreciate the less restrained approach though - Eva is far sexier than the Browning version’s equivalent (check out her costume while John is talking to her on the bench compared to the English film).

My basis for suggesting that this film is classic is primarily in consideration for what existed prior to it within the genre and the influence it (along more so with Frankenstein) had on subsequent offerings.

by: anephric

Thu, 17 Jan 2008 03:04:44 +0000

I’ve never understood the reputation this film has - compared to Whale’s Frankenstein and Browning’s subsequent, massively superior Freaks, it’s plodding, stagebound and hokey. it gets by nearly exclusively on if you find Lugosi’s incredible hamminess endearing or not.

It’s worth watching the Spanish version of this (from the days when studios would simultaneously shoot a foreign language version with different actors of the same script on the same sets at night whilst the principle crew were resting). Universal issued this as a bonus feature in a few of the Monster sets (including the Legacy collection you’ve got, I think).

If you haven’t watched it, do, whilst the Browning version (punnery) is fresh in your head: the expressionistic lighting and vastly more mobile camera really show up its more famous cousin. For my money, the actor who plays Dracula is faaar better than Lugosi, in his most famous role, too.