The Dracula Movies.

[Carol Baynes]

in fact, it's probably one of the most influential badly-written books ever.

No, no, no...that's "The Da Vinci code", surely?! I mean that too!

I'm a fan of Stoker's book, and I'm on the verge of reading it again after I've finished my Albert Camus. I might even chat about it if your up for it- start a new thread?

[Dirk Gently]

...if your up for it...

And a chat about Dracula.

[Captain Tancredi]

I'm always up for Carol (and she should know that perfectly well by now).

Funnily enough I found myself flicking through my recent Penguin copy last night before I went out- I just have 300-odd pages of Georges Perec to work through before I can even start it.

[Carol Baynes]

And a chat about Dracula.

Tut!

[Wayne]

Wow! Some excellent stuff from Ant, Carol, & Logo! This is going to be a great thread! Loads of points to come back to soon, but i've just got back home, So for now.......

Incidentally, there is also the spanish version of "Dracula" made at the same time (and on the same sets) as Tod Browning's 1931 version with Lugosi. There is also a 1968 version of the novel with Denholm Elliot.
Anybody think these are worth seeking out and adding as supplements
to our feast of blood?! Mwhahaha!

I was intending to mention the Spanish version the 1931 film in passing when we get there, though i wasn't palnning to single it out for a review of it's own.
However, There's no reason why it can't be covered here if people want to. I do have this film, so if anyone particularly wants to see and compare the two, then PM me. But if i get loads of 'Yes Please' messages, i would ask if perhaps 1 or 2 people who have the technology, would be willing to 'network' the disc that i will 'loan' out. (It costs almost the same to post 1 disc as is does for 10, believe it or not)

As for Denholm Elliott version: It was part of a 60's series called 'Mystery and Imagination', & as far as i can learn, It's never been released on VHS or DVD.
As a fan of this stuff, i'd dearly love to see it. Especially as it looks like a great cast according to IMDB. Unless one of you Broadband file sharing/downloading types can find it, Then we'll have to give that one a miss, unfortunately.

[Ralph]

The reviews on here on Nosferatu have been excellent I must say but I feel a bit guilty because I watched it on Monday night but was fighting off falling asleep during it...

I watched the preview of the movie first which I found interesting but I guess I probably wasn't in the mood for the movie itself ....

For 1922 it was probably terrific but thank god we've moved on

Sorry I just want to be entertained!

[Ralph]

Oh god Wayne's reading this, what must he think!

[Wayne]

Sorry I just want to be entertained!

The Vampire Lovers, Lust For A Vampire, & Twins of Evil for Ralph then.

[Ralph]

Now you're talking!

[Wayne]

Eat my edit.

[Ralph]

I wonder if that '31 Universal will do it for me....

[Wayne]

I wonder if that '31 Universal will do it for me....

I predict another 8 seconds of vampire sex with Ralph. Carol, Ant, & Logo are much better in the coffin than you, so far.

[Ralph]

I predict another 8 seconds of vampire sex with Ralph. Carol, Ant, & Logo are much better in the coffin than you, so far.

Is that a compliment?

[Wayne]

Yes. A compliment to Carol, Ant, & Logo.

[Wayne]

Nosferatu

I've long had a fondness for the original novel, by Abraham "Bram" Stoker, which I studied at A-Level. Hence, I've held a long interest in seeing various interpretations of the book on film.


For anyone who might have enjoyed this film as much as I have, it may well be worth checking out John Malkovitch's Shadow of the Vampire, which is a black comedy, set around the premise of "what if Max Schreck was a real vampire?". It's good fun, and a bit of a laugh.

Ant x

I'm particularly pleased that you came onboard for this Ant, because i know you have a particular interest in the Dracula novel & movies. As you studied it at A-Level, it's going to be especially interesting to get your insights, as you must know the book very well.

With regard to 'Shadow of the Vampire', i saw it on tv a year or two back, & whilst i didn't consider it integral viewing, i thought it was quite an interesting slant for a movie. As it happens, i won a copy for 99p on eBay last week, & it was waiting for me when i got home last night, so i'll probably give another viewing before we move onto the next Dracula film.

After all, let us not forget that vampirism in the original novel of Dracula was meant to be represtentative of syphilis. Indeed, I see little evidence of sensuality and sexual allure in the character in Bram Stoker's original novel. Instead, Dracula is a disease, leeching off the life force of people in a very similar way that such diseases do. Orlok is one of the only interpretations of the character of Dracula that comes anywhere close.

No other Dracula film adaptation has come this close to representing it.

That's a good point, Ant. I must admit that i've not read the novel for a few years, & i'd forgotten about that particular angle.
I think one of the great things about the novel is that it manages to put across so many different facets to the character of Dracula, & the whole vampirism thing. One facet i certainly picked up on was the fact that Dracula is not put across as merely an 'evil monster', but more of an ambiguous figure. Some of the later that later portrayals obviously pick up on the sensual/sexual allure & his courtly manner, more so than Orlok, who is anything but!

Elsewhere, there are a few scenes that don't work. The fast motion effect in several parts looks odd to my modern eyes, and almost comical. The expressionistic acting can also be (slightly) over the top as well. The scene where Hutter announces his intention to visit the count is quite amusing. The reaction following the caption "I have to go onto Count Orlock's castle" was followed by a group of expressions so vivid that I swear I could hear the gasp!
If I supressed a laugh, it was understandable I suppose, but be clear on this- in a dark room more than 80 years later, I wasn't laughing for long. This film can still command your respect and attention.

We will watch some great movies over the next few weeks, all based on Stoker's great novel of an ancient evil in a more modern time. But one movie in, be assured, you have already seen the most important. Whether it translates as well to a modern audience is debatable, but it's innovation and influence are undimmed.

I have to agree with you Carol, particularly about the fast motion effect, as one of the few things that don't work very well. The reasons behind the idea are discussed in the Christopher Frayling docu extra, & it understandable what Murnau was trying to acheive, But unfortunately it just reminds me of the Keystone Cops or something. (As Logo pointed out in not so many words)
But i totally agree of course with all your other comments about what successful film 'Nosferatu' is. As you say, totally innovative, influential, & inspirational. I believe that to appreciate this film fully, you have to really open your mind & let your imagination run free.

First thing I really have to say (which might be an obvious addition given my love of the era) is that silent films do not generally deserve their reputation amongst many modern viewers who hold a silly (but understandable) prejudice based no doubt on seeing jerky footage from history programmes and the inconceivable idea that a film could truly work without sound (or the sound of an actor's voice to be precise).
If that is the case you could not be further from the reality.

Anyway, without going off on too much of a silent film tangent, I do recommend you all take a fresh look at films pre-1930. With an open mind you will surprised, entertained and perhaps stunned in some cases.

I'm pleased to see you 'sticking up' for the silent movie era, for which i know you have a personal fondness.
Myself, i have very little experience with silent movies, (beyond watching Buster Keaton & Charlie Chaplin as a kid, - And even then i preferred the Laurel & Hardy talkies) & i only have 'Nosferatu', & Fritz Lang's: 'Metropolis'. I have to admit that i do have some sympathy with Ralph's position, as he obviously struggled to get anything out of 'Nosferatu', & beyond an appreciation of the technical acheivements of the day, i had a similar reaction to 'Metropolis'. I think is says a lot for 'Nosferatu' that it had completely the opposite effect. It was the first ever silent movie i'd seen as an adult, & i liked it straight away! Obviously, being a long term fan of the genre helps, & also knowing the story very well, But although my knowledge of silent film is very limited, i think 'Nosferatu' manages to stand out in it's own right as a great film.
The only other which comes close is Carl Dreyer's "Vampyr". (As discussed recently on the 'Don't Watch Alone' thread.) Made during 1930 & '31, Although not truly a full on silent movie, i feel that the film is in many ways a good bridge between 'Nosferatu' & the Universal films which were starting to be made in the early 30's.

Greta Schroeder's Ellen has a wide-eyed sombre intensity that is contrasted with her husband's light-heartedness early on in the scene where he brings her flowers and she asks why it was necessary to kill them for her. She has a painfully acute sense of the morbid, and seems to detect Orlok's evil at the same time that her husband loses any doubts about him, despite the large distance. This heightened awareness of approaching evil and death, along with fear for her husband, is what appears to cause the continuing mental distress she suffers from throughout most of the film.


negative lighting for the forest in one shot is also an interesting way of symbolising how Hutter has crossed into a netherworld where the horrors of the mind are real.

Well done for picking up on the negative lighting, Logo. I'd forgotten to mention that. I think it's rather effective!
And i think your observations about Ellen are spot on. Aside from Orlok & Knock, i think she's the most memorable character in the film, for me.

[Dirk Gently]

There is definitely some nipple action in that picture.

[Carol Baynes]

Keep it down, some of us are trying to sleep around here!

[Dirk Gently]

I'm trying to keep it down but that picture is not helping.

[Carol Baynes]

I'm struggling to see it from my coffin. I'm not on top form until the sun goes down....just don't let me catch sight of any throbbing viens or I'll have you gushing blood in no time.

Anyway, I can just about summon up the energy to offer some more comments. Shame on Ralph for not liking "Nosferatu". Each to their own of course, but I can't watch every film just for the single reason to be 'entertained'. Although saying that, "Nosferatu" does entertain me on many levels other films lack. It's much more of an artistic statement than some of the films in our list. I do think saying it was ok for 1922 and it's good that things have moved on, isn't a helpful way to appreciate what was achieved back then. Many modern films are fatuous and bland in comparison, with little to offer above the surface. "Is "Nosferatu" better than "Van Helsing", for example? I suppose I'd have to say 'yes', but it all depends on what you're looking for. Some creative achievements make history and some become footnotes in it. Entertaining corn is always welcome, but let's not be so eager to dismiss less accessible artisitic achievements. The fact it challenges ones usual preferences, while obviously offering something very creative, is often enough to give something that extra effort. I often find myself rewarded afterwards.

[Logo Polish]

I think some people can have problems with silent films because they find the images too grainy or vague for their tastes (a problem that can sometimes be gotten around with restored ones, although sometimes the best surviving master copies aren't always in good shape in the first place), or the pacing although actually, I think Nosferatu is quite a fast moving film, all things considered, lots of short scenes which push the story along bit by bit, especially during the first half). Possibly the stylised and expressive style of acting can be a bit of a culture shock when you're more used to the understated minimalism that's more in favour these days.

There was a chap doing some sort of live show recently (reviewed in the newspapers - he may still be presenting it) about silent films, where he was arguing that you can only really fully experience them when watching them with a live musical accompaniment (like in a cinema of the period). I wish I could remember his name and the title of the show now. His point, from what I recall, was that they work on a different level of consciousness from later films, which gives them an integrity and realism of their own. Sorry, I'm not putting it very well. Carol would like it though, I reckon.

Thanks, by the way, Wayne. I notice that Christopher Frayling also said the tinting of the film makes more sense than having it in simple black and white, in line with Murnau's wishes (ie filming night scenes in daylight and so tinting them blue to indicate that). I can understand the logic of that with regard to this film, but for me, there's nothing quite like stark black and white for a dramatic horror film, and I think it still looks good even in that format.

[Ralph]

I guess for me the film medium is always entertainment foremost and where art and creativity are the main focus then it falls a bit flat. Naturally a 1922 movie is going to be quite a different experience from the era in which films progressed to fully harness the maximum potential of this format.

As an analogy, a model T Ford was a design classic and a major landmark in the history of personal transportation but I'd rather have a comfy air conditioned vehicle with all the modern gadgets

The best films for me leave an impression and get you emotionally involved.

Anyway I was feeling a bit of a philistine so I'm trying to justify my position!

[Wayne]

Awww....... Sorry if you feel a bit hard done to, Ralph.
Don't feel alienated; As i mentioned earlier, i had a similar reaction to Fritz Lang's: Metropolis. I suppose as you said earlier, You perhaps have to be in the right mood such a different to what you're used to viewing experience.

[Ralph]

Well it's not so much feeling hard done to - it's just I felt I was standing against the tide

I think it's great everyone else liked the first cinematic offering even if it borrows music from the golden age of Hammer

So when are you watching the 1931 Universal Wayne? - I think I'll give that one a spin at some point today

[Wayne]

So when are you watching the 1931 Universal Wayne? - I think I'll give that one a spin at some point today

Well i'm not sure because we're still waiting on Alex, Paul & Mac. Initially i was thinking Sunday/Monday, but we'll see how it goes. I'd rather wait a few for more days rather than people start getting behind already. I'm trying to remember that some people have lives.

[Ralph]

There was a chap doing some sort of live show recently (reviewed in the newspapers - he may still be presenting it) about silent films, where he was arguing that you can only really fully experience them when watching them with a live musical accompaniment (like in a cinema of the period). I wish I could remember his name and the title of the show now. His point, from what I recall, was that they work on a different level of consciousness from later films, which gives them an integrity and realism of their own. Sorry, I'm not putting it very well. Carol would like it though, I reckon.

In fairness I did see a silent film one time with a live orchestra and it certainly does give it considerably more impact