The Dracula Movies.

[Wayne]

Well, come the midnight hour i'll be watching the 1931 film, so it's time to change the avatar & sig-pic.

[Wayne]

Dracula (1931)

Having watched a lot of the old Universal horror classics recently, i considered myself suitably prepared for this outing. Especially having enjoyed even more so than i thought i would, particular films like 'Frankenstein' (1931), 'The Bride of Frankenstein' (1935), & 'The Mummy' (1932), i was fully expecting to get on fine with this movie. But to be honest, i was a bit disappointed. Strange as it may sound, this 1931 'talkie' came across to me as far more 'dated' than 'Nosferatu', despite being a silent movie made 9 years earlier!
A lot of this is down to the fact that most of the performances come over as very theatrical, & to be honest i didn't really warm to to the way Bela Lugosi in particular plays the role. I've only seen his Dracula once, & it was a long, long time ago, & i was hoping that he wouldn't appear so hammy as i remembered, but i just find him a bit unconvincing. As a Hungarian actor Lugosi had the genuine accent for the role, but it's odd because he seems to deliver some lines in the fairly typical melodramatic fashion that you would expect from movies of this era, & yet other lines seemed to be delivered in a rather wooden, flat, stoccato style. Such lines as: "I have chartered a ship to take us to England. We will be leaving....... tomorrow....... evening" are heavy with melodramatic pauses, & yet spoken almost monotone. It's a strange combination, & to me it just comes across a bit wooden.

To be fair to Lugosi, He's not all bad. He does have a certain screen presence, & does manage to give the Count a certain distinctive, insiduous appeal, but whilst he succeeds in that one dimension, the character of Dracula as Stoker had written him, wasn't so one-dimensional. For some unfathomable reason, this version uses the character of Renfield instead of Harker, who first arrives at the castle, & in the novel Harker is put at ease by Dracula, as described in the book: "The light & warmth of the Count's courteous welcome seemed to have dissiapted all my fears". Lugosi doesn't quite capture these elements, even though some aspects of the Count's friendliness are scripted in the scenes where Renfield arrives at the castle, Lugosi still comes over as a bit of a cardboard villian that lacks the character's depth. Perhaps i'm being a bit harsh on Lugosi in drawing comparisons to the novel. Anyone who's read any Stephen King will know how difficult it is for film & tv/adapations to live up to a lengthy, in-depth novel. Perhaps Lugosi was trying to show the malevolence of the character that lurks underneath, but there's a striking difference in the way that Lee's Dracula is later portrayed in these scenes. (But i musn't get ahead of myself)

Anyway, there are other factors that i like about the initial scenes at the castle Dracula. Visually, i think it works rather well. I like the dark & dank look of the place, complete with sprawling cobwebs everywhere, adding to the real decrepit feel of the place, which fits with the way it's put across in the book, as opposed to the colourful, well kept, almost lavish furnishings of the Hammmer version. Also, Dracula's 3 brides make their first screen appearance, but unfortunately they're not used to great effect, They're just a bit of window dressing really. The confrontation between Dracula & the brides who have gone after Harker is totally omitted, & toned down to Dracula merely waving them away as they approach. Also notable is Dwight Frye, who, taking into account the style of this era does rather well as Renfield, i think. I find his character quite realistic & convincing.

In spite of the criticisms i've made so far, the first 20mins are some of the best scenes in the film IMO, whereas in 'Nosferatu', i felt that things didn't really get going for about 20mins. Unfortunately, i feel that the reverse is also true. For me, this movie started to feel a bit slow after the first 20mins. Granted, Dracula's first victim after he arrives in England is done quite well, with the nice lighting effect shining onto Lugosi's eyes adding to the sense of malevolence, but much of the scenes at the Sanatourium i rather struggled through them. I thought it fell a bit on the dull side until the next notable scene for me, where Dracula finally meets up with Van Helsing, who tricks Dracula into opening the mirror box. I have to admit that i also find Edward Van Sloan's portrayal of Van Helsing a bit hammy, compared to many of the later portrayals, but it has to be remembered that most of these guys were stage actors, so it's bound to come through in the very early 'talkies' that were starting to be made in this period. However, i do quite like the stand-off between Dracula & Van Helsing where Dracula fails to hypnotize him, & Van Helsing pulls the cross out on him. But i can't ignore the fact that although there are a few likeable bits interspersed throughout, this movie just seems to plod along & doesn't have much flair to it at all after the scenes at the castle, & the ending (or lack of one) feels like a real let down.

One thing that seriously hinders this movie altogether is the total lack of music. There are many scenes that fall flat which a bit of dramatic or atmospheric music would've livened up. Even the good bits which i like, would've sounded so much better with some incidental music to underscore the mood. Ironically, the box set contains a disc with a score added by composer Philip Glass set to the film. I watched some of the scenes on that version to see how it comes across, but in my personal opinion, i don't think the music was that great, & it was hampered further by the relatively poor quality of the original soundtrack which meant that in parts you couldn't hear the dialogue as clearly as you should've been able to.

All in all , i think this is a relatively poor outing for Universal. Considering that 'Frankenstein' was made in the same year, & 'The Mummy' only a year later, These are much better films than Universal's 'Dracula', if you ask me. They don't feel half as slow as this film, & for my money, Karloff could act Lugosi off the screen. Coming after 'Nosferatu', this movie is a bit of a damp squib, IMO. I much prefer Murnau's silent movie over this! It does have a few redeeming qualities, but taking into consideration everything i've mentioned, & the overall enjoyability factor, I can only give this movie a score of 5/10

[Paul Monk]

Haven't watched it yet but I do have a few comments on your post Wayne.

A lot of this is down to the fact that most of the performances come over as very theatrical,

Its interesting you say this because this film is based on a stage play that Lugosi had been in for sometime.

As a Hungarian actor Lugosi had the genuine accent for the role, but it's odd because he seems to deliver some lines in the fairly typical melodramatic fashion that you would expect from movies of this era, & yet other lines seemed to be delivered in a rather wooden, flat, stoccato style. Such lines as: "I have chartered a ship to take us to England. We will be leaving....... tomorrow....... evening" are heavy with melodramatic pauses, & yet spoken almost monotone. It's a strange combination, & to me it just comes across a bit wooden.

Apparently Lugosi's grasp of English wasn't that good and he had to learn a lot of the lines phonetically hence his odd pronounciactions of some words and weird delivery.

[Wayne]

Its interesting you say this because this film is based on a stage play that Lugosi had been in for sometime.

Apparently Lugosi's grasp of English wasn't that good and he had to learn a lot of the lines phonetically hence his odd pronounciactions of some words and weird delivery.

Yes, i was aware of these factors from the documentary which is on the disc, but i got the impression that the 'phonetic' thing was earlier on in his career when he first arrived in Hollywood. However, it's true that his grasp of english probably had an effect on his delivery.
Have you seen this version of Dracula many times, Paul?

[Ralph]

I watched this last night also and fell asleep during it and had to "rewind".... I'll give more thoughts later but I pretty muchg agree with most of what you've said Wayne. It's not going to get a good rating from me....

[Wayne]

That's twice in 2 films so far that Ralph's fell asleep! Poor old bugger.

[Paul Monk]

Have you seen this version of Dracula many times, Paul?

I'm not sure how many times. Probably at least 3 but not enough to remember it off by heart. It'll be good to see it again.
I'm looking forward to the next one in the sequence. Haven't seen that for a while either.

[MacNimon]

Well, I enjoyed it! Admittedly it's not quite as good as The Mummy or those other Universal films I've watched recently, but I enjoyed it all the same. I really didn't expect this to be that great, to be honest, as I think it was one of the first Universal horror films (I'm really not sure what came first, this or Frankenstein) and as such it could be looked upon as a pilot film of sorts. Just like with a tv series pilot, it's an opportunity for studio execs to see how well a concept works on screen, and how to improve things for the next outing. Unfortunately I can't compare it to Frankenstein (made that same year) at the moment until I get a chance to watch that film again.

So I really didn't gp into this with great expectations. There were several things I was pleased to see which were noticably missing from Nosferatu...notably the first mention of stakes, and the ability of vampires to transform into bats. I've never read the novel, so I really don't know whether these iconic notions were lifted from Stoker's novel, or were created specially for this film. Also, I like the look of Lugosi's Dracula...although he doesn't appear as evil as Max Shrek's Nosferatu, there's no way that character would have been able to walk around in public like Lugosi's Dracula did. It's just too bad that Lugosi's acting isn't particularly great in this outing...and yes, perhaps he did have the right accent for the part, but sadly he just wasn't particularly effective. This film would have worked much better if he had fewer lines, and had been portrayed simply as a mysterious figure who appeared in the night.

For some unfathomable reason, this version uses the character of Renfield instead of Harker, who first arrives at the castle

Thanks for clearing that up, Wayne. I thought it should have been Harker who went to Dracula's castle at the start, but it's been so long since I watched any version of the Dracula story that I couldn't be sure. I was puzzled to start with, because I thought at the time that Harker (ie Renfield) didn't look much like the David Manners who appeared in The Black Cat. All soon became clear though, when the character went insane. I think that this makes more sense than the equivalent scenes in Nosferatu, though...ie it's the person who actually visits Dracula's castle who goes mad, rather than the person who sent him there.

Although it's nowhere near perfect, I enjoyed this more than I expected to...unfortunately the pacing is pretty uneven all the way through, and I think the film comes to a pretty sudden conclusion (not story-wise, but in terms of pacing). But I like the sets and the overall atmosphere of the film. I'm finding this really hard to rate...I want to give it a high score because I enjoyed it despite it's faults, but I don't want to give it that high a score because of it's faults. I think 6/10 is a fair score for this.

[Wayne]

To just backtrack slighty to Alex's review - I'm glad you enjoyed it Alex. Clearly you liked it better than i did overall, but there were a couple of plus points that we both picked up on:

The way they light him, and especially his eyes, is very effective, as is the way he slowly creeps towards his victims.


It has a great beginning, with a superb performace from the actor who plays Renfield - his insanity is carefully handled and works really well

I especially agree about Dwight Frye's Renfield. I thought he did that very well.

The odd bit of bad acting spoils things too - the guy who plays Martin who works at the Sanitorium is really appalling ("He's craaaaazy")

I agree on this, too. He was particularly OTT wasn't he?

[Wayne]

I'm glad you got quite a bit out of it too, Mac. I enjoyed reading your thoughts

it was one of the first Universal horror films (I'm really not sure what came first, this or Frankenstein)

Dracula came first, but it was slightly eclipsed by the runaway success of 'Frankenstein' which came shortly after.

notably the first mention of stakes, and the ability of vampires to transform into bats. I've never read the novel, so I really don't know whether these iconic notions were lifted from Stoker's novel, or were created specially for this film.

I knew i should've read the novel again before starting these films. Whilst i can remember quite a few specific things about the novel, (some of which have been highlighted by listening to the sections of Christopher Lee's audiobook that appears in the bonus features on the Jess Franco dvd) It's a long time since i've read it & i'm not 100% sure of this i admit.
I seem to recall that Dracula had a command over animals, might've changed himself into a wolf rather than bat, but i could be remembering something from one the films there.
Maybe someone like Ant will be able to clear that up, as he did for his A-Level.

Also, I like the look of Lugosi's Dracula...although he doesn't appear as evil as Max Shrek's Nosferatu, there's no way that character would have been able to walk around in public like Lugosi's Dracula did. It's just too bad that Lugosi's acting isn't particularly great in this outing...and yes, perhaps he did have the right accent for the part, but sadly he just wasn't particularly effective. This film would have worked much better if he had fewer lines, and had been portrayed simply as a mysterious figure who appeared in the night.

I agree. My most positive reactions to Lugosi in the movie were on the visual side. IMO, most of his shortcomings are down to his delivery & acting style, rather than his 'look', or indeed considerable on-screen presence that he achieved.

[Logo Polish]

Dracula (1931)

I found this somewhat lacking in action and pace...rather static and talky for much of the time, with seemingly little going on, and a lot of the action telegraphed or implied offscreen. Toward the latter half especially, there's an awful lot of not-very-charismatic actors discussing the situation at what seems like great length, which seriously dilutes the film's impact.

I agree with Wayne about the best bits being near the start, where there is some tension and foreboding racked up over Renfield's visit to the Count (unusual for it not to be Harker taking this role, as noted). Dwight Frye gives possibly the best or most memorable performance in the film, with a sort of soft-spoken earnestness that emphasises his role as the innocent victim. There are also some cavernous sets and doomy lighting with help maintain the threatening quality of his surroundings (Although the prop bats are unfortunate, and it's likely a comment on what was considered appropriate at the time that the film quickly draws back from any erotic overtones that might attend the women approaching him (and indeed, Dracula's own later approaches to his female victims)).

I can't quite work out if Renfield has been deliberately sent mad by Dracula as part of his plans, or if it's a side effect of being possessed in some way. Either way, it is one of the more chilling aspects of the film, the way in which he's reduced to a cringing wild-eyed wreck of a man, fawning and supplicating himself to Dracula, bearing in mind the contrast to the politely determined person he is at the start of the film.

Bela Lugosi has an excellent stare, captured to good effect in well-lit close-ups throughout the film, although his acting, like many in the film, is rather minimalist and repressed. It's quite a contrast to the effervescent style often seen in silent films. Here, almost everyone seems terribly controlled and cautious, usually only expressing as little emotion or passion as necessary. And the ones who are free to give a larger performance often come across as forced, such as the actor playing Martin, who sounds suspiciously like someone trying hard to do a cockney impression, rather than the real thing.

This is the first of these films to give a prominent role to the Van Helsing part, and here he is depicted as something of a conscientious paternal elder gentleman. Again, we don't get to see that much of Dracula getting Mina under his control, so a lot of the drama has to be carried by the concern and griek expressed by the actors, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of chemistry onscreen, which limits the impact a bit. The ending is quite dramatic and even spectacular, with that huge spiral staircase and hall, and Dracula getting a stake hammered into him, another first in these films, as pointed out by Mac.

It's not that bad a film, for its time, I suppose, although not that great either. It lacks the flow and energy of Nosferatu, and isn't quite as strong on imagery, so tends to suffer by comparison.

[Wayne]

I ejoyed reading your thoughts, Logo. As usual your descriptive talents put across some good points. I particularly agree with these two points, which sum up my own feelings even more accurately than i put it myself.

I found this somewhat lacking in action and pace...rather static and talky for much of the time, with seemingly little going on, and a lot of the action telegraphed or implied offscreen. Toward the latter half especially, there's an awful lot of not-very-charismatic actors discussing the situation at what seems like great length, which seriously dilutes the film's impact.

Dwight Frye gives possibly the best or most memorable performance in the film, with a sort of soft-spoken earnestness that emphasises his role as the innocent victim.

[Wayne]

Carol was champing at the bit the other day, & now she's nowhere to be seen.

[Carol Baynes]

Dracula (Todd Browning, 1931)

Todd Browning's 1931 version of "Dracula" is a classic for many reasons, but especially for the way it came to define the character of the Count in the popular imagination. Lugosi's interpretation of Dracula is definitive in some ways, and has influenced most of the performances made later, by other actors. Add to that the rather creepy atmosphere pervading much of the film, and you have a horror picture that has endured. To a modern audience it isn't all that scary, but it leaves much to the imagination, which is no bad thing.

The long periods of silence in the film also help give a far more eerie atmosphere in my opinion. There is actually a version with a different soundtrack, and a score created in 1999 which apparently doesn't do justice to the film (matter of opinion again, of course). The production design (especially Castle Dracula) is generally sumptuous. The sets look a little stagy (like the acting) but this is to be expected for the time(and particularly here, in an adaptation of a stage play version). Sadly, I have to say once we pass the very impressive and suitably cinematic opening in Transylvania and the castle, we then return to the London home of Mina (Helen Chandler) and Jonathan Harker (David Manners), and everything becomes far less visually exciting and (again) rather too stagy.

Also on the downside, I do find it too slow in places and the theatrical style presentation I mentioned can undo much of the possible conviction of the performances. Many of the performances here are far too mannered and as wooden as the dressing, although there are exceptions. Universal horror regular Edward Van Sloan is very engaging as Van Helsing, and Dwight Frye almost upstages Lugosi as a very loopy Renfield (given a larger role here than in more faithful versions of the novel). Chandler and Manners fill their roles well enough, but are often too affected for my taste.
Bela Lugosi's performance, however, is the key to the film's success. Easy now to mock his theatrical gestures and accent, but as far as this is from the Bram Stoker original, this is a captivating central performance from a true Eastern European. Lugosi, never topped his success here, and only played Dracula twice on screen, but his interpretation is the version of Dracula that most readily springs to mind, accent, gestures, cape and all. His take on Dracula is no where near as horrific as Max Shreck in "Nosferatu" (and the film he's in is no where near as impressive) but it's a very captivating performance nevertheless.

Ultimately "Dracula" is all too apparently a film version of a stage play, made at the beginning of the sound era. This gives the whole production many of the qualities of a stage production, thereby wasting much of the potential of the film medium. Perhaps outside of Hollywood the film would have been more experimental and subversive, perhaps with blood and death on display and less action talked about and not shown (although much of that is to do with what was then acceptable). The film also has a very abrupt ending that may leave a modern audience feeling a bit cheated. Bit despite it's dated qualities and flawed presentation, "Dracula" remains an atmospheric and highly influential version of the story, and one that started the great tradition of 1930s horror film-making from Universal pictures. It's an old classic, it's silver images lulling us into a comfortable nostalgic viewing experience, while retaining some of the eerie menace the 1931 audience would have felt.

[Wayne]

Excellent review Carol, with many good points.
I agree with you about the version with the new score. (That's assuming you mean the Philip Glass score). Much as i've bemoaned the lack of incidental music in this movie, i agree the score doesn't do it justice.
I think you're right about the reasons for the 'stageyness' of this production, but it's ironic that (speaking personally) i find it a lot more difficult to deal with than Murnau's silent movie, which IMO somehow manages to have far more of a timeless quality than the 1931 outing. Or perhaps it's just the fact that it's simply a superior film.

[MacNimon]

Lugosi, never topped his success here, and only played Dracula twice on screen, but his interpretation is the version of Dracula that most readily springs to mind, accent, gestures, cape and all

This is the image of Dracula that most people associate with the character, regardless of the actor playing the part. Which is possibly the film's true legacy...it defined once and for all the image of Dracula in the public eye. Even the Marvel comics title from the 1970s based their version of the character on this look.





BTW, how many actors have actually played the character (in films at least?)
I've got to admit that once I get past Lugosi and Lee, I'd really be struggling to name many of them. Offhand, there's Jack Palance, Gerald Butler, David Hamilton and on tv, Louis Jordan. But that's about it!

[Paul Monk]

Off the top of my head, Frank Langella, Gary Oldman, John Forbes-Robertson, Udo Kier.

There are loads more I'm sure.

[Wayne]

BTW, how many actors have actually played the character (in films at least?)
I've got to admit that once I get past Lugosi and Lee, I'd really be struggling to name many of them. Offhand, there's Jack Palance, Gerald Butler, David Hamilton and on tv, Louis Jordan. But that's about it!

I know there have probably been quite a few others besides the ones in my list on Page 1, as the character of 'Dracula' has appeared in everything from 'Abbot & Costello Meet Frakenstein', (which features Lugosi's second & final appearance as Dracula) to 'Van Helsing', But i must admit i'm not aware of the Gerald Butler & David Hamilton versions.

[Paul Monk]

I forgot Leslie Neilson and that fat bloke from The Chase!

[MacNimon]

David Hamilton was in a Dracula spoof which I forget the name of, at the moment. As for Gerald Butler, I've never seen him as the character but it's just one of those things I remember reading about. I could easily be wrong about this, though.

[MacNimon]

It was George Hamilton, not David, that I was thinking of. The film was Love At First Bite.

[Anthony Williams]

I shall be reviewing the film later tonight, after I've had some dinner

Ant x

[Wayne]

I'll look forward to reading that later, Ant.

[Ralph]

There's very good reviews on here however I'm now going to lower the tone by demanding some entertainment value again....

In all honesty this 1931 movie was somewhat dull and uninspiring to me. The best part I reckon is Lugosi's close up shots on his face as he does his hypnotic stare. However I can't say I'm that impressed by Lugosi's overall impact as Dracula, he's pretty wooden but I guess this was the acting style of the era. The film's best sets are the castle and overall I'd say the first half hour of the movie is the best it offers and then it's steadily downhill from there. I started off thinking I might enjoy it but I gradually felt myself declining into a subconcious state..

How sympathetic should we be to the era? I guess so far I'm probably being quite hard on these first two movies - I'm looking at them purely from an entertainment value in present times. My conclusion on this one is that it has dated badly. It is isn't helped much by the soundtrack which I found handicaps the film quite considerably and it quite clearly lacks an atmospheric score which makes all the difference to this genre of movies.

[Wayne]

It's good to get your views, Ralph!
Just for the record, No-one here is obliged to like these movies, but it's always appreciated when someone takes the time to write a bit of something about what it was that failed to inspire their imaginations or not enjoy much, as you just have done.
It's more interesting to read than 'i fell asleep', & contributes to the spirit of discussion, which is what threads like these are about.
My attitude is: 'say whatever you like, but say something'.
Anyway, i hope that you'll get more out of these movies as we start to move into the more modern era.