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

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

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

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??

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.

shrek was a funny movie:D

Yeah, almost as funny as NOSFERATU!

Have you read Dracula?

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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!

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.

I wholehearditly disagree- please explain.

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.

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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.

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...

yawn!

that was anal retentive and boring

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.

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.

Again, we agree on something...

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

I disagree completely.

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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:

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!!!

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.

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!!

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