Dracula (1931)
 

! :D !


Just watched this, Tod Browning is a genius.

And how ace is Bela Lugosi!

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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)

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?)

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").

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

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.

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.

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

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!!

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.

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!!

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

do you mean gary oldman and co?

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

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

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

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...

ur really mean to me return:(