MovieChat Forums > Dracula (1931) Discussion > Views From A First Time Viewer.

Views From A First Time Viewer.


Not mine, but a couple of acquaintances of mine. One is in his late twenties, the other his mid thirties, and neither had seen this version of “Dracula”. I insisted that they watch it. What was more, we even watched the Spanish version, though none of us speak Spanish. These were their impressions.

One was annoyed with the accent of the girl in the carriage in the very first scene in the English version.

Both felt that Bela’s portrayal of Dracula came off as more than a bit fey. Instead, they felt that the Spanish version’s Dracula seemed more natural acting, and more sinister.

Both felt that the Spanish version had superior cinematography, as well as editing and directing. Both complained about the abrupt ending in the English version, as well as certain cuts that left them with questions that they felt were answered in the Spanish version.

Both felt that the supporting actors were of superior caliber in the Spanish version. Not only that, they felt that the women were more attractive in the Spanish version too.

Both questioned the presence of possums and armadillos in a scene that was supposed to show off ‘scary’ creatures. Not to mention the bee in the coffin.

In short, they preferred a version in a language that they didn’t even understand, for reasons that many have expressed over the years.

I’m curious, is this the experience of others who’ve shown this movie to their buddies who’ve never seen it before?

reply

The Spanish version blows the English version out of the water in nearly all areas, EXCEPT for Dracula's actor. I have to admit Bela did a better job with what he had to work with.


How you can make the world a better place:
Don't shop at Wal-Mart.

reply

Except Dracula, Renfield, and Van Helsing, you mean. All three of those characters/actors were vastly superior in the English language version. Mina in the Spanish version is vastly superior, and the rest of the cast is interchangeable.

reply

I thought The Spanish Version Van Helsing was pretty much equal to Van Sloan's, although I especially liked that added bit where he is able to trick Dracula into thinking he has been hypnotized into putting his cross away, also his added bit at the end where he says "I shall make good on my promise to Renfield", and the shot of him praying over Renfield's body as Harker and Eva acend the stairs.

Renfield in the Spanish version was just a different take on the character, although yes, I do agree that Dwight Frye played him with a much more creepy madness whereas the Spanish one played him straight laughing mad.


How you can make the world a better place:
Don't shop at Wal-Mart.

reply

I’m curious, is this the experience of others who’ve shown this movie to their buddies who’ve never seen it before?
Somewhat, and as an undergrad with some classmates of mine who had the VHS version of it, and where I found Lupita Tovar's role as the heroine(?) in the screenplay of Stoker's novel more compelling than Chandler's ... and far more sexy :)

Yet, it nothing short of marketing savvy of Universal to produce this version; on an aside I usually host and marathon during Halloween horror on the home theater system, and recently picked up the recently released, "Universal Classic Monsters Collection (DVD)." All six (6) of the classics, of which I do not own a single copy of any (VHS, nor DVD), yet great additions to the library ... think I'll watch Boris and "Frankenstein" first.



- DominicD

"Always make the audience suffer as much as possible." - A. Hitchcock

reply

First time theatrical viewing for both versions, and first ever for the Spanish.

-When you watch this on TV, the first thing you're losing is the incredible size and detail of the castle sets along with Renfield being pulled into environments consisting of nothing but black or grey. There is a reason there are so many slow, distant shots of Dracula and Renfield at the beginning after the conventional shooting of the coach ride and village stopover--Renfield begins being dominated and controlled by the history of Dracula and his previous victims even before he can get to the castle and he stays that way through his corruption. When the film begins returning to 'normal' after the terrifying journey to England in the doomed cargo ship (as new viewers can see in the theatrical screenings this week, this scene is not in the Spanish version, only the aftermath), Lugosi's characterization has been extremely well set up in its ominous, darkly enveloping grasp.

-There is no way of continuing my impressions without communicating an incredible debt to Lugosi. The washed-out, stunningly grainy prints that were provided for infinite numbers of TV broadcasts for decades did an incredible wrong to his attempt to imbue virility, charm, and morbid focus to his interpretation (when he bends over just slightly during his first visit to the Seward household the rigid yet graceful motion and stretch of his torso and muscles indicate a fully grown man who can hold his own). Each closeup of his ghostly, icy face (which recede in number as the film proceeds) and the way they're interspersed in the editing is much more conducive to the mood and propulsion of a full theatrical presentation, and not on the shrunk, telescoped manner of a home TV monitor (the film gets more 'comfortable' and balanced--one might even say predictable--in its staging as it gets to the second half, and becomes more dependent on the 19th Century-type John Balderston narrative.)

There was criticism for decades though for some of the support cast (David Manners as John Harker was the particular target of some completely unfair opinions) and, again, an objective big-screen evaluation should rectify most if not all of that. The story though is and always will be Dracula's--the other characters have to react to him in order to convey actual human fear or dread of mortality. I have to admit for instance that I can finally understand Helen Mack's attractiveness as Mina (although I believe it was deliberately downplayed more than it could have been; the Spanish version for instance has no hesitation about even exploiting it); a correctly timed print or transfer brings out her softer and fetching physical appeal--I'm sure it was one of the reasons why she was cast--and the actress along with her sidekick Frances Dade as Lucy (for whatever reason, I figure it was director Tod Browning's influence) underplay the character's understanding of their predicaments without violating them (some audience members may actually prefer this approach to the occasional female hysteria and violence imbued in, say, the Hammer Films productions 2-4 decades later). Additionally, the problem David Manners faced was completely new for its time: how does the male romantic lead in a film gather useful information or inspire action when his lover is supposed to be dying and he has nothing central to do with its solution? My feeling based on this viewing was either himself or Tod Browning kept him--when he wasn't comforting Mina--staged as often as reasonable directly next to medical investigator Prof. Van Helsing (a marvelously pointillist performance by Edward Van Sloane, with whose parched look and edifying conclusions make him never seem outwitted by Dracula). Harker is genuinely committed to Mina throughout the runtime of the film (the formalism of the times then makes 'love' not quite the right word) and Manners serves the character in a quiet but still perceptive and masculine way, nowhere near the 'Heathcliff' approach that dates a lot of films from the thirties (in fact this is so close to 1929 that one could almost legitimately place the film in the Twenties).

-In comparison to the Spanish version directed--one might say 'assembled'--by George Melford, this viewer will always give Browning's the prize. Melford at first seems like he indeed is directing the 'real' Dracula movie instead of the English version, and at first the brighter shots, additional extras, and dedicated views of the characters walking within the sets make one genuinely excited at a new rare find, like Tutkanhamen's Tomb or Welles' original preview cut of THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS. But within minutes, a sad but agreeable, muddling realization is forming. Certainly, the Spanish Dracula deserves at least one viewing in life for such an admirable acknowledgment of the growing Spanish market, and such actors as Carlos Villarias as Dracula, Lupita Tovar as Eva nee' Mina, and the beefy Eduardo Arozamena as Van Helsing seems like they will soon coalesce like the Browning version into the tightly-grouped, charismatic ensemble contained in its English-language counterpart. Instead, it almost feels like Melford was auditioning to work at MGM with a horror film that Irving Thalberg would like. The film doesn't seem at all to relate in a witty or horribly frightening way to Stoker, although it tries to be 'well-staged' and sexually compelling in a way American films could not have equalled. Villarias' vampire (one has to admit there were almost no screen vampires of the time to work beyond) seems more comparable to a crazed mummers' theatrical idea of the character, more comparable to the chillingly-grinning visage of Conrad Veidt in THE MAN WHO LAUGHS than an emissary from the underworld.

-Finally, the audience I viewed this film with--and one has to understand live theatrical stage concepts being introduced into sound horror films--was quietly accepting and non-critical of either film, and it was great to see both much more the way they were intended.

reply

Good comments, "Southbase". However, Mina is played by Helen Chandler and not Helen Mack (she's in Son of Kong).

reply

Thank you for the correction; I should also note my admiration of a biographical article I have from several years ago on Ms. Chandler from the magazine "Cult Movies."

reply

Lugosi is much more sinister than his Spanish counterpart. But the Spanish version is otherwise far superior, yes.

--
LBJ's mistress on JFK:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcXeutDmuRA


reply

[deleted]

I'll be 47 in less than a month, but I've never seen any of the classic Universal movies until now. They were often on TV when I was a kid in the 70s, they just didn't interest me in the slightest, didn't see them as relevant. As a little kid, I remember my friends being all over them, I just wasn't. It was only in the last 10-15 years that I've finally developed a taste for old black & white movies, including really old silent stuff.

Over the last week or so I've watched Frankenstein, Bride of Frankenstein, Dracula, The Wolf Man, and the Mummy. Nice to finally see these icons, but frankly they don't exactly set my soul on fire. Thing is, I don't mind because I didn't expect them to. They're a fun diversion, for a little over an hour. That's the one thing that struck me watching these- feature movies used to be pretty damn short!

reply

I think the cast was better in the American version but the writing, characters, and story were done slightly better in the Spanish version. Both versions have their strengths and sort of accent each other in my opinion.

reply

Wait, I just realized the Spanish version re-did everything with their own actors? I thought the Spanish version simply dubbed over this one, yikes, no wonder I was confused on another thread.

reply

Yes, the English-language cast and crew would use the sets during the day and then the Spanish-language cast and crew would come in at night and film their scenes. Both versions even had different directors, but the script was the same and the Spanish team was told to essentially make the same film, just with their own actors.

I have only seen clips from the Spanish version and so I can't really offer an opinion on it. But I know that many people prefer it.

reply

Now I am curious about the Spanish version, does it have english subtitles? Which version do you prefer?

reply

It does have subtitles, yes. If you get the actual DVD or Blu-Ray then it should have both the English and Spanish versions of the film.

As I mentioned, I have only seen a few clips from the Spanish version, so not enough to judge the film by. I remember thinking it seemed like a fine version of the film, though I did make the mental note that Dwight Frye as Renfield in the English version was superior.

I have been meaning to go back and watch the Spanish version but just haven't done it yet. However, I think you should give it a look.

reply

Oh, I missed your last sentence sorry. Yes, I think I'll give the Spanish version a try and look-see! :)

reply

If you do, let me know what you think!

reply

I will, I promise! :)

reply