MovieChat Forums > Drácula (1931) Discussion > They should've gotten Bela Lugosi to do ...

They should've gotten Bela Lugosi to do this one as well ...


After all, at the time "Dracula" was filmed, he was not at all fluent in English and spoke his lines phonetically. One wonders why they couldn't have had him do the same in Spanish. In addition, due to the region he was from, he probably spoke some (or was even fluent in) Romanian, which of course is a Romance language, thus speaking Spanish lines wouldn't have been too much of a problem, and probably much easier than English.

I mention this only because the film overall is very good, but the Spanish-speaking Dracula is absolutely horrible and makes viewing this one rather difficult.

reply

I find it interesting that SO many people like this version better then the English one.
I saw both and found this one way boring.
LONG LIVE BELA!

Trust me,
Swan

reply

It's been a very long time since we've seen this, but as I recall, the actor playing Renfield, and the writing for him, was extremely sympathetic, and I kind of liked that.

reply

[deleted]

Yeah it does kind of make you wonder. I love everything about this movie better than the American movie except for one thing, no Lugosi. Carlos Villarias is still great though. Overall I think this movie is still better and whether or not Lugosi is in this is not important.

I walk into Mordor.

reply

I think they made the right decision in casting Carlos Villarias as Dracula in this. Though I still find the English version better.

reply

They filmed at night when the American crew shut down, so Bela would have had to stay awake for weeks if he were in both! ;)

reply

He does look rather constipated throughout.

"In my case, self-absorption is completely justified."

reply

It is a myth that he spoke his lines phonetically - he was already performing Dracula as a stage production, which this film was based on.




My short films: http://www.youtube.com/user/jthix2554/videos?flow=grid&view=0

reply

I think both films compliment each other. The Spanish version did not have Karl Freund as the DOP but George Robinson did a good job copying him and trying to outdo him. Some of the takes were a bit clumsy but they were pretty good for their time.

The Spanish version was more fleshed out and the supporting cast gave better performances especially Lupita Tovar and Barry Norton. I loved the interpretation of Renfield so I could take either one. Liked both Van Helsing characters too. Carlos Villarias was a fine Dracula, though he was no match for Lugosi.

It was cool they showed the mist and Dracula rising from his coffin in the Spanish but I do thing showing the hand through the slit and then Lugosi in full appearance was more effective but if they did that in the Spanish film it would just look they wanted to copy it.

What made the Spanish film so great is that they try to outdo the English and in many ways they can. So it is a pleasure to watch both. Like "what if they did this, instead of that." Not too many movies give you that opportunity.

reply

As someone previously mentioned, I think it's one of those legendary Hollywood fables that Bela had to speak his lines phonetically. It's much like the myth that Lon Chaney Sr. would have played Dracula in 1931 had he been alive.

As for Spanish Drac--as I said already in my review for the film--I think it's an ok movie, but hardly the scathing critique of the English film that some critics and fans have made it out to be. Anyone who ever accused Bela of being a "ham actor" should take in Carlos Villarias as Conde Drácula.


reply