Main Feature Synopsis – Dracula (1931)

Shawn's Impressions
Everyone who knows my tastes knows that there are few things in this wide world of cinema that light my fire more than vampires. Vampires are just beyond awesome in my eyes, and I am biased enough that I will watch anything with a vampire in it at least once. The Lost Boys… Vampire In Brooklyn… Once Bitten… My Best Friend is a Vampire… Oh yeah, I watched them all – multiple times. So, having watched so many good, and even more bad, vampire films, I feel ashamed to admit it, but I was never a big fan of Tod Browning’s Dracula, and can’t share in the almost universal enthusiasm for it.

Now, don’t get me wrong. All of the historical context, all the importance it holds in cinematic history – I get that. Lugosi is the quintessential vampire and he looks fantastic doing vampiric things… like staring, and… staring some more. Lugosi is Count Dracula… it’s just so sad that the most influential Dracula ever is given no direction and therefore does little of any interest, aside from making the stills of the film look far scarier than the end product. Scenes where Dracula slowly descends on his victim are very effective, but that’s all they are – scenes. But I don’t for a moment blame Lugosi; I blame Browning.

Dracula, plainly and simply, does not move. This isn’t an altogether uncommon trait in films of the time; many directors and staff coming to Hollywood from Broadway just weren’t versed in how to effectively move the camera. This was certainly the case for Browning (and some will argue that he didn’t know how to look through the camera either). Nearly 90% of the film as it exists now was shot with a static camera, and only a small percentage of those scenes are effective. In comparison, the atmospheric scenes shot by Karl Freund, such as the slow tracking shot toward the crypt when we first enter Dracula’s Transylvanian home, are as different from Browning’s as night and day. While these scenes obviously took quite a bit of inspiration from Murnau’s Nosferatu, a masterwork of not only German Expressionism, but also of the horror and silent genres as a whole, there simply aren’t enough of them to engage the viewer. Not to mention that the film is essentially scoreless, which only makes the scenes that lag… really lag.

But before it sounds like I’m bashing a classic, there are some truly exceptional things in this film aside from Lugosi’s screen presence and the beautiful tracking shots. Foremost, there is Renfield. The way that Dwight Frye plays Renfield, Dracula’s ill-fated real estate agent, is by far my favorite thing about the film, and the number one reason I keep coming back to it. Renfield’s slow descent into a manic state, obedient to Dracula and yet unwilling to take a human as his victim, is one of the most memorable performances in classic cinema. His “Rats!” monologue, specifically, is one of horror’s all-time greats. Not to be outdone, Edward Van Sloan’s portrayal of Van Helsing is fantastic, and his banter with Dracula is one of the few sequences to add any depth to our undead Count. This scene is enough to erase even Hugh Jackman’s portrayal of the character from your mind, if the two years since Van Helsing debuted didn’t do that on their own.

All criticism aside, Tod Browning’s Dracula (along with James Whale’s Frankenstein) is required viewing for both fans of horror and classic cinema. Its influence on literally every vampire film that has followed is undeniable, and seeing this will bring you back to a time when there was no such thing as a horror cliché. In 75 years, Lugosi’s Dracula remains unchallenged by all others who have donned the cape. I don’t think there was ever better casting for a horror movie villain. He’s magnificent, even if the movie is not.

Cary's Impressions
You say “toe-may-toe.” I say “toe-mah-toe.”

Universal’s horror franchises of the 1930’s are the movies that I cut my teeth on as a child and, in terms of film history, it’s hard to deny the importance of what Tod Browning brought to the screen in 1931. For one, you get some amazing sets. Just look at the size of that staircase when Dracula first appears! Look at the barren, rocky wastes of the Borgo Pass! Look at the cobwebbed emptiness of the crypt with its giant arches and scattered coffins!  From this point forward, these were the very definitions of the vampire’s lair.

Next, you have the happy accident of Browning’s apprehension about working with sound. Browning’s insistence on using no more than a hint of a score means long passages of silence are scattered throughout the picture, ultimately making the movie creepier. Nothing is more unsettling than silence. Additionally, his insistence on keeping the shooting relatively static means that when cinematographer Karl Freund uses tracking shots in the film, they stand out and are extremely effective at pulling the viewer in.

What truly makes this a classic, though, is the cast. Dwight Frye plays Renfield in a way that even Tom Waits couldn’t top in the 1992 remake. Edward Van Sloan is the first person to portray Professor Van Helsing on the screen and his take on the character provided the template for Peter Cushing’s unforgettable portrayal in the Hammer films.

Finally, all of them pale in comparison to Bela Lugosi in a role he was born to play. There is arguably no one in the history of film who has made a role their own as well as Lugosi did with Dracula. Lugosi’s vocal inflections have been imitated to the point of cliché. His intense stare set the bar impossibly high for almost every person to play the character from that point forward.  Say what you want about the technical points of this film, but Lugosi fucking rules and the film made him an icon.

When the film first played in 1931, audiences had truly never seen anything like it before. It was the first horror “talkie” and, in large part due to Lugosi’s delivery, there is a sexual tension that runs through the movie. More importantly, not all of it was heterosexual in nature, which added to the horror element. Lugosi became, as one historian put it, “wanted by women and feared by men.” After all, what could be more horrible to an American male in the 1930s than to be overpowered and given a fatal hickey by another male… especially a European male.

The Universal Legacy release of this film brings that all home in a big way, not only through the feature but also through the extras provided. It’s the most comprehensive release this film has seen, as we’ll discuss below. The only drawback is that the transfer is lacking. Still, if you are going to buy just one of the Universal Legacy sets, this is the one you need most in your collection.

Bonus Feature Films: Each of the Legacy Collections contains the original Universal sequels to the film. What follows is Shawn and Cary’s conversation about those films.

Drácula (1931) – Spanish Version

Synopsis
Filmed at the same time as the original 1931 English version (they used the same sets, shooting only at night), this version stars Carlos Villarias as Dracula, Lupita Tovar as Eva (this version’s Mina) and Pablo Alvarez Rubio as Professor Van Helsing. This version, directed by George Melford and shot by cinematographer George Robinson, is considered a better film technically by many.

Cary:  Of the two versions, you said that you liked this one best, correct?

Shawn: Out of the two, yes - most definitely. It's nearly thirty minutes longer, but you'd never notice since they cover the same ground, only the Spanish version does so with more style.

Cary: I would agree with you there. I did notice that there are a few places in the Spanish version where you get a touch more explanation and insight into the characters. Technically, this is superior to the Tod Browning version, but the actors in Browning's version are better. To me, Carlos Villarias comes across as an actor playing a part more than Lugosi, who really completely embodies the role. For example, there's the scene when Dracula smashes the cigar box with the mirror in the lid. Villiarias plays the scene almost like a stage actor would, telegraphing his reaction completely, where Lugosi's actions are more vicious and organic.

Shawn: Which is ironic in a way, since Lugosi's mannerisms otherwise are very stage acted. Villiarias certainly is no Lugosi. I can agree with that. On the other hand, I thought Tovar did a fine job with her role, which seemed to have more impact than the American counterpart.
I loved how the females are more sexed up than in the American film, and being a shallow sexist male, this only led to my enjoyment.

Cary: Lupita Tovar = Babe. In my opinion, though, the more sexually aware atmosphere of the Spanish version works against it. I think the English version (in its day) connected on a horror level better because what Dracula was doing was such a violation. With the Spanish version, that's diminished some. I mean, dressed like that... Lupita is just asking for it. Right?

Shawn: Yes, she's asking for my repeat viewings. That's for sure. Vampirism, as a whole, is very sexual in nature. While it's true that Stoker's novel isn't quite so sexual, the actual acts truly are. This is why the Spanish version works in my opinion. While the American one does score points for its homoeroticism (which in 1931 was extremely unique), it all goes out the window when Lugosi speaks. The Count on Sesame Street has about as much sex appeal.

Cary: Whoa Hoss! Who hasn't fantasized about getting butt-slammed by The Count?

“One!  HAHAHAHA... Two!   HAHAHAHA…  Three! Three hip thrusts!              HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!! (Insert thunder sound)”

Shawn: I also want to mention that neither the American nor Spanish version use Dracula's three wives enough. This is somewhat rectified in the 1992 version. In the original, they weren't seen at all aside from when Lugosi walks into the room and waves his "Bitch, please," hands at them, indicating that Renfield is his.

Cary:  Agreed on the three wives. The 1992 remake did use them extremely well. That’s something that I think you have to walk a fine line with, though. I mean, neither of the 1931 versions did it well, but the seductiveness of the three wives should be exploited to show the audience how easy it is to fall into the vampire’s trap. Ultimately, though, you want the movie to be a horror movie, not a skin flick. To me, that’s where many vampire flicks have gone wrong. I don’t know how many movies I’ve seen where, when the vampire girls finally reveal their true nature, I just think, “I’d still hit that.”

Shawn: Ever wonder how that boat even made it to London if Drac and Renfield killed everyone off?

Cary: I've made it back home in a boat while really drunk so it can't be that much more difficult to do it dead.

Shawn: Yeah, but that was your house, and your boat was an Impala. Drac had never been to England previously. Did eating rats make Renfield a fine navigator?

Cary: Seriously though, aside from the 75th anniversary edition that's coming out, the inclusion of this version really is all the reason you need to pick up the Legacy set. Everything else we're going to talk about here is just gravy.

Shawn: Agreed. Watching the original and then the Spanish version is an incredible treat. Very few films can be viewed in such a manner.

Cary: The same cannot be said of Dracula's Daughter.

Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Next >