|
Directed by: Tod Browning Starring: Bela Lugosi, Helen Chandler, David Manners, Dwight Frye, Edward Van Sloan As a brief note before I get into the actual review, I'll be referring to a specific release of Dracula that is relatively new. To pump the release of Van Helsing, Universal has rereleased impressively thorough "Legacy" collections of its classic monster film series for Dracula, Frankenstein, and The Wolf Man (the absence of the Mummy in the new Van Helsing, unfortunately, means that folks will need to wait for a similar collection). Each collection includes clear, sharp transfers of at least four films (the Frankenstein set includes five films) on two discs. The primary films all have highly illuminating - if slightly bland - commentary tracks by film historians (The Frankenstein set has two such commentaries - one for the original film and one for the much better Bride of Frankenstein). The additional bonus features are also fairly interesting and, at around $20 per set, there's no excuse for any horror fan NOT to own all three. I'll be writing reviews of the other classic Universal monster films over the coming weeks. As a technical note - ALL of these films are full screen, not because they've been edited, but because the widescreen format didn't exist until the mid-1950s. The poor kid at the Best Buy near me was sent scrambling into the back by a customer who was demanding a widescreen Wolf Man set and seemed slightly annoyed once I explained to him that he was wasting his time. Now onto the review: Tod Browning's Dracula is the second best vampire film of all time - the greatest, of course, being F.M. Murnau's silent expressionist classic Nosferatu from 1922. The character of Dracula has been portrayed in well over thirty films, making him one of the most widespread icons in all of cinema. Something about the Dracula legend appeals to (or revolts) us on a deep, primal level. The violence, the implied eroticism, the ideas of submission and control, good and evil - all of our most basic concerns and drives are combined. It's a powerful, visceral package that continues to appeal to - and haunt - the modern human psyche. Try to think back to a time in your life when you DIDN'T know who Dracula was. Lugosi's performance was the first film version of the famous vampire to appear on screen accompanied by sound. There were actually three versions of Dracula made at the same time - the "talky" standard as well as a subtitled silent counterpart and a Spanish version, filmed at night on the same sets using a completely different cast and crew (the Spanish version, which is technically superior in many ways, is included on the Universal Legacy Collection) - but something about Lugosi's forced, Hungarian accent added a new level of menace to the idea of the vampire. Because no review of mine is complete without a quote from Roger Ebert: quote:[There is]something about [Lugosi's] line readings that suggests a man who comes sideways to English--perhaps because in his lonely Transylvanian castle, Dracula has had centuries to study it but few opportunities to practice it. But beyond simply adding an awkward "outsider" feel to the character, Lugosi's performance humanized the vampire. In Stoker's original version, Dracula was not a sauve, mysterious gentlemen - he was beastial, with long, white hair, a stringy mustache, pointed ears, claws and fangs. The "true" Dracula is more animal than man and, in many ways, this makes him LESS menacing. A polite, deeply human Dracula - one we can imagine having a cordial conversation with at the theatre while Wagner's Mastersingers of Nuremberg plays in the background - is somehow more unsettling. I don't need to recount the story of the film version of Dracula at all. The story has been told so many times and the iconic imagery from Browning's film is so widespread that most of us seem to learn the mythology by osmosis, long before we ever see the films or read the book. That modern audiences are more familiar with Lugosi's rather dramatic departure from the original Stoker tale than with the actual novel itself speaks volumes regarding the film's influence. From a technical standpoint, the film is seemingly schizophrenic. While some scenes are visually impressive even by today's standards, other times we get the distinct feeling that no one is actually paying attention to what is being filmed. For example, in the aforementioned theatre scene, Dracula is speaking to his neighbor - Dr. Seward, soon after arriving in London. For no apparent reason, Lugosi is filmed on a landing well below the other actors, making him appear to be roughly four feet tall as a result. Not exactly the best way to instill fear and dread in your audience. Much of the "look" of the film was dictated by the brilliant lighting and cinematographic work of Karl Freund who, at the same time he would meticulously use pinpoint lighting for Lugosi's eyes and set up complex tracking shots to establish locations, would regularly forget to remove chunks of cardboard that had been taped to the sides of lamps during close-ups to reduce glare when the scene returned to a wide shot. The cardboard pops up regularly throughout the film - watch for it any time you see a lamp. Nevertheless, these handful of slip ups and strange directorial choices do little to diminish the film's overall impact. For some time now, the only version of Dracula that has been available has been a version with a relatively new score, written in the mid-90s by Philip Glass. This version is included in the Legacy Collection, but so is the original cut of the film which, aside from music which appears as part of the story itself, has no musical soundtrack beyond occasional atmospheric noise. Having now seen both, I can say that I certainly prefer the newer cut. Glass's score is simple, but deeply effective. Modern audiences have learned to take cues from music, especially in horror films, so the addition of a musical background restores a bit of the ominous tone that might otherwise escape the average viewer today due simply to the fact that the film isn't hyper-violent or filled with sudden jump cuts as are most recent horror films. That being said, this is not, for most modern viewers, a "scary" film. I doubt that most people over the age of ten sit up at night with visions of Lugosi's Dracula running through their heads. Generally, this is credited to the "fact" that we've been desensitized by newer, more graphic horror films. To some extent, this is probably true, but there is an additional, more compelling explanation as well. We cannot fear Dracula because we know him too well. Coppola's 1992 version of the story, though exponentially more gruesome, was not a "scary" film either. It was, of course, a very good film, but the audience was not - and I would argue COULD NOT - be frightened by the content. We already know who lives, who dies. We know what awaits our heroes and what will become of our villains. We're only along for the ride to see how the filmmaker chooses to take us to these very familiar destinations. With this in mind, it is important to recognize that we should not judge this film (or other films of its kind) based upon whether or not they "scare" us. There are moments of real and tangible dread, but they are few and far between (and often involve the rather peripheral character of Renfield, who is almost more terrifying as a mad mortal than any vampire could be). Are the works of Shakespeare made "weaker" over time because we all know that Romeo and Juliet are going to die or that Othello is about to make a huge mistake and, as a result, we can't REALLY get wrapped up in the tragedy of it all? Of course not. We return to great stories time and again because something about them speaks to us, interests us and, even when they are gruesome or tragic, comforts us by their familiarity. Dracula is, without question, one of the most important films ever made. Beautifully shot, compellingly acted and featuring a mythology near and dear to us all, there is something in it for everyone to enjoy. RATING: 5.5 PROS: Essential viewing for any fans of film in general and horror in particular. CONS: Not "scary" in a way modern audiences have come to expect. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0021814/ funtax fucked around with this message at 19:20 on May 7, 2004 |
#
?
May 7, 2004 19:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 04:36 |
|
|
I think what is most important must be to go into the film without preconcieved notions. As you said, everybody knows Dracula, but at the time of the release, Dracula was an enigmatic figure. There is a great moment where Dracula says, very simply, "I am Dracula", a line that could never be heard in any other adaptation without feeling completely and totally out of place. Even coming from this perspective nowadays the line seems a little off, but the whole mythology was set into motion by this film. Honestly, though, other than Bela Lugosi's persona, I don't know why there is so much appreciation for the original Dracula. I found it very poorly done, and way too dated in its camera work and acting, especially when compared to the other classic monster movies, and more pressing, Nosferatu. That said, I'd be interested in hearing what you thought of the Spanish version. I thought it was really ahead of its time technically, and is a lot more memorable than the English version. If only Bela Lugosi could speak Spanish would it be perfect. Rated 4/5
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2004 01:05
|
|
|
The Spanish version is, in terms of direction, vastly superior. That being said, I don't think you can honestly say that Tod Browning was an inferior director as a result. The Spanish directors - George Melford and Enrique Tovar Ávalos - had the benefit of looking at the dailies from the English shoots each evening before they started shooting. As a result, they could look at Browning's work each day, see what looked good and what could stand some improvement and work from there. While Browning and Freund had to come up with each shot and effect on their own, the Spanish team was able to simply swipe everything that worked well and redo anything that didn't without wasting any time. The Spanish Team got to make their film with a cheat sheet and, as a result, much of their version LOOKS better. In terms of performances, however, there's no question that the English version is the better production. Overall, they're both interesting and worth a viewing. The Spanish version actually includes a few scenes which were cut from the English version, so you actually get a fuller version of the intended story by watching both films.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2004 20:13
|
|
|
Pushed into runnig water
Somebody fucked around with this message at 22:59 on May 8, 2004 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2004 22:56
|
|
