Dracula (1931).

Review #1733: Dracula.

Cast: 

Carlos Villarías (Conde Drácula), Lupita Tovar (Eva), Barry Norton (Juan Harker), Pablo Álvarez Rubio (Renfield), Eduardo Arozamena (Van Helsing), José Soriano Viosca (Doctor Seward), Carmen Guerrero (Lucía), Amelia Senisterra (Marta), and Manuel Arbó (Martín) Directed by George Melford (#1318 - The Sheik)

Review: 

Believe it or not, there was a time long ago when wanting to show a film in different countries meant more than just hiring folks to dub voices. Sure, one could just change a few things around in title cards for the silent era, but there really was a moment in time where studios thought the best way to potentially get a few bucks from places like Mexico was to just hire a bunch of actors (for cheaper than they had spent the first time around) and do it all over again; Paramount on Parade (1930) for example, had thirteen releases (with the all-star revue having versions from Spanish to Czech). Universal Studios did this for a time in 1930, and this extends to The Cat Creeps (1930), which had George Melford as director and Lupita Tovar as star. Melford certainly is an interesting presence to be behind this, an actor/director for several decades, although by the time of the 1930s he would curtail his work as director (doing just seven in the decades after handfuls in the previous one). Of course, he also did not speak any Spanish nor did he understand it, so he used a translator to talk with his actors. I'm sure you are familiar with Tod Browning's Dracula (1931), one that was adapted from each the 1897 book of the same name by Bram Stoker and the 1924 stage play of the same name (which had been written by Hamilton Deane and John L. Balderston). That movie was shot in the day time, while the Spanish-language edition would be done at night (complete with similar shots), and Melford had the benefit of seeing the rushes of the prior shoot. Of course, the big difference is that this movie is 104 minutes long, which essentially is half an hour longer than the English-language film.

One has to remember that it probably doesn't matter which language version is better. Of course, one film didn't have the distinction of languishing in obscurity for four decades, where having a screening at the Museum of Modern Art in 1977 (not complete, but close) was the impetus for making the film known more to folks beyond historians. Home video releases came in the 1990s, but a restoration (of both versions) only came in 2012 (incidentally, I think I've watched Dracula (1931) about once since that year). Honestly, as an overall experience, the Spanish-language film is probably the more interesting experience, although they each have merits to consider, depending on how much one wants to consider it beyond just who has the better Dracula and who has the better pace. To put it nicely, the Spanish Dracula is a bit more interesting to watch because it doesn't seem as static (of course, years of watching horror movies, complete with a handful from the same era has certainly colored the perception), complete with extended versions of scenes seen earlier, such as the scene on the boat, which now includes a few screams and a shot of a hand coming out. In general, the cast in moments without Dracula seem a bit more ready to handle what the need to handle (at least besides the Van Helsing character, who was interesting whether played by Edward Van Sloan or not). The haunt level probably better by a margin, but there is certainly one area that the English version simply does better: Dracula himself. It must be an odd distinction to be known for a horror film, but imagine it being a particular version of a horror film, and thus one has the case of Villarías, who simply can't be as effective with the lines presented here, with his facial expressions playing a small part in that regard (seeming perhaps a bit more tuned to comedy), although one could argue that a nicer seeing vampire might make a scarier villain when revealed. Lugosi simply was the best at doing those little lines with the right amount of timing to make it seem worthwhile. Tovar does fine with what is needed here in innocence that was fairly present before (played by Helen Chandler before). While Norton doesn't have any more to do than the version played by David Manners, one won't be too disappointed to remember for long, while Rubio plays a fairly adequate nutso Renfield. Arozamena fills the warm dedicated presence fit to oppose Dracula without confusion. As a whole, there are a plethora of Dracula movies one could sit through from country to country to consider, each with their own perspective on how much one sees of Dracula and other considerations. In that sense, each 1931 Dracula movie can be thought of as part of a great curiosity, one to wonder just how folks can handle the challenge of doing a book/stage hodgepodge in the early days of sound did what they did with the same sets and props but with crucial differences.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Vampyr.

AND NOW...A SURPRISE, one that is long overdue...or at the very least I think so.

Review #071, Revisited: Dracula (1931).

Cast:

Bela Lugosi (Count Dracula), Helen Chandler (Mina Seward), David Manners (John Harker), Dwight Frye (Renfield), Edward Van Sloan (Van Helsing), Herbert Bunston (Dr. Seward), Frances Dade (Lucy Weston), and Joan Standing (Nurse Briggs) Directed by Tod Browning.

Review: 

Consider the time of the 1930s. Sound was now coming into focus for feature films, so what better time for horror to come into focus than now? Or, at the very least, what better time to continue the cycle of taking material from books or the stage to satisfy the demand for films? Universal Pictures was no exception, having done plenty of these kind of movies, such as with The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923) and The Phantom of the Opera (1925). Ah, but this is a different kind of adaptation: It is  not only an adaptation of the 1897 book of the same name by Bram Stoker but also it is based off the 1924 stage play of the same name (written by Hamilton Deane and John L. Balderston). One of the stars of the production of Broadway was an actor by the name of Bela Lugosi (born Béla Ferenc Dezső Blaskó). The Hungarian actor escaped his native country in 1919 after breaking into acting two years prior, and he dabbled in Germany before settling into America, where he eventually went from labor work to bit film parts. The Dracula role on Broadway became his in 1927, and in spite of doubts from studio executives, he found his way towards the lead role for the film (incidentally, this was the same year he would become naturalized as a U.S. citizen). At the helm for the film was Tod Browning, who actually grew up with an interest in the circus, which went from vaudeville to eventually time spent as an actor before becoming a director by the mid 1910s.

This was the film that started what folks might consider the modern horror genre, and it is likely the film that most remember Browning and Lugosi for (with typecasting following for the latter over the next two decades). It is odd to consider then just how much legacies can affect the image of a film over time, considering the 90 years that now stand between the release of this film and now. Honestly, my perception of the film has changed over time, in that the teenaged version of me really dug it (i.e. as a 15 year old). Now, with the passage of time and with plenty more films under my belt, I can recognize that this film, while important to its place in the horror genre and the Universal Monsters line as a whole...is merely okay at best. The one shining reason to see it is for Lugosi, pure and simple. Of all the Draculas to come out on the silver screen, it is Lugosi who stands out as one of the most hypnotic and most interesting to view in the eyes of aristocratic charisma that haunts one's view, and one can certainly see why Lugosi would have an interesting time with finding roles after this film. Browning (whose career would close in 1939 after over forty features under his belt) seems a bit outmatched in elevating the material beyond static shots and a quick pace of just under 80 minutes, but at least one can say the film looks fairly nice despite a few failings in general tone. Frye does fairly well with evoking nuttiness (albeit with a bit of ham) that certainly steals the show away from others to their detriment (Van Sloan and the others are a bit wooden, but at least he seems like he should be wooden to play a curious hunter). Honestly, it is probably more curious that there was a Spanish version of this film, done at night over the course of three weeks with the same sets than anything. At any rate, this film and Frankenstein (1931) would play a key part in American horror in the sound age, and while one can debate the quality of what is seen rather than what lives on in legacy, it cannot be denied that Lugosi manages to make things stay on the level where it needs to go to keep things from turning into a dull affair.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.