Mods feel free to relocate this if I have it in the wrong place.
I was sitting at home tonight after getting work done for the day and decided to actually browse around on my Roku and find something different to watch. I settled on this film, which is the Dracula film made by Universal Studios in 1931. Even though I have seen it before (and indeed noted in a different thread that it is being restored and will be released on October 10) I thought it would be fun to revisit it. It was fun indeed.
This version of Dracula is actually based on a stage play by Hamilton Deane and John Balderton rather than directly on Stoker's book. It is the one that stars Bela Lugosi as Dracula and was directed by Tod Browning.
First things first - the physical quality of the video is terrible. There is a consistent hissing sound in the background, there are pops and distortions in the sound and the picture is faded and the brightness ratios are off. However, I am taking into account it is a VERY old picture (81 years old) and badly in need of the restoration it is receiving.
That leads to...
Even with the damaged copy you can see brilliance in the way the sets were both designed and used. The setting of Castle Dracula has a marvelous, decayed feel to it that conveys in a very subtle way the "deadness" of its owner. Likewise Carfax Abbey (where Dracula sets up shop in England) is an old abandoned structure and the set again conveys the right feel. By contrast, all too few modern films really USE their sets to good effect. Either the sets are CGI enhanced and in many cases overpower the story and characters or the sets tend to be very "background". Now this is obviously not a universal truth but it seems to be true too often to me.
The second thing I always notice about this film is the acting. To be brief it is superb. It is also a great example of a school of acting that we don't see so much nowadays. It is a "theatrical" style that placed emphasis on dramatic presence, exerting an air of authority and "gravitas" onscreen. All of the cast uses it to a greater or lesser degree and the resulting performances are memorable. Lugosi in particular has a very deliberate performance, his somewhat slow cadence, manner of movement and facial expressions creating a sort of "walking, talking corpse" impression that is eerie and highly effective.
Two other high quality performances are Edward Van Sloan as Professor Van Helsing and Dwight Frye as Renfield. Sloan's Van Helsing is not the "adventure hero" Van Helsing seen in more modern films (like the horrid "Van Helsing" that starred Hugh Jackman) or even the more action-y portrayal by Anthony Hopkins in Bram Stoker's Dracula. This Van Helsing is elderly but nonetheless VERY powerful. His power derives from his intellect, force of will and determination that Dracula not succeed. The scenes where he confronts Dracula are top notch as the Count encounters someone he cannot bend to his will and who has the knowledge both of what Dracula really is and how to defeat him.
Dwight Frye had the role of Renfield, who starts the film out as the mild mannered real estate agent going to Castle Dracula to firm up the lease of Carfax Abbey and becomes Dracula's insane slave. And he plays this type of lunatic beautifully. One moment in awe of Dracula and the next paralyzed by fear. He had one of the best lines in the movie describing Dracula offering him the blood of legions of rats in exchange for his serving him (the way he said "rats, Rats, RATS!!!" was great).
By comparison, the actors playing Jonathan and Mina were good but not in the same class. Still they held up their end of the movie.
The script itself is workmanlike and straightforward - nothing fancy but gets the job done. The dialogue is strong though and as noted above is used to maximum effect by the great cast.
Really, this whole film is from another era. In that era movies relied on atmosphere and setting to convey terror and horror as opposed to gore. Verbal description as opposed to showing everything visually. Acting and setting as opposed to SFX. As such it is a real treat, and I do wind up wishing that today's producers and directors would learn these lessons and mate them with the high grade visual techniques we have today. I recommend giving it a watch, especially once the restoration copy is out.
I was sitting at home tonight after getting work done for the day and decided to actually browse around on my Roku and find something different to watch. I settled on this film, which is the Dracula film made by Universal Studios in 1931. Even though I have seen it before (and indeed noted in a different thread that it is being restored and will be released on October 10) I thought it would be fun to revisit it. It was fun indeed.
This version of Dracula is actually based on a stage play by Hamilton Deane and John Balderton rather than directly on Stoker's book. It is the one that stars Bela Lugosi as Dracula and was directed by Tod Browning.
First things first - the physical quality of the video is terrible. There is a consistent hissing sound in the background, there are pops and distortions in the sound and the picture is faded and the brightness ratios are off. However, I am taking into account it is a VERY old picture (81 years old) and badly in need of the restoration it is receiving.
That leads to...
Even with the damaged copy you can see brilliance in the way the sets were both designed and used. The setting of Castle Dracula has a marvelous, decayed feel to it that conveys in a very subtle way the "deadness" of its owner. Likewise Carfax Abbey (where Dracula sets up shop in England) is an old abandoned structure and the set again conveys the right feel. By contrast, all too few modern films really USE their sets to good effect. Either the sets are CGI enhanced and in many cases overpower the story and characters or the sets tend to be very "background". Now this is obviously not a universal truth but it seems to be true too often to me.
The second thing I always notice about this film is the acting. To be brief it is superb. It is also a great example of a school of acting that we don't see so much nowadays. It is a "theatrical" style that placed emphasis on dramatic presence, exerting an air of authority and "gravitas" onscreen. All of the cast uses it to a greater or lesser degree and the resulting performances are memorable. Lugosi in particular has a very deliberate performance, his somewhat slow cadence, manner of movement and facial expressions creating a sort of "walking, talking corpse" impression that is eerie and highly effective.
Two other high quality performances are Edward Van Sloan as Professor Van Helsing and Dwight Frye as Renfield. Sloan's Van Helsing is not the "adventure hero" Van Helsing seen in more modern films (like the horrid "Van Helsing" that starred Hugh Jackman) or even the more action-y portrayal by Anthony Hopkins in Bram Stoker's Dracula. This Van Helsing is elderly but nonetheless VERY powerful. His power derives from his intellect, force of will and determination that Dracula not succeed. The scenes where he confronts Dracula are top notch as the Count encounters someone he cannot bend to his will and who has the knowledge both of what Dracula really is and how to defeat him.
Dwight Frye had the role of Renfield, who starts the film out as the mild mannered real estate agent going to Castle Dracula to firm up the lease of Carfax Abbey and becomes Dracula's insane slave. And he plays this type of lunatic beautifully. One moment in awe of Dracula and the next paralyzed by fear. He had one of the best lines in the movie describing Dracula offering him the blood of legions of rats in exchange for his serving him (the way he said "rats, Rats, RATS!!!" was great).
By comparison, the actors playing Jonathan and Mina were good but not in the same class. Still they held up their end of the movie.
The script itself is workmanlike and straightforward - nothing fancy but gets the job done. The dialogue is strong though and as noted above is used to maximum effect by the great cast.
Really, this whole film is from another era. In that era movies relied on atmosphere and setting to convey terror and horror as opposed to gore. Verbal description as opposed to showing everything visually. Acting and setting as opposed to SFX. As such it is a real treat, and I do wind up wishing that today's producers and directors would learn these lessons and mate them with the high grade visual techniques we have today. I recommend giving it a watch, especially once the restoration copy is out.
