Dracula
If you have
been following my blog or my comments on fellow blogger’s pages you may already
know that I am not overly fond of Todd Browning’s “Dracula” from 1931. I have
not exactly made a secret of it.
Now it is
time for me to give my official comments on it after watching it a second time
last night.
I am afraid
my opinion has not much improved.
“Dracula”
actually starts good. A carriage arrives at a lonely inn in Transylvania and
the locals are quite convincingly speaking Hungarian and seem genuinely
terrified of the vampires. Renfield (Dwight Frye) the ignorant traveler is
continuing up to the pass where a mysterious carriage will take him to Count
Dracula’s castle. This is convincing and well done, maybe even better than
Murnau’s Nosferatu.
Then Renfield
arrives at the castle and meets our friend Dracula (Bela Lugosi) and the
quality level drops. I am sorry, I know Lugosi is the quintessential Dracula,
but I cannot take that man serious. He seems a caricature on himself and
instead of sinister he appears funny. It does not help that the castle looks
like something from the haunted house in a theme park and come on: armadillos? Are
they the harbinger of doom and decay?
Renfield
and Dracula travel together to England (London or Grimsby, I cannot really
figure it out), Renfield now possessed and half crazy. I kind of like him like
this. He is the only character who is half-convincing at this stage. Dracula
moves in at the local ancient ruin, next to a sanatorium, which happens to be
where Renfield is committed. The sanatorium is run by a Dr. Seward (Herbert
Bunston) and his two daughters Lucy (Frances Dade) and Mina (Helen Chandler)
soon fall victim to the Count’s special attentions.
It is a bit
odd; Lucy seems to die or disappear, but it is hardly mentioned or the concern of
anybody. Mina on the other hand is the one everybody are fighting so hard to
save and protect, including the possessed Renfield. Talk about a favorite
daughter!
The next 40
minutes or so or more than half the movie takes place in a few rooms in the
home of Dr. Seward. People enter and people leave and generally do a lot of (pointless)
talking. Obviously due to the limitations of sound technique, but it makes for
a very static movie. Dracula comes and goes with impunity and it seems all a
bit artificial. Other people to come and go are John Harker (David Manners),
Mina’s fiancée and Professor Van Helsing (Edward Van Sloan), who is in
particular a cartoon character with his Teutonic mad scientist clichés.
I will not
tire you with the conclusion of this charade, except to say that I got a bit
confused as to the resolution and that we have the imbecile Harker warning the
Count during his and Van Helsing’s sneak attack on Dracula’s hideout by
shouting Mina’s name.
Suffice to
say that the resolution causes as much groaning as the rest of the movie.
What I kept
thinking was how much I would rather watch “Nosferatu”. Max Schreck is far more
sinister than Bela Lugosi and for me that will remain the real and original
Dracula film.
Todd
Browning’s version on the other hand belongs in the department of kitschy
B-movies.
I saw this for the first time earlier this year. I, too, wasn't that impressed with it. I would include it in the book, along with the much better Nosferatu, because of their place in cinema history. I'd drop all the other vampire movies that somehow made the list, though.
ReplyDeleteI could not have said that better.
Delete"Dracula" is there for historic significance, not quality, and most vampire movies are just a waste of time.