Art Vandelay
Like so many early talkies, Dracula plays like a stiff amateur stage play that happens to get captured on film. The more movies I see from the early talkie years the more I'm amazed Hollywood survived. It certainly went about 12 steps backward from the height of the silent era, in terms of camera movement, photography and even acting.
Lugosi's goofy stare is creepy at first, but each time Browning trots it out it gets closer and closer to camp. Henfield over-acting his craziness, Harkar immediately grating on my nerves, the dames being indistinguishable from one another.
And the talking, the talking, the talking.
Dracula doesn't hold a candle to Nosferatu. It's not even in the same league.
jessicaa-26438
"Dracula" is a classic character in itself, Bela Lugosi's portrayal of this famous character will continue to be my favorites. This was truly a role he was born to play, the way he carries himself with such sophistication and completely memorizes his audience. The scenery was stunning and Dracula's castle was absolutely breathtaking, and made you get the vibe it was trying to give off. While the acting and scenery were fantastic, it was very slow, and I felt like most parts dragged more then others, and it personally made me lose interest very quickly. However overall, the film was pretty amazing. This film will continue to be a classic and put all the remakes to shame.
Cineanalyst
The first Hollywood, first talkie and first authorized film adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel, "Dracula" is one of the most influential motion pictures ever. Not only did it further popularize its titular character—and an especially iconic version of him as portrayed by Bela Lugosi—as well as vampires in general and the lore surrounding them, it also launched supernatural horror as a regular genre in Hollywood. "Dracula" led to a series of Universal monster movies, which kept the studio afloat during the Great Depression, and persuaded other companies to make their own shockers. Consequently, the 1930s especially are considered a golden age for horror.1931 alone featured adaptations of three of the most prominent British Gothic horror novels of the 19th Century; Universal followed up Stoker's "Dracula" with Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein," and Paramount produced Robert Louis Stevenson's "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde." In comparison to those two, "Dracula" has a few handicaps. All three novels used the epistolary form—multiple narrators from various documents, such as diaries, letters and newspapers. But, Stoker's book is the most weighed down by its complete reliance on such narration, which is also partly why it's longer than the other two. Unlike the other two adaptations, "Dracula" was also preceded by and has since been compared to a much-acclaimed adaptation of the same novel: F.W. Murnau's "Nosferatu" (1922). Another handicap is that filmmakers in general learned a lot about making synchronized- sound films in the few months between the production of "Dracula" and of "Frankenstein" and "Jekyll and Hyde." All three stories had also been made into popular plays, but the filmed "Dracula" suffers the most from the staginess common of early talkies.Consequently, a novel that featured extensive geographic crisscrossing is largely reduced to inside scenes, many of which are within the small area of Seward's Sanitarium and Dracula's Carfax Abbey next door. These scenes can be plodding, including the near 3-minutes single-shot talkfest around the 50-minutes mark. Cinematographer Karl Freund's mobile camera isn't enough to entirely relieve the cramped theatrics of these sound stages, which would've been better served by more scene dissection, including the shot-reverse-shot technique. Other parts flow well, however, including the Transylvania scenes, which include decent matte painting for glass shots and sets for the Count's castle. The scenes of Dracula prowling the streets of London work well, too, in portraying the menace of a vampire who seamlessly blends into Western society, including attending the theatre. There are many pans, tilts, dolly and crane shots scattered throughout; the first shot of Lugosi as Dracula and the establishing shot of Seward's Sanitarium are especially dynamic.Wisely, the filmed "Dracula" significantly condenses Stoker's novel. Some of the characters entirely bite the dust and others are turned into conglomerations. The three suitors of Lucy are gone, although Seward is reassigned to a minor role, including now being Mina's father. It mostly gets rid of the blood transfusion business. The book's suggestive themes of vampirism as sex and venereal disease are consequently toned down, but that was probably also the intent of a studio that had to contest with censors. It's a bit surprising, then, that it retained the three female vampires, especially considering their role is almost sexless here, and their being isn't really explained in either media.I'm less fond of some of the other alterations. The expansion of Renfield's character is at the expense of a diminished role for Harker. The film provides a reason for Renfield's insanity, but largely removes the doubles theme of Dracula replacing Harker. Nevertheless, the overall themes of xenophobia and Christian duality remain. Most unfortunately, Mina's role is reduced entirely to damsel in distress. The novel, while superficially antagonistic of the so-called "new woman," in the end, had Mina emerge as the gang's leader. The film, however, is more regressive and simply reduces everything to a battle of wills between two men, Dracula and Van Helsing.What sets this filmed "Dracula" above (at least in part) and apart from the novel and other adaptations is Lugosi's performance. I can't even see other screen translations, let alone read the book, without picturing Lugosi's Dracula in the back of my mind. He's part of our cultural iconography now. He combined moments of eerie, unblinking posturing with sudden theatrical outbursts and wonderfully-inflected line delivery through a thick Hungarian accent. His are the definitive readings of Stoker's dialogue (e.g. "I bid you welcome" and the "children of the night" line) and the original quip (since frequently adopted by subsequent productions), "I never drink… wine." Whereas Stoker's Dracula was grotesque, Lugosi's is even more menacing because he's suave enough to fit in with the West. Yes, he liked his blood with a side of ham, but that's really what the role demanded. It adds a level of campiness entirely lacking from Stoker's moralistic tale. Bela was probably the best actor in the business at realizing such added appeal of monster movies, including in other Universal classics such as "The Black Cat," "The Raven" and "Son of Frankenstein." James Whale ("Frankenstein," "The Old Dark House," "The Invisible Man" and "Bride of Frankenstein") was probably the best director in the same line. Too bad they didn't make a movie together. Lugosi's performance is also enhanced by the masked highlighting of his eyes, the creaky creepiness of pauses in the film's pacing and its original lack of a score. While some of the other actors are just bad, Dwight Frye as Renfield also gets the tone right, as does Charles Gerrard in an otherwise unnecessary comic-relief role as an asylum guard.Next, see the Spanish-language version of "Dracula" (1931). There are some interesting differences between the two films, for better and worse.(Mirror Note: Mirrors are important in "Dracula," of course. The mirror shot of Mina and Lucy is done better in the Spanish film, but Dracula's non-reflection in a cigarette-box mirror is slightly better here.)
