1931's Dracula -- True cinematic masterpiece or overrated wasted opportunity?

[BisexualMMA]

garbage

Go watch the hammer films

I liked it. Not perfect, but Branagh's Frankenstein got the humanity of the characters across pretty well.

 

[chickenluver]

While the "horror" stuff in Nosferatu is absolutely superb. A lot of it is also feels very clumpy today. Like the hilariously extent to which the film goes about explaining about vampires (and how obvious it is that Orloc is one). And a lot of the Germany stuff isn't that good either, especially the chase when it fast-forwards, just doesn't work.

I respectively disagree. The chase is awesome.

 

[Guestx]

BTW, since we're on the topic, it is with neither a sense of shame nor irony that I proclaim this one of the most UNDERrated Draculas:

 

[chickenluver]

@shadow_priest_x I would recommend Baby Face from 1933 as a really good Pre-Code film that is a good example of what they got away with in those days. Some say this film single handily brought about the enforcement of the Code.

And it has my favorite movie star Barbara Stanwyck, so I was pretty much predisposed to liking it.

 

[TheRuthlessOne]

BTW, since we're on the topic, it is with neither a sense of shame nor irony that I proclaim this one of the most UNDERrated Draculas:

Gerard butler as dracula

How could it go wrong

 

[Guestx]

@shadow_priest_x I would recommend Baby Face from 1933 as a really good Pre-Code film that is a good example of what they got away with in those days. Some say this film single handily brought about the enforcement of the Code.

And it has my favorite movie star Barbara Stanwyck, so I was pretty much predisposed to liking it.

I'll have to check it out.

 

[Guestx]

Gerard butler as dracula

How could it go wrong

Gerard Butler before he was "Gerard Butler!"

Have you seen it? I've always thought it was a fun movie with a legitmately interesting and fresh twist.

 

[TheRuthlessOne]

Gerard Butler before he was "Gerard Butler!"

Have you seen it? I've always thought it was a fun movie with a legitmately interesting and fresh twist.

I believe I have seen it but I remember almost nothing about it

I'll probably get some shit for this and I know its not a "Dracula movie" but 30 days of night does some cool stuff. Highly recommended it if you are looking for modern vampire movies

 

[europe1]

Frankly, this sounds more like your own thoughts on the film rather than what the director intended

This may be a matter of philosophy, but what the director intended and the end results are two entirely different things. You are not supposed to try and "discover" what the director intended, you are to watch it and see how you respond to what you are witnessing. EDIT: Though, obviously, those things tend to overlapp at many times. (EDIT: unless, maybe, if there is some very specific and concrete message that the director intended to convey)

Also, it sounds like you're saying the film is better watched after you've reached a certain level of intoxication.

Just for the record, I am nearly a puritan when it comes to intoxicants.

I thought the film could've benefited greatly from some better camera work and editing. Shots that really should've started wide and then cut to something closer up are just shot wide. You can really tell that it was adapted from a stage play because it was also largely shot like one as well.

Filmcraft suffered greatly in the switch between silent to sound. Dolly shots were in their infancy and the need to field cumbersome microphones meant that framing and camera moment suffered a lot.

City Lights
The Old Dark House
Trouble in Paradise
Baby Face
L'Atalante

I've never actually seen these.

Frankenstein

Yeah it is really good. Much heavier on the pathos than Dracula. It was so long since I've seen it so I can't decide if I like it more than Dracula though.

Freaks

That is a daring film right there.

Vampyr

Yeah. A movie with really enchanting and macabre visuals.

The Adventures of Robin Hood

The first third is just iconic. Everything at the feast with Errol comming in carrying a boar on his back is just gold. Overall though, I'd almost wish to say that the Douglas Fairbanks silent version is better.

Alexander Nevsky

Just the fact that half of that movie is one battle-scene is mind-warpingly epic on its own. Before seeing Nevsky I thought that such scenes where unique to our lifetime but Einstein proved me wrong. The depiction of the metallic Teutons is great as well. That say, I really don't like how comedic the film is. It really contrasts poorly with the serious tone of the rest of the story.

Stagecoach

Just an epic action movie. A Ford gem. I also like how the more "unsavory" characters in the film proves themselves to be more valorous than the respectable ones (Wayne and the prostitute vs the Southern Gentleman and the Pregnant lady).



My personal favorite 30's movies though would be...

Gone With the Wind
Fury
King Kong (GOAT martial arts movie)
The 39 Steps
And maybe M...

There are many others that are great as well. Like many of those you mentioned. Public Enemy nr 1, Modern Times, 42nd Street, G-Men etc.

 

[europe1]

I would also like to voice my approval for the semi-sequel Daughter of Dracula. Though if the allure of the first film isn't for you then it's unlikely that you'd enjoy this one. Has a scene with lesbian subtexts... which is noteworthy I guess.

 

[europe1]

I've always thought it was a fun movie with a legitmately interesting and fresh twist.

Yeah the

Spoiler

Dracula as Judas thing was rather neat. It was like 15 years since I saw it though and I my memories are not overly fond.

 

[Guestx]

This may be a matter of philosophy, but what the director intended and the end results are two entirely different things. You are not supposed to try and "discover" what the director intended, you are to watch it and see how you respond to what you are witnessing. EDIT: Though, obviously, those things tend to overlapp at many times. (EDIT: unless, maybe, if there is some very specific and concrete message that the director intended to convey)

I'd say that IS a matter of philosophy. Certainly everyone can watch a movie and interpret it for themselves, or take subjective meanings from it, but what the movie IS is what the director intended. It is, after all, his story. Unless we're talking about something experimental or with experimental leanings, like Valhalla Rising, then there IS a concrete meaning to the film, and that is the one that the director intentionally infused into it with each choice he made.

1Filmcraft suffered greatly in the switch between silent to sound. Dolly shots were in their infancy and the need to field cumbersome microphones meant that framing and camera moment suffered a lot.

Sure, and no doubt that had a lot to do with why Dracula is filmed the way it is, but I still feel like this film stands out in that regard even among its contemporaries like Frankenstein. The impression that I got was that this was not a director who was really comfortable with making a talkie and so he barely did. Not only is it filmed largely as a play would be (or an old silent picture) but the dialogue is also kept to a minimum. It was almost as if he was afraid to let his actors speak and every time they did speak it was painful for him.

BTW, since you haven't mentioned it, I assume you haven't seen the Spanish-language version.

 

[Guestx]

Yeah the

Spoiler

Dracula as Judas thing was rather neat. It was like 15 years since I saw it though and I my memories are not overly fond.

It was one of the few movies that I've ever gone to see twice in the theater.

I went with a friend and then forced my girlfriend to go see it.

 

[Guestx]

Apparently in 1998 composer Phillip Glass put together a score for the film. The reviews are mixed to say the least.

You can compare for yourself:

 

[europe1]

Certainly everyone can watch a movie and interpret it for themselves, or take subjective meanings from it

Though, one's subjective viewpoints are dependant by what you see on screen. You're field of subjectivity is delimited to what the director chooses to show you. Tod Browning left the door open for me to watch it in a "dreamlike" state through all the directional-decision that he made (the atmosphere, the pacing, etc). I can't watch something like Die Hard for instance, in a dreamlike state, because the director didn't enable me to.

Skilled director knows how to manipulate this "field of subjectivity" for their viewers. Films can be tailored to be watched in more ways than one.

EDIT: And what an director wants to achieve and what he actually achieves tend to be two different things. You'll find many a directors who have a multitude of gripes with their products. Basically, people who created exactly what they intended are a scant crowd indeed.

 

[Plissken]

It's great. Very well shot, the sets were fantastic, Lugosi was great, Dwight Frye was great. The atmosphere really tied it together. Nosferatu, Dracula and Vampyr all made within a ten year time span and still three of the all time great vampire films.

 

[Guestx]

Though, one's subjective viewpoints are dependant by what you see on screen. You're field of subjectivity is delimited to what the director chooses to show you. Tod Browning left the door open for me to watch it in a "dreamlike" state through all the directional-decision that he made (the atmosphere, the pacing, etc). I can't watch something like Die Hard for instance, in a dreamlike state, because the director didn't enable me to.

Skilled director knows how to manipulate this "field of subjectivity" for their viewers. Films can be tailored to be watched in more ways than one.

I don't think Tod Browning stopped and made a conscious decision to say, "Hey, you know what? I want to make sure that this film is something that enhanced by a person's dream-like state!" Of course, I could be wrong--I mean, unless you have some kind of quote from him on the matter neither of us know--but I am just not buying that this was on his mind at all. I think he was struggling with making a film with synchronized dialogue and tried to avoid the problem by having as little dialogue as possible. Combine that with no score and you get your comments about a dream-like state.

Regarding your other comments, again, unless a director is intentionally making a film that can be interpreted in a range of ways or across a spectrum, then there is truly only one way to interpret it. You mentioned Die Hard. If some asshole started talking about how it's really about the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie then he's wrong. No, fuck you, sit down, it's not about that at all. If a person were to say that it engendered some kind of thought on that topic for them, or had some subjective meaning on that level for them, that's perfectly fine, but it's certainly not what the movie is ABOUT because McTiernan wasn't thinking about ANY of that shit when he made it.

 

[europe1]

Of course, I could be wrong--I mean, unless you have some kind of quote from him on the matter neither of us know--but I am just not buying that this was on his mind at all.

As I said originally, I think that end products and authors intentions are two diffrent things. The two can overlapp, obviously. But there is nothing that says they have to. Not to mention that filmmaking is a collaborative effort, and that many peoples interpretations and opinions other than the director often tends to worm themselves into the films.

Also, what an director wants to achieve and what he actually achieves tend to be two different things. You'll find many a directors who have a multitude of gripes with their products. Basically, people who created exactly what they intended are a scant crowd indeed.

As a rule of thumb, I'm more intrested in the end product than what the author intended, becuse really, the end product is the only thing that exists in the material world and has something concrete for us to grapple with. While authors intention is something that exists in someone's head, and the question really is if the author communicated his intentions so skillfully and narrowly that you are guided to look at it from his perspective.

conscious decision

A person's unconscious can be as important to the formalization of a film as their conscious. Many people are not consciously aware of why they have some opinion or taste, they just do. Tod Browning may just very well have a sensebility to him that dictates how he likes to pace and structure films, for instance.

 

[europe1]

You mentioned Die Hard. If some asshole started talking about how it's really about the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie then he's wrong. No, fuck you, sit down, it's not about that at all. If a person were to say that it engendered some kind of thought on that topic for them,

Take this as an exampel.

What if McTiernan actually came out and said that his movie was about the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie? Sure, it is absolutely ludicrous because the intention does not match the end product at all. McTiernen's attempt to tell such a story would have been so garbledly communicated that no-one would have made such a connection. Matter does not match intent. But! It was McTiernan's intention all along to make it so.

That's why I favor end product over author's intent. Sure, if author's intent links up with end product smoothly then that is fine. But to go soley on author's intent is so delimiting and leads to disadvantageous approaches to art, it can even be to the films disfavour.



EDIT: Not to mention, how the hell do we figure out what the author's intent is in the first place? He'd practically have to tell us for us to know for sure.

 

[chickenluver]

@shadow_priest_x since you've mentioned that Dracula felt like a silent film to you, check out Vampyr. Now that's a talkie that really is a silent film in spirit.