
I saw Dracula 2000 years ago, but I haven't seen it yet for the project. I did watch its sequel Dracula II: Ascension tonight because... well, I've gotta watch something.
A look at horror movies by someone who has too much time on his hands...
It was like... Tennesee Williams gone wrong. Set in the 1930s South, the kind of South where The Reverend has taken sweet, innocent thirteen year old Lila (except the actress is totally legal) under his care – in the wake of Lila's mobster father killing his adulterous wife and lover. Lila sings in church for The Reverend, his congregation made up seemingly exclusively of women. Totally creepy. He cares for her a little too much, in that classic southern gothic manner, if you know what I mean.
Lila gets word that her father's dying in a town called Astaroth, so she goes to him. The bus driver to Astaroth tells her about the town, how the people there are wrong- some are violent, animalistic, some are vampires. They have the “Astaroth” look, he tells her. This was a treat for me, as the scene was practically lifted from HP Lovecraft's The Shadow Over Innsmouth.
Once she gets to Astaroth, it's revealed she's been lured there by Lemora, the leader of the vampires, who wants her as her new special friend. So it's kind of like Twilight... on Nyquil.
Apparently, the lesbian and ped0 overtones got this movie banned for decades. Which is a shame, because as far as early seventies drive-in horror movies go, it's got a lot going for it. Rich atmosphere and just a general WTF-edness make it fun.
The problem writing about Dracula, the 1931 Universal movie directed by Tod Browning, is that there's so much written about it already- in fact, David Skal's Hollywood Gothic is the book on the subject.
So I'm not going to try and go over any of it again- I'll just bring to the table what I can.
I've probably seen Dracula over a dozen or so times- I've got copies of both the Legacy Collection and the seventy-fifth anniversary edition. The anniversary edition pretty much duplicates the contents of the Legacy collection- which has expert commentary by Skal as one of it's features- with the addition of commentary by Stephen Haber, scriptwriter of Dracula: Dead and Loving It, which adds nothing to the overall package.
What I like about Browning's Dracula is how quiet it is. Once you've seen it enough to appreciate it as a classic Hollywood film, it's almost hypnotic in its quiet. The absence of a score is part of it, but there are many scenes where things are communicated through a glance or a shift of posture.
Of course, I'd be remiss if I didn't say something about Bela Lugosi as Dracula. He's smooth.
Seductive. He sets the bar for any actor playing that character so high, even he couldn't meet it- reprising the role only one more time in Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein.
Well, playing the role of Dracula only one more time.
He played the Vampire several times, including Count Mora in Mark of the Vampire and Armand Tesla in The Return of the Vampire.
Sad, how he got trapped in his own success.
Image was the better of the two videos. The print had been cleaned up and scenes tinted different colors depending on context. There was a new score, which complimented the movies nicely but it was a little new-agey for me. The intertitle cards were re-written, nicely calligraphed in a formal script, while excerpts from a book were done in Black Letter style.
Alpha, on the other hand, had "original" intertitles- sort of. Vintage title cards but they use the character names from Bram Stoker's Dracula- Harker instead of Murnau's Harker becomes Hutter, Mina becomes Ellen, and Count Dracula becomes Count Orlok. It's untinted, but the print is scratchy.
The score is closer to silent film style score than the Image edition.
All things considered, I preferred the Alpha edition because it seemed to capture the “feel” of watching a vintage movie, the Image version was, in my twisted estimation, too polished.
As for the movie it self, Murnau transports the Victorian Dracula story to the late 1830's Germany, costuming the characters in period dress. Since there was no Dracula image to draw upon- as so many horror films have done- Murnau's vampire wasn't the suave Eastern European nobleman, but a ratlike creature of the night. So much of the night, as a matter of fact, the Murnau sets a cinematic/literary precedent of sunlight destroying the vampire- a fatal flaw not seen in the Stoker novel.
Despite degradation in the quality of the film, and the dated silent film acting styles, Nosferatu endures on the strength of it's atmosphere, an all pervading sense of fear, and the amazing wordless performance of Max Schreck as Orlok.
But don't take my word for it, check it out here: