Horror of Dracula (Dracula 1958)

[cakefactory]

Christopher Lee gets props for being the only one besides Max Schreck to ever be scary. Beal Lugosi just came off as a creepy weirdo. In that scene where the facade is lifted and he rages out at the woman, Lee seems like he could actually rip someone’s head off. It’s a big difference from the usual prissy types that get these roles.

[timothy ramzyk]

Originally Posted by cakefactory

Christopher Lee gets props for being the only one besides Max Schreck to ever be scary. Beal Lugosi just came off as a creepy weirdo. In that scene where the facade is lifted and he rages out at the woman, Lee seems like he could actually rip someone’s head off. It’s a big difference from the usual prissy types that get these roles.

Though not specifically "Dracula," I liked Robert Qaurry's Dracula-esque Count Yorga. He does the seemingly unlikely turn of moving from effete sarcasm to brutality with ease.

[AKORIS]

Originally Posted by timothy ramzyk

Though not specifically "Dracula," I liked Robert Qaurry's Dracula-esque Count Yorga. He does the seemingly unlikely turn of moving from effete sarcasm to brutality with ease.

he was really good-- I didn't rank him because he wasn't a "Dracula" but both Yorga movies are excellent!

[SMOOT]

Bela Lugosi is Dracula. Even Christopher Lee publicly and on camera said this to be true.

Nothing prissy about Bela. He was born of and near the region and is of the blood.

I love Lon Chaney Jr as the Son of Dracula (and, as the Son or descendant), I consider John Carradine to actually be Baron Latos as he claims in "House of Frankenstein" (but likely is just taking advantage of being considered the King of the Vampires), and Christopher Lee is perfect in "Horror of Dracula".

With all such said, Bela Lugosi is Dracula. He defined the role.

[MartinScorsesefan]

Agreed. Lee is fantastic as the savage terrifying creature like Count, and Langella is a hoot as the sophisticated, sardonic Count who plays his enemies like a fiddle. But to me, Lugosi IS Dracula.

[Mystic]

Originally Posted by MartinScorsesefan

Agreed. Lee is fantastic as the savage terrifying creature like Count, and Langella is a hoot as the sophisticated, sardonic Count who plays his enemies like a fiddle. But to me, Lugosi IS Dracula.

I think that really sums it up for me too - in terms of the different portrayals of the character of Dracula

[MJD64]

Whenever I watch Browning's DRACULA (the first fifteen minutes of which are gothic horror perfection) and hear Lugosi's opening line: "I am Dracula", he seems to be stating it as simple truth, as well as proclaiming it for all time...

Lee and Langella are terrific, but Lugosi will always be the one true Dracula.

[Mr. Thomsen]

Originally Posted by cakefactory

I've never read the book, but from the stuff I've read about this (1958) version, they were supposedly the first to introduce any sexual element to the biting in the Dracula story. And then the later versions, especially Bram Stoker's Dracula, are almost entirely about that!

I was quite surprised, too, when someone said this in one of the extras on the UK BD. I am fairly certain it was Christopher Frayling. According to him, the biting and the story as a whole was never really read or discussed as a sexual metaphor until the 1958 adaptation.

I have to take Frayling on his word, as I have never read any of the older academic literature on gothic horror fiction myself. He once wrote a well-researched book on the vampire in popular fiction, so he probably knows his stuff. But the mind boggles that the subject was supposedly never even discussed.

I mean, after all Freud was pretty popular in the early part of the 20th century, and the love angle was certainly touched upon in the 1931 adaptation with its 'the strangest passion, the world has ever known' tagline.

[Mr. Thomsen]

All this talk about Dracula has me excited for the upcoming adaptation by Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat (of 'Sherlock' and 'Dr. Who').

Apparently it will be in three episodes, and, unlike 'Sherlock', 'Dracula' will retain its Victorian setting.

They have cast Danish actor Claes Bang as the eponymous main character.

The only thing that has me a bit worried is Claes Bang talking publicly about Dracula as 'evil, but there’s also so much more to him, he’s charismatic, intelligent, witty and sexy'. One could fear that we will end up with yet another adaptation focused on Dracula as 'the world's greatest lover,' instead of finally seeing the character as the evil menace that Stoker described.

But Mark Gatiss is a huge horror fan, who made some very good documentaries about the history of the genre for BBC, so he certainly knows his stuff, and I will definitely trust him to make a compelling adaptation of this.

[Mr. Thomsen]

Originally Posted by brasil

People keep referring to dolls. Yet not bothered by fake dust that represents Dracula being blown away by the wind. Or red paint as blood. Or plastic inserts as teeth. If you can't get into the movie to get that it's not a Doll it's Dracula, but don't mention these and countless other aspects that are fake it viewed without context, fine as long as you understand it's just you that has these selective judgements.

Wait, so first you claim the there is no doll in the film at all, or at least not on your Anolis BD version.

And then, when your error is pointed out to you, you double down and now say that it really does not matter anyway, since all the special effects are fake, and either all are okay or none of them are. As if there can be no discussion as to the merit of a special effect at all?

Are you serious?

What you suggest would mean that nobody are really allowed to feel irked by the added CGI in the Star Wars Special Editions, as the movies always had fake-looking puppets and models in them anyway.

But wait, I forget, we are indeed kindly allowed our feelings, 'as long as you understand it's just you that has these selective judgements.'

Well, thank you so very, very much, Sir.

I did not realize anyone here was claiming to speak objective truth. All value judgments are of course subjective. As are your own. But maybe the world looks a bit different sitting on top of your high horse?

For the record, I do not mind the doll/ puppet/ effect in itself, nor the stretched out hand/ arm, which somebody else mentioned. I do, however, loathe the glowing and fading orange eyes with a passion.

Those eyes, and I better add 'in my opinion' before you launch into another tirade, make the rest of the effect look a thousand times more cheap because they made no effort whatsoever to make them look even remotely like Dracula's eyes in the rest of the film. To me, they look precisely what they are - cheap, battery-operated light bulbs. And they annoy the hell out of me every time I watch that scene.

Though the idea is obviously to show how Dracula's (un-?) life fades, the effect is superfluous, and personally I wish they would have left the eye sockets empty.

Does it destroy the movie for me? Of course not. Does it lessen the impact of the ending? In my case, yes.

[Doc Moonlight]

All this talk about the great Draculas and no one has mentioned Carlos Villarias in the "Spanish Dracula" filmed concurrently with the Lugosi version. I thought he was very effective (although Lee and Langella are my favorites overall).

When Langella left the Broadway production, he was replaced by Raul Julia. It's a pity his performance was never transferred to film.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Mr. Thomsen

The only thing that has me a bit worried is Claes Bang talking publicly about Dracula as 'evil, but there’s also so much more to him, he’s charismatic, intelligent, witty and sexy'. One could fear that we will end up with yet another adaptation focused on Dracula as 'the world's greatest lover,' instead of finally seeing the character as the evil menace that Stoker described.

Yeah, it's funny to see all the posts about how Lugosi "IS Dracula" when he's nothing like the creature in the book. None of the movie Draculas really are, because they're more adaptations of the play Lugosi was in than anything else. Bram Stoker's Dracula actually gets closest since at least he has a beast form, but of course you mostly see him as a romantic man.

[Killer Meteor]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Yeah, it's funny to see all the posts about how Lugosi "IS Dracula" when he's nothing like the creature in the book. None of the movie Draculas really are, because they're more adaptations of the play Lugosi was in than anything else. Bram Stoker's Dracula actually gets closest since at least he has a beast form, but of course you mostly see him as a romantic man.

I think I have a Penguin edition of the novel with Lugosi on the front! And I saw another edition whilst on holiday in Dublin where the picture was blatantly Oscar Wilde with fangs!

[Mr. Thomsen]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Yeah, it's funny to see all the posts about how Lugosi "IS Dracula" when he's nothing like the creature in the book. None of the movie Draculas really are, because they're more adaptations of the play Lugosi was in than anything else. Bram Stoker's Dracula actually gets closest since at least he has a beast form, but of course you mostly see him as a romantic man.

True. I also kinda like Lee's portrayal in the Franco 'Dracula'. At least they got the big bushy mustache right in that one.

[DR Herbert West]

Originally Posted by Doc Moonlight

When Langella left the Broadway production, he was replaced by Raul Julia. It's a pity his performance was never transferred to film.

That could've been interesting.

[Great Hierophant]

What title card is displayed on the Warner Archive Blu-ray disc? Is it "Dracula" or "Horror of Dracula"? I believe it is "Horror of Dracula", but if someone could confirm that I'd appreciate it.

[DR Herbert West]

Originally Posted by Great Hierophant

What title card is displayed on the Warner Archive Blu-ray disc? Is it "Dracula" or "Horror of Dracula"? I believe it is "Horror of Dracula", but if someone could confirm that I'd appreciate it.

Dracula

[jimqk]

Beaver review is up. http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film4/blu-r...la_blu-ray.htm

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by jimqk

Beaver review is up. http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film4/blu-r...la_blu-ray.htm

The difference there doesn't look as pronounced, certainly not on all caps.

[timothy ramzyk]

Originally Posted by Pecker

The difference there doesn't look as pronounced, certainly not on all caps.

In terms of the darkness of the Warner BD, I'm struck by the shot of Lee grasping the table during his destruction scene. His hand is virtually lost in the darkness on the Warner disk.

I have both the disks, both are watchable, and though neither are ideal, some of these shots illustrate that Warner got overzealous with contrast. The title card is another example with the added contrast lending an almost "dupey" look to the Warner version.