MovieChat Forums > Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens (1922) Discussion > Dracula is lame

Dracula is lame

posted 8 years ago by Tin_ear
12 replies | jump to latest

After watching the Todd Browning 1931 version, you realize that the older, more "primitive" version of Bram Stoker's story is far superior. In a century they only really nailed it once, they should have stopped trying after the first time. It isn't even close.

All the disadvantages actually play in this film's favor: the lack of sound and weird sets is much more distinct and creepy. A lack of special effects forced the director to play with shadows and make a door swinging open terrifying. Todd Browning's film is stilted, choppy, and kind of boring, while the older German movie has title cards that actually explain what the hell is going on in the plot.

There is that one bad scene with the sped-up film footage, but even that is kind of surreal and expressive. In the 1931 remake, there is a shot of a bee emerging from a coffin, which I've heard explained was supposed to be a huge monster bee. But, yeah, it still makes no sense. And don't even bother trying to justify the floppy, rubber bats. Dear god, why did Browning have to include those. By the end I wanted to start giggling.

And--screw it, I have to say it--Bela Lugosi is not scary. Max Shreck is freaking creepy as hell, and the guy's performance was pretty much reduced to body language, emotive lurching, and bad posture.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Tin_ear 8 years ago

You raise an interesting point, one I never really considered before. After watching Dracula I have no desire to read Stoker's book. After Nosferatu I am curious.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] recklesscow 8 years ago

My sentiments exactly. The 1931 version is such a bore.

[–] agusmaga93 8 years ago

I totally agree. Nosferatu is far better than Browning's Dracula in every aspect. You can see that Dracula is just a stage play dressed up as a movie. It's not scary at all. The "exetrior" scenes are just a set. Nosfertu, on the other hand, in spite of being 9 years older than Dracula, is still scary and creepy as hell. Max Schreck is totally terrifying, the movie itself is atmospheric and the castle looks much more real and scarier than the Universal version. Also, one detail I'd like to point out to compare the films, is that, when the ships arrive at Wismar/London, and find the captain's dead body, in Nosferatu, we actually see the captain's corpse (which is really "hardcore", taking into account the time Nosferatu was made), while in Dracula, we just see the dead captain's shadow.

Seriously, if people found Dracula scary, Nosferatu must have given them countless nightmares.

[–] songod-95003 8 years ago

If you need cards to tell you what is going on in the 1931 film, well, I truly do not know what treatment you need.

As for those who say Max was better than Bela, well, Bela had sound... and nothing is creepier than Bela intoning such lines as "I will see that she dies... by night!" The odd pauses in all his lines are a character CHOICE not a limitation of Bela's English abilities.

Also Bela's count was in direct counter to the long held belief that handsome well dressed "noblemen" must be cultured and pure of intent. He was Valentino on the outside but a feral animal on the inside. THAT is what truly scared the hell out of people. Especially women. Who could they trust when the epitome of virtue was a monster?

[–] Tin_ear 8 years ago

Maybe his performance just hasn't aged well. It's been reinterpreted and parodied so many times it's hard to take it seriously. But even The Godfather and Star Wars resisted being ruined by parody better than this. When I watch it now it might as well be a high school play. This has the feel of the run-of-the-mill, souless popcorn movies *WBs farted out on a regular basis. And it isn't remotely scary. That's ultimately the worst part.

*I think this was actually Universal, but whatever, you get you point.

[–] songod-95003 8 years ago

Yes I agree that the zillions of parodies have hurt both "Dracula" and Karloff's "Frankenstein" and it is hard to find anything remotely frightening about them in today's world. Even as a teen at the height of the Monster Revival TV brought they were not so much frightening as cool and fascinating. Later I came to learn and appreciate the affect those films, and the silents like "Nosferatu", "Phantom of the Opera" and others had on cinema.

In truth, "Dracula", aside from Lugosi, was indeed a poorly shot boring play to screen adaptation. The best parts were the beginning which was not in the play and created for the film.

My apologies for being snarky.

[–] BobbyWaggs 8 years ago

Absolute BS ...

Having this human Rat play Dracula or Count Orloff was just that a rat movie ...

No romantic feelings about why a female would be interested in The Count like in Bela Lugosi's portrayal ...

Todd Browning could have did a lot more with the script but Bela's scenes are great and is why more people think Bela Lugosi is the greatest actor to portray The head vampire ever -

Christopher Lee is 2nd and this Schreck rat face is not even on the list ...

You see it's hard to follow the 1931 version - not to me - the 1922 version is like watching a movie in a cloud - the director had to be on hallucinogenic's - but in the end old Rat boy with a beautiful girl ? Nope don't buy it ...

Oh yeah and Renfield 1931 Dwight Frye kicks butt !!!

[–] Strannger (2007) 8 years ago

Count orlak was my idea of a vampire scary and smart. He has a blood list that couldn't be quenched and spread like a plague.

I felt the characters played bigger parts, even the Mina character, as she keeps him at her breast until the Sun comes up.

More satisfying ending instead of Dracula killed off screen

[–] rateater (10137) 4 years ago

they both are good.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

I've never made it through the 31 version. This one holds my attention all the way through.