The real mystery is how this film didn't become horribly dated and forgotten once audiences became more sophisticated.
I didn't realize onscreen murder was the height of sophistication.
The other Universal movies weren't this "tame", so their holding up is somewhat more justified. (Frankenstein and Wolf Man have ALL their killings on screen, for example)
"Somewhat more justified." This phrasing seems to indicate that you are "somewhat" contemptuous of all old horror films.
How do you feel about the film "M" (1931, same year as
Dracula), where the victims are all children and their deaths are only hinted at, rather than shown overtly?
The reason I bring up that specific film is because for Lugosi's
Dracula to follow Stoker's novel, which I have read, to the letter it would have to include a scene where Dracula gives a bag with a small child inside to his wives to eat, with the child's mother being subsequently slaughtered by wolves.
I'm genuinely curious of your opinion on these subjects.
reply
share
Blackjack254
11 years ago
Never saw "M", never even heard of it.
I can understand that movies were a new medium back then, but I have a hard time believing that people in 1931 were THIS wimpy in that a film based on a novel with a generally frightening villain and an emotional story about one guy having to hammer a stake through his fiance's heart and another having to watch his wife slowly become a vampire (to the point that she actually starts to grow fangs and is burned by a cross) thanks to the same man that locked him in his castle for two months and nearly drove him insane and a villain that stays ahead of the heroes until the last few pages (such as having 50 boxes of earth scattered all around london instead of just three grouped together right next door to where the good guys live) and even then was only defeated at the cost of an additional good guy death (Quincey Morris) had to completely cut out ALL of that, and that such a film could remain so popular when films were gradually allowed to venture more and more out of the safety zone (hence paving the Way for Christopher Lee, for example)
How you can make the world a better place:
Don't shop at Wal-Mart.
reply
share
Monsieur_Arkadin
11 years ago
You should see M. It's a great film, and much better than this one.
I mostly agree with you that the changes they made hurt the film and greatly reduced the emotional resonance that the novel had originally. However I just want to point out that many of those changes weren't because of people being wimpy or conservative but mostly due to budgetary constraints. After losing Lon Chaney who was supposed to play Dracula, and being in a tough financial situation due to the start of the great depression the production was forced to cut many scenes that would have adhered more closely to the book. They ended up revamping everything and basically doing a filmed version of the broadway play. The reason it is so tame, is largely because that's how the play was.
What's the ugliest part of your body?
reply
share
11 years ago
[deleted]
Blackjack254
11 years ago
Because once those things weren't a problem anymore, nobody stepped up to make the REAL Dracula movie. They let this abomination stand and thus Bram Stoker's Novel was thrown in the trash. This film should have been branded as horribly dated and been forgotten once people stopped being pansies and the Hays Code went the way of the dodo.
The fact that the only people thus far who have seen the Novel worthy enough to be faithfully adapted were some low budget BBC guys in 1977 speaks volumes on the damage this atrocity has done. If Stoker ever saw this movie, well, Think about how P.L. Travers Felt about Disney's "Mary Poppins" or how Roald Dahl Felt about "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" and Multiply those by 100.
How you can make the world a better place:
Don't shop at Wal-Mart.
reply
share
fritzfassbender
11 years ago
You know, you spend so much time hating on the 1931 Lugosi version that I'm starting to think you got a little crush on it.
It seems that if the key word is 'Dracula', 'vampire' or 'movie' somehow you end up spewing the same old spiel about the Lugosi version, kind of like a seven year old spending all his time with one girl while picking on her. This particular thread was a great example of that as you flat up ignored what the OP was talking about.
I have an image of someone ritualistically getting their 75th Anniversary Edition DVD out of a lock-box that looks like a book in the wall at three in the morning and silently watching it while mumbling angrily to themselves, all the while crying without noise.
reply
share
Blackjack254
11 years ago
The guy asked me a question and I gave him an answer, while you copy/pasted a fan boy response. Try saying something relevant to the conversation.
And No, I don't own a Dracula DVD or blu-ray. But if only for the superior Spanish version as a bonus feature, I might buy one in the future. It's still based on the dumbed down play, but at least it has more dignity and actually feels like a movie.
How you can make the world a better place:
Don't shop at Wal-Mart.
reply
share
fritzfassbender
11 years ago
The guy asked me a question and I gave him an answer, while you copy/pasted a fan boy response.
The only poster who has written what I wrote is me. The only poster who has warranted it is you. The only thing original from you that I could read is an opinion actually based on thinking in context, research, or anything at all but the same bile you always spew for this movie even when it's not asked for.
And I stick to my late-night scenario. I believe even more now that it is true, though I now think the crying is louder than I might have imagined.
reply
share