Reviews By

Review: Dracula (1931)
Written by Midnight Butterfly   
Tuesday, 04 November 2008 23:26
Article Index
Review: Dracula (1931)
Dracula p.2
All Pages

This is the one that started it all. There had been monster movies before, there had been vampire movies, Dracula itself had, in essence, been filmed before, but this is the one that broke new ground for a genre, altered the landscape of cinema and indelibly stamped the face of a culture. To this day, seventy seven years and counting, when someone slowly intones “I vahnt…to sahck…your blahd” you recognize the voice and know the character being invoked (though it should be noted that Dracula never says it). There are only a handful of figures in popular culture as instantly recognizable as Bela Lugosi’s Dracula: Sherlock Holmes, Darth Vader, Bugs Bunny…Karloff’s creature, of course, perhaps a couple of others. It’s hard to even imagine a pre-Lugosi world, so integral is the vampire myth to the psyche of the new millennium, so inseparable is Lugosi’s interpretation of that myth.

 

Imagine, if you will, a world shockingly different from ours: There is no internet, no satellite, no cable, no TV. Elvis, James Brown, and the Beatles never happened. World War II never happened. No one has walked on the moon. Black people can’t vote. There has never been a Charles Manson or a Son of Sam or a Jeffrey Dahmer. The economy is a blasted wasteland ravaged by the Great Depression. Movies are in their toddler stage; they’ve only just learned to talk. Into this moment in time comes a seductive nightmare for the masses, a romance of terror and bloodlust, a magic spell the likes of which no one had ever seen before…the Dracula of Bela Lugosi.
Sitting in this darkened movie house in 1931 there’s a good chance you would have never seen a vampire movie before or a scary movie at all. You don’t have an entire history of cinema as context; it is the first time you’ve ever seen a hand slowly, ever so slowly open a coffin from inside. When this happens there is no sound at all, it occurs in dead silence. If you’re a woman you have a vivid dream living in front of you of a dark man in your bedroom at night hungrily bending over you. He’s a man like no one else you know in your life. He doesn’t look like anyone you know, he doesn’t behave like anyone you’ve ever met, he doesn’t move like anyone you’ve ever seen and he sure as hell doesn’t talk like anyone you’ve ever heard. What you do know or what you learn in the course of the evening is that he’s there to suck your blood and steal your soul.


Scientists say we don’t dream in color, that the color is added in by memory. If so it makes the immediacy of this dream all the more palpable. Tchaikovsky’s Swan Lake Overture, a spell casting piece of music if there ever was one, ushers us into our nightmare like Charon carrying us across the river Styx. One haunting image after another floats across our consciousness: a horse and carriage with no driver, a massive, black, shadow castle like a mountain of death in the dusk, three strange women, lovely, silent, with their dark and unknowable needs; a young man looking up from the hold of a ship with his mind visibly unhinged, a black and white sunset so beautiful and haunting it is like the eye of God closing and of course, the dark man with the hypnotic eyes and the liquid voice who walks through webs and does not touch them. A young woman waits patiently for the dark man to come and he does and after he does the young woman herself is a creature of the night. A battle for the soul of another young woman is engaged so quietly, so subtly, that the antagonists don’t seem to realize they’re in a battle until the struggle has already grown desperate. This chess match of light and dark is swift and ruthless, a fight with wit and wisdom against a monstrous ego, an awesome hunger, grown over five hundred years. In the end, Mind wins, as it always does in twentieth century art. The end is anticlimactic compared to the dream that has gone before it. Everything, everything is in silence. Even when the actors talk there is no music in the background, no filler providing texture. Only the words that are said, only the squeak of a bat, only the grate of a wagon wheel rolling along a mountain road…

 



Comments
Add New Search
+/-
Write comment
Name:
Email:
 
Title:
UBBCode:
[b] [i] [u] [url] [quote] [code] [img] 
 
 
:angry::0:confused::cheer:B):evil::silly::dry::lol::kiss::D:pinch:
:(:shock::X:side::):P:unsure::woohoo::huh::whistle:;):s
:!::?::idea::arrow:
 
Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.
Anonymous   |67.142.161.xxx |2008-11-06 08:53:29
Lovely, sweeping review -- and a nice touch, of the pacing of Lugosi's
speech.

Minor Complaint:
"...a magic spell the likes of which no one had ever seen before…the
Dracula of Bela Lugosi. "

.... unless they'd been an audience member to his stage version of
Dracula.
Angela Mac   |67.142.161.xxx |2008-11-06 09:00:18
Grr, this thing -- I wasn't finished (for future reference -- don't fill out the
captcha till you're ready. Sheesh).

I wonder about the hype versus the fact.
Take a modern example, like The Omen -- when first hitting theatres, banners
were put in place during the show, so when patrons exited afterwards they were
greeted with the revelation it was "the sixth day, of the sixth
month..." Recollections of those events laud of audiences being "freaked
out!" We're prodded to imagine audiences addled, stumbling back to their
cars in visible shock. But.. eh... I don't imagine the rattled spines were quite
that widespread.

Which brings me to the notion of how shocking Dracula
actually was -- given the popularity of the novel (at that point, over thirty
years after its release),and the play based upon the book. I think you were
correct in your assessment of the quirks of Lugosi, and constraints of this beta
medium bringing to life a coolly intimidating take on the vampire -- but
Browning and Co weren't exactly introducing Dracula to the world.

It would be
interesting to know what those early audiences thought of Lugosi as compared to
what they imagined from the book (... just to be clear, when I read a book, I
see a movie in my head -- films might have been in their toddler stages, but
they had been around for a bit. Were humans already dreaming in celluloid?).
Paul Gagne   |SAdministrator |2008-11-06 13:34:38
I find this to be sort of a ridiculous movie. But maybe that is just because it
fucks the movie in the ass, and not in a good way. I much prefer Lugosi in White
Zombie. Hell, I prefer him in Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein.

Freaks
stands up to the test of time; Dracula does not.
Bobby B  - Anonymous Indeed   |67.170.183.xxx |2008-11-11 21:47:15
"I wonder about the hype versus the fact." You don't have to. You don't have to like the movie to recognize that
people who've never even seen it will imitate Lugosi's performance [i]now[/i]. That's impact.

".... unless they'd been an audience member to his stage version
of
Dracula."


I guess that's a point. IF they'd been in New York and they could
afford to go see a Broadway show AND that was the one they chose --
somehow, hit or not (and the play was) I don't think we're talking
about anywhere near the numbers that the movie clocked. Even in regards to
the (brilliant) book: I would argue that the movie had much
more impact on the book -- both in sales and status -- than the book
had on the movie. Again, you're talking about Americans who a) could read,
b) did read and c) read that book. I love the book, I really wish it would get its due but the heart of
the Dracula myth moved into film in 1931.

"I find this to be
sort of a ridiculous movie. But maybe that is just because it
fucks
the movie in the ass, and not in a good way."

If you feel that way,
it's hard to argue. It's like when people watch Fritz Lang's Metropolis and laugh at the acting. I mean, it's laughable. You have to make a choice
to go to where the movie came from but you're certainly not obligated to.
I think it's tough as well because not every movie suffers as much
from the time jump. Those early days of the talkies and I'm talking like
the first two years movies did a lot of growing up. Dracula[/i] was on the cusp of that. Immediately after , say by 1934 movie acting
had changed. Movies grew up really fast, adjusting to the new
aesthetic world that sound provided. If you watch It Happened One Night now it seems so much more contemporary in acting style than anything that
came out in 1931. Hell, [i]City Lights
came out in 1931 and was a hit and that was a silent movie. [i]Dracula[/i] essentially was one too. But hey, what are you gonna do? it makes sense
that you couldnt get with it.

3.26 Copyright (C) 2008 Compojoom.com / Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."

Last Updated on Thursday, 06 November 2008 05:15
 

Banner
Banner
Netflix, Inc.

 

porno izle porn izle porno izle porn izle porno izle porn izle