Some people think Tod Browning's distress over Lon Chaney's death affected his direction of Dracula (1931). I wouldn't know about that, but when the Spanish crew under George Melford and Enrique Tovar ívalos shot their alternate version at night, they not only replicated every one of Browning's scenes, they deliberated the scenes much further than Browning did, and shot additional scenes that Browning discarded. Spanish Dracula has twice as many camera setups -- some of them delightfully creepy -- more special effects and lasts 29 minutes longer. The only thing the Spanish version doesn't do better is Dracula himself. Carlos Villarías does fine, but he's nothing special. In a perfect world, Bela Lugosi's electrifying presence and defining performance would grace the Spanish version as well.
It is true that Spanish Dracula builds on Browning's Dracula and couldn't exist without it.
Which version do you prefer? Which version tells the story better? In which version is the script better realized?
It is true that Spanish Dracula builds on Browning's Dracula and couldn't exist without it.
Which version do you prefer? Which version tells the story better? In which version is the script better realized?
Comment