Dracula VS Spanish Dracula (1931)

[Richard--W a straight arrow Find all posts View Profile Close Richard--W]

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 ívalos 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?

[Ian Jane Administrator Find all posts View Profile Close Ian Jane]

I won't argue that in many ways the Spanish version is superior, but it's not the one I go to when I want a Dracula fix - so I'm voting for the Browning version mainly because I have trouble with anyone but Lugosi in the role (for the era, that is).

[Ehren H Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Ehren H]

Personally, I'm with Ian and I have to go with the Lugosi version. For me, that is most likely because of familiarity, it's just what I grew up with. The Spanish version, while technically better in so many ways, doesn't capture the same feel for me that the Lugosi one does. His performance really does make the movie in so many ways.

That said, while I recognize their importance and influence on EVERYTHING that came after, I don't particular think of either of them as "great" films, or even among the greatest Universal horror flicks. I think Whale's Frankenstein towers above them, and I'm sure many consider it blasphemy, but I find myself watching Browning's Mark of the Vampire far more than I watch his version of Dracula. My personal favorite Dracula, however, will always be Christopher Lee, and my favorite Dracula film of all time is actually Dracula Has Risen From The Grave, an odd choice I know haha

[Mark Tolch Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Mark Tolch]

I give Spanish Dracula all kinds of props for the reasons you mentioned, Richard...but I'm the same Bela-freak that the other guys are. Bela MAKES Dracula for me.

[Koukol Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Koukol]

For me, Bela is DRACULA...period!

The Spanish version has some better moments like when Dracula first appears but the actor is so bad he ruins the film for me.

[Gary Banks Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Gary Banks]

I would love to meld Lugosi, Frye & Van Sloan into the Spanish version. The Melford version is much better to look at. OTOH Carlos bugs his eyes so much I get the idea that underneath his cape somebody is giving him a painful prostate exam.

I like Melford's version but when I really want to watch Dracula I'll go with the Browning version only because of the three actors mentioned above.

[Richard--W a straight arrow Find all posts View Profile Close Richard--W]

Bela Lugosi's Dracula is the Dracula I fell in love with as a toddler, and I still love what Lugosi does, and I still love the film. I can't imagine Dracula without Lugosi.

But decades later, a treasure chest was discovered that demonstrated there is more to the 1931 Dracula than previously thought. Spanish Dracula is that treasure chest. It is the superior film. I wish Lugosi were in it.

[Lalala76 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Lalala76]

Interesting question. For me, no matter how hard I try I can't get my head around the Spanish Dracula, just because as others have mentioned it isn't Bela Lugosi. But I'm going to create further blasphemy here and say that for me Christopher Lee is without a doubt number 1, and being truthful I am more inclined to watch Nosferatu over the Browning version. It certainly isn't the best Universal horror, probably Frankenstein or the wolfman. However, I can't deny or take away its place in history and respect completely what it has done for horror.

I must note that you have inadvertently want to make me rewatch the Spanish version of the film. I think its in the Universal horror bd box isn't it. will have to have another go.

[Scott Intellectual Carrot Find all posts View Profile Close Scott]

Even though the Spanish version is better directed, Lugosi not only makes the original better but it's also creepier, something I can't quit put my finger on. I actually think it's staginess works in it's favor. Maybe it's just nostalgia talking.

I also wish we could transplant Lugosi into the Mexican EL VAMPIRO and it's sequel EL ATAUD DEL VAMPIRO. Germí¡n Robles doesn't do it for me either. Not as goofy as Carlos Villarías but only a hair better.

I do quite like Julií¡n Ugarte in MARK OF THE WOLFMAN.

[Richard--W a straight arrow Find all posts View Profile Close Richard--W]

MARK OF THE WOLFMAN ? Wait ... my mind is playing catch-up -- which film is that?

[Scott Intellectual Carrot Find all posts View Profile Close Scott]

MARK OF THE WOLFMAN ? Wait ... my mind is playing catch-up -- which film is that?

FRANKENSTEIN'S BLOODY TERROR, the first Paul Naschy werewolf flick. This is the Dracula-esque vampire guy I'm talking about:

[Scott Intellectual Carrot Find all posts View Profile Close Scott]

But yeah, Spanish Dracula sure would be great if Dracula was in it.

[Zane C. Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Zane C.]

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 ívalos 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?

The Lugosi version all the way for me as well. While the Spanish version is technically superior, it's all about the guy playing Dracula - and Lugosi is THE Dracula, followed closely by Christopher Lee, who almost edges Lugosi out. In my humble opinion, however, Lugosi is the definitive Dracula, and he elevates an otherwise pedestrian film to greatness.

The gentleman playing Dracula in the Spanish version (Carlos Villarias?) does a satisfactory job I suppose, but he doesn't have a tenth of the charisma and presence that Lugosi does. And THAT makes an otherwise solid, technically more proficient film, and drops it a few notches, on the strength of the lead alone.

Just my opinion, though.

You know, this thread is prompting me to break out the Jack Palance and Denholm Elliott versions of Dracula. I'm curious to rank the other versions now!

ETA: Now that I think of it, the "Dwight Frye" factor comes into play here as well. Frye's Renfield is great in Browning's version. He also adds to the proceedings nicely with his nutty rendition of the character!

[Richard--W a straight arrow Find all posts View Profile Close Richard--W]

I've been watching the restoration of Tod Browning's DRACULA. The film used to look flat and blown out, but the blu-ray transfer recovers the detail, contouring and subtleties in Karl Freund's photography. The black levels are very black indeed. Once again I'm knocked out by Lugosi's performance; apart from the menace, there is dignity and pride in his Count, a regalness that is Lugosi's own.

Lugosi's Count Dracula is royalty in exile.

The best likeness of him in character is at the Hollywood Wax Museum in Hollywood; other branches have a wax figure, but the one in Hollywood is the absolute best, being made from a life-mask late in his life. I don't have a picture of that, but here are a couple of others:

[Richard--W a straight arrow Find all posts View Profile Close Richard--W]

Lugosi in 1942, publicity photo for the revived play Dracula.