I'll be honest, I've never seen the
appeal of the story of Dracula. My personal view is that it
was a pot boiler that just had the dumb luck of being chosen as the
source material for one of the most famous silent horror films of all
time (Nosferatu, which is on this list, but I have yet to
watch it as of this writing). Solely because of that it was labeled
as a “classic.” But, if that’s the case, then it's truly
ironic that Stoker's widow tried to have every copy of Nosferatu
destroyed.
Beyond that, it’s a story which we've
outgrown as a culture. The original novel clearly used Dracula's
corruption of women as symbolic of their awakening sexuality. Stoker
might as well have beaten his readers to death with a sign that read
“FEMALE SEXUALITY IS EVIL!” Don't get me wrong, we haven't
outgrown Dracula the character, but he's far from the creature he was
in the original novel.
To date, I've seen one version of the
story I fully enjoyed: the Spanish Language version of this very film
that was shot parallel to the Bela Lugosi version for foreign
release. I also felt that the Francis Ford Coppola adaptation wasn't
terrible, but it mostly shined when it expanded upon the source
material by giving Dracula a more sympathetic origin without making
him seem weak or uninteresting. (Looking at you Dracula Untold).
Now that I've gotten that out of the
way, let me say that I enjoyed this viewing more than previous
viewings, as I felt that I finally “got” it. I'm very used to
the idea of Dracula (Bela Lugosi) as the suave lover, so this was the
first time I realized that Lugosi was supposed to come across
as stiff and stilted. He was an inhuman thing that rarely had reason
to interact with mortals. Basically, I was watching him playing a
corpse.
I feel guilty that my praise of the
film must end with the performances of Lugosi and Dwight Frye, and
their ability to create a number of tense scenes together. In fact,
Frye is so amazing as Renfield, you wish that the entire film had
been about him and Dracula having a battle of wills. Beyond that, I
almost feel sorry for the movie. It's clear that it was made in a
time before the proper use of film was fully understood. The camera
movements are slight and the framing of shots not always well used.
While it's better than some films from the day, you often feel as if
you're watching a play rather than a true film, with the actors
attempting to project both physically and verbally for the people in
the back row and pausing to let every line sink in.
That said, these problems were quite
common with many early films, and this movie was far from the worst
offender. I'll be covering The Black Cat later on this list,
a movie that's well-acted, but makes you think the director had never
touched a camera before. So, in comparison, this is forgivable.
Dracula belongs on this list,
because when it came out, it was horrifying. The assault by an
inhuman thing disguised as a man, feeding by taking the lifeblood
from his victims and corrupting their very essences to keep them from
salvation. The fear hasn't gone away, but it’s now been joined by
tedium and annoyance at the primitive values and primitive film
making of the era of its origin.
No comments:
Post a Comment