Fun fact: we all know the Spanish language version was shot on the same sets at night with a completely different cast and crew, but did you know that The Transylvanian inn , where Renfield is warned against continuing his trip to Castle Dracula , was destroyed by a fire of unknown origin on October 23 , 1930 , after Browning's unit had finished shooting , according to an October 25 item in the Exhibitor's Herald - World . The inn that appears in the Spanish film is a completely new structure .
Comparing the great talent and great actinc experience of Mr. Lugosi and others great actors and actresses in the "english talkie" version The "Hispanic talkie" version of Dracula , with a much smaller budget and fewer resources, Actors from different Latin American countries and Spain, sound-camera technicians with very low salaries, forced to improvise and bring the film product forward at time The Night Time schedule favored film "scared" viewing in the Hispanic version of "Dracula"
When I taught a film course, one thing I had my students was compare and contrast the scenes in these two films where Renfield arrives at the castle. They really liked this exercise, and it was interesting to see what teenagers identified as the stronger and weaker aspects of each scene.
Comparing the great talent and great actinc experience of Mr. Lugosi and others great actors and actresses in the "english talkie" version The "Hispanic talkie" version of Dracula , with a much smaller budget and fewer resources, Actors from different Latin American countries and Spain, sound-camera technicians with very low salaries, forced to improvise and bring the film product forward at time The Night Time schedule favored film "scared" viewing in the Hispanic version of "Dracula"
And the contrast between nice, handsome normie Renfield at the start and what he turns into once he's under Dracula's power...brr. Peter MacNichol did a great parody version of the character in Dracula Dead and Loving It, easily the best thing about that film.
The director of photography on SPANISH DRACULA was longtime Universal cameraman George Robinson, who later shot SON OF FRANKENSTEIN and most of the '40s "Monster Rally" movies. He was also DP on the Abbott & Costello TV show.
That's not bad. You get hired to run the camera for a low budget, initially half-assed alternate language film, it becomes successful, and all of a sudden, you become one of company's main cinematographers.
Univision/Vix just released a Mexican television comedy series called, “Y llegaron de noche” that revolves around the production of the 1931 Spanish-language version of Dracula, which was concurrently produced with the English-language version its seven episodes long.
There's one thing, no one seems to have notice. In the U.S. movie, when the wives are backing off camera, one bride steps on another's gown. You can visibly see her struggle to hold her balance.
The cardboard is there to dim the lamp as she sleeps -- listen to Steve Haberman's commentary. It's not a mistake or oversight as naysayers keep harping. It's even included in production stills, which shows it was intentional "set dressing". Thing is, nobody ever even notices the cardboard until it's pointed out to them - they're too engrossed by Lugosi. I believe people who say they prefer the Spanish version are just letting the initial novelty of an alternate version get the better of them. But that novelty wears off after a few viewings.
Comparing the great talent and great actinc experience of Mr. Lugosi and others great actors and actresses in the "english talkie" version The "Hispanic talkie" version of Dracula , with a much smaller budget and fewer resources, Actors from different Latin American countries and Spain (Many different accents and different cultures ) , sound-camera technicians with very low salaries, forced to improvise and bring the film product forward at time The Night Time schedule favored film "scared" viewing in the Hispanic version of "Dracula"
An amazing documentary. Very well done. I love Spanish Dracula and have for some years since I saw it when I got my Legacy boxset. But Bela baby. This is Bela in his prime, Bela at the height of his career. Bela Lugosi has so much charisma, so much power in his wicked stare ... it's got to be the American version. But you know what ... screw that. My movie collection is big enough for both, and you are right. The fact that they both exist only gives depth to the experience of watching Dracula. Anyway, keep up the good work. Damn, I need to watch Spanish Dracula again...
One of the most horrifying scenes in Browning's Dracula is the murder of the flower seller in London, and then Dracula's visit to the opera. He's genteel, but he has just come straight from the murder. The omission of this scene is a big hole in Melford's version.
@@starmnsixty1209 Melford's version is riddled with holes. All this hype about it being better than Browning's classic is just that - hype. Once you delve into a closer examination it falls apart at the seams.
Ahora vivo en México y aprender español es una gran prioridad para mí. Ver esta película en español y disfrutarla con un mínimo de búsquedas en el diccionario es simplemente maravilloso. Muchas gracias por este video. Me encantan los contenidos como este.
Browning's "cutting of dialog" most likely had a lot to do with the fact that - with many theaters in the US still not outfitted for sound - his version had to also work as a silent film. That version was probably also sent to Spanish speaking areas that had no sound in theaters.
Excellent post-mortem. The Spanish Dracula does have a great deal to admire, and I find the sea voyage sequence particularly effective. I wish I could say that the entire film was at that level. Ultimately the film drags...some of the performances are wooden, there are moments that rea too calculated (the exaggerated door creaks, e.g.). Browning's version is simply more gripping, for reasons that may have been unintentional. While it gets criticized for being static and stagy, and its lack of score deemed a disservice, I find all of that lends it the quality of a fever dream when viewed at one on the morning with the lights off. Also, when I first viewed the digital restoration of the Browning some years back, I found the space of Seward's mansion came alive where previously it had seemed flat. It's a real presence thanks to the lighting and Freund, and because of that I constantly feel the presence of the undead intruder somewhere unseen inside it, waiting to strike.
The reason Browning's version works is that he was a great director! Sadly, most of his work has fallen out of the public consciousness because it was made in the silent film era. He directed a lot of films starring the great silent horror star Lon Chaney, including the legendary lost film London After Midnight.
Comparing the great talent and great actinc experience of Mr. Lugosi and others great actors and actresses in the "english talkie" version The "Hispanic talkie" version of Dracula , with a much smaller budget and fewer resources, Actors from different Latin American countries and Spain, sound-camera technicians with very low salaries, forced to improvise and bring the film product forward at time The Night Time schedule favored film "scared" viewing in the Hispanic version of "Dracula"
I was REALLY looking forward to seeing your take on this. Thanks for posting!! My biggest issue, of course, is simply that Carlos Villarias is NOT Bela Lugosi. Villarias was clearly directed to imitate Lugosi, and he just looks silly when he tries. And Villarias is utterly ridiculous when he grimaces. Lugosi always looks like a threat; Villarias comes across as more comic. Lugosi has his own unique style, which is well served by Browning's approach to the material. Villarias really doesn't, and it seems to me that George Melford's approach is more conventional. As you said, Robin, Melford's approach seems designed solely to one-up Browning and Freund, but Melford cannot even come close to Browning and Freund's sense of atmosphere. But I think the supporting cast in the Spanish version is far stronger. The Spanish Van Helsing has a more authoritative approach, while Edward Van Sloan doesn't exactly project confidence. And, truthfully, I didn't even remember Harker and Seward were in the American film - they are just that unnecessary. The girls in the American version are mostly forgettable, to the point that I didn't realize for years that Lucy's fate was virtually ignored. Lupita Tovar in the Spanish version is absolutely amazing, though - definitely worthy of Dracula's attention. Helen Chandler ... isn't. If only Tovar had a stronger Dracula figure to play against in the Spanish version -- and Lugosi had a stronger Mina to play against in the American version. I have always said that it's a shame the Spanish version couldn't just use Lugosi. I wonder if he could have learned the Spanish language as he did English - it might have worked. Admittedly, the technology of the time might have made that impossible, but it seems like each version is missing something the other tried to create. In the end, each version has its strengths, and it is difficult to really pick one over the other. If the American Dracula takes the edge, it is purely because of Bela Lugosi and the atmosphere of the early scenes. Spanish Dracula tries to do more with what it has, but doesn't have Lugosi OR the atmosphere. But both fall back on the drawing room setup of the play (even using the same stock footage for Dracula's trip to London), and I think the style simply withers for both. Both versions just suffer from missed opportunities and could have been so much more. Ultimately, it all comes down to these unavoidable facts: the American version has Lugosi -- and the Spanish version doesn't. And the timidity of the times simply couldn't give what each needed to be a true classic.
"The Browning version" - I see what you did there! I prefer the Browning version, mainly because of the acting, and I'm not just talking about Dracula. Most of the Latin actors are very hammy, almost as though they are playing it as comedy. I wonder if this is because of the Englishness of the original story: either the actors didn't understand the atmosphere of cool, clipped Englishness with beastly terror threatening from outside, or else they dismissed it, perhaps even thinking it was silly. Though to this I must add that the young lovers were played much more naturally in the Spanish version; in the English version they were very wooden.
Thank you so much for this, the Spanish version is my favorite in the whole world and I love every resource available about it. I love that it's being rediscovered and has a chance to be appreciated.
The Spanish version had the better Mina(Eva), the English version had the better Dracula, Renfield and Van Helsing. Also, the Fog in the English one makes the carriage scene much more atmospheric and cool. Also... in the English version, keeping Renfeild at the bottom of the staircase when they first meet, while Dracula stays nearer the middle section, forcing Renfield to look up at him longer, and thus resulting in the two not sharing the same frame in the scene, makes Dracula seem much more intimidating. Also..... Dracula waving away his brides to bite Renfield himself is essential in my opinion. It was, after all, one of Stoker's very earliest notes when preparing to write the novel. The Spanish version, while having a few superior shots, over does it in a lot of areas. A few too many loudly opening doors, etc. Dwight Frye's Renfield in the English version is perfectly creepy and still very sympathetic. His signature slow, low-pitch laughter is cinematic gold. A far cry from the Renfield in the Spanish version, who's laugh is just over-the-top, loud, and what I'd consider crazy for crazy's sake. Also, Renfield's death in the English version has every right to be "unfairly tragic"... This is a Horror film we're talking about here, not a fluffy bunny movie. Bad, unfortunate, tragic, HORRIBLE things are part of the deal, I'm afraid.
Great video. I have seen both films several times. Spanish Dracula is superior in many ways, and since Spanish is my native language, I enjoy the dialogue and the different accents (there are Spanish, Mexican and Argentinian accents in the film), but nothing can beat the screen presence, the delivery, the sinister charm of Bela Lugosi, who I think was the better actor. Villarias' performance looks too exaggerated, even for the period. Now, the two Renfields are equally good, though I have a special place in my heart for Dwight Fry. I also think Lupita Tovar did a better job as the leading lady, warmer, more natural. I enjoy both films, but Lugosi *is* Dracula. He was so impressive, so majestic, in his prime when he made this movie, so very, very handsome, and suave and dangerous. His Dracula casts a very long shadow and every other actor has had to play against him. And yet in popular imagination, he still is Dracula.
Very interesting to learn about the different accents in the Spanish language version (I don't speak Spanish). I too think the Spanish language version is the better film and that Lugosi simply is the (much) better Dracula. Hopefully some day somebody is gonna make a fan version and splice Lugosi into the Spanish language version! xD
@@caulkins69 No, Villarias speaks with his very spanish (from Spain) accent. He lived in Mexico for the rest of his life after emigrating there from his native Spain but he never got to adopt the mexican accent. As some other person commented, the accents in the spanish version are all over the place, as the actors were mexican, spanish and argentinian, and even though they spoke the same language their national accents are very different. Imagine an english speaking movie with actors supposedly being from the same country but actually speaking with cockney, irish, scottish, south african and australian accent... Well, that is what happens in this movie.
My lovely wife bought me a boxed set with both versions a while back, and some commentary. But this analysis is not only excellent, but very welcome. Thanks much.
I think both films are mixed bags to a certain extent, but I give the edge to Browning's. That said, there are times where I really enjoy the more dynamic camerawork and shot composition of Melford's. My favorite example of this is the very last shot of the movie where we have Juan and Eva at the top of the stairs with Van Helsing at the bottom of the frame standing over Renfield's body.
@@originaluddite Would that even be possible, considering how different each performance is for both characters. I'm no filmmaker, but it may be a tad tricky to pull it off...
I think editing down Spanish Dracula to match the edit/structure of American Dracula would be fairly easy. In theory you could Dub the Spanish film in a way that mimics the American one...perhaps there would be an opportunity to use the original American lines as the dubbed in material? It might be possible. But the amount of material(wide shots, scenery shots, etc) available in Spanish Dracula that could be effectively transposed into American Dracula would be quite minimal. You'd be able to fill out American Dracula ever so slightly but not in a substantial way.
@@creategreatness8823 If people can deepfake American politicians' faces onto scenes from Sanford and Son (and I've seen it done), and endlessly recut the Lynch/De Laurentiis version of Dune to their taste, we're not that far off from compositing Lugosi, Frye and Van Sloane into Spanish Dracula, dubbing the supporting cast into English and making some kind of 1931 Dracula mastercut.
I may have originally come for the fairly humorous reviews years ago, but i really do love these film history deep dives in to classic genre media even more, i'm glad you guys have been tackling them these past couple or so years
There are definite high points to the “Spanish Dracula” but it’s difficult to get past Carlos Villarias’ constant mugging for the camera. Yes, some (well, many) shots are better staged and composed than their counterparts in the Browning film, but Karl Fruend was by far the greatest cinematographer of the classic era. And you said it best: Browning had LUGOSI
I think it makes it more charming in an unironic way. Sure no one can top Lugosi’s iconic performance, but Carlos Villarias played a decent Dracula and the mugging shot makes it strangely creepy. Almost crazy in a way
When these two versions were made, nobody had any idea how influential "Dracula" was going to be - essentially giving birth to an entire genre of film. Intensive analysis like this would've been unimaginable in 1931.
while there will always be a place in my heart for dear Bela, I am firmly in the Spanish camp. scenes shot at night do have something special about them, and the image of Eva as predator about to bite her beau has always chilled me to the bone. I can never get enough of the leering Conde Dracula, and the lunatic Renfield is imo the best in the business. there is also a prelude on the Spanish DVD in which the actress playing Eva, Lupita Tovar, talks about shooting scenes at night, how she would get there early and it would be deserted and so, so creepy.
Excellent breakdown of the two films. So much of what the Spanish language version did improved upon the English language version, but the Dracula/Van Helsing confrontation and Dracula himself are much better in the Lugosi version.
I love watching any one of your videos about universal or hammer or vintage silent monster movies, watched many of them several times, you do such a professional job with so much great information, cheers
I love how informative these videos are. It's cool to learn new stuff about movies I've been watching since I was a kid. I recently found your channel by watching your Harryhausen documentary; this lead me to check out your two part documentary on Lugosi. The part where you mentioned Hollywood Gothic by David Skal peaked my interest so I picked up a copy for myself. I'm about half way through it now and it's such an interesting read, so thank you for the recommendation! Keep up the great content 🙂
Happy Halloween Weekend Dark Corners!!! I like Bela Lugosi's Dracula more since i watch it every Halloween but i always watch the Spanish version of Dracula on Day of the Dead!!!
The lights in the theatre scene don't come back up again - at least, not the house lights. The house lights dim, then the stage lights come on - also illuminating the actors - which cues them that the show is starting, so they turn toward the stage to watch.
Excellent analysis. Having seen both I would say the Browning version is superior for the reasons Robin gave but also because Lugosi and Van Sloan are simply much better actors at least here than Carlos Villarias and Eduardo Arozamena. Many have, unjustly, accused Lugosi of hamminess but that's exactly what Villarias and Arozamena display throughout the movie. I'm a bit surprised that DCR didn't show more of the contrast between the Browning and Melford versions of Dracula's and Van Helsing's confrontation. In the latter it appeared to be not so much a contest of wills as of eye bulging.
The Hammer Dracula’s use of the cape to cloak the kiss-bite echoes the Carlos shot, not the other way around. Hammer went to school on these Universal Pictures classic.
I dont think he thought the Hammer films predated Spanish Dracula. I think he just realizes that a lot of people know Christopher Lees dracula, and far fewer have seen Spanish Dracula.
This makes me sad a movie Richard "Cheech" Marin wanted to make about David Manners falling in love with the actress playing Mina in the Spanish language version was NEVER made.
One odd quirk of the Spanish version is the introduction of Van Helsing. It clearly involves a trip to and from Amsterdam that could only work if they flew there and back. In Browning's version it's not explicitly stated as a trip abroad, so makes more sense in the overall context of the film. (Assuming the version I saw in both cases was the theatrical cut.)
The flag refers to where it was released (if it referred to the language then the other flag would have to be English, not US), but the film is always referred to as 'Spanish Dracula', even on the DVD release.
I was confused as well, it should’ve been called the Spanish-language Dracula. When the video opens talking about the reuse of the same set, I was like, actors and crew came all the way from Spain just to film on the same set? 🤔
@akaLaBrujaRoja The only reason why it is called Spanish Dracula was because of the lead being a Spaniard. The distinction was forceful as both the star and the people releasing the film wanted it so.
@@akaLaBrujaRoja You are so right Both movies where from USA, But one in spanish an the other in english (language). It was wrong form him to say : the US version/Spanish version. And those flags! 🙄
Wonderful job as always! This was such a well done video. Your deep-dive documentary style videos are such a treat! "Comparison is the thief of joy" as they say. Both films have their own virtues and they should each stand on their own. It is almost unfair to compare them, although very interesting and entertaining!
I had such a big smile on my face when I saw that this was one of your newer videos. This is one of the most fair comparisons I have ever seen between the two and I appreciate not dunking on either.
This is absolutely brilliant, thank you for this analysis! My aunt turned me onto this subject in 1974 when I was 9 years old and it was all obscure at that point. Fantastic work :))
Honestly, I think one of my favourite aspects from the Spanish Dracula is actually something I missed on my first viewing. Whenever Dracula exits his coffin, there's smoke. I don't know why, but I really like that attention to detail.... Both movies are good at least. I don't speak a word of Spanish, so I'd rather watch the Lugosi version, but in no way am I putting down the Spanish version. It had a short film schedule and a minimal budget, so the fact that people still compare which version is better when normally the foreign films would be completely disregarded probably says a lot...
@@ThreadBomb You could think that, but in actuality, when you go back to the original Bram Stoker novel, Dracula has the power to take the form of mist or smoke, as well as a bat, and a wolf, as "seen" (it was offscreen) in Lugosi's Dracula.
I just hope somewhere out there is a print of the original Browning cut. I think the lost footage would address many of the so called flaws with the original.
It's a shame because Bela Lugosi spoke very good French, as seen in Murders In The Rue Morgue, so if it was a French version of Dracula, they could've had him... Of course, that would require Universal paying him more than bare minimum.
I'd honestly like to see a shot for shot remake of these movies combined using the best of both to make a solid interpretation. It'd be an interesting experiment if nothing else.
A.I. would probably allow faces and voices from the Lugosi version to be inserted into some of the better Spanish version scenes. I vote for a UA-cam teaser style video with some of those scenes. I’d love to hear Edward van Sloan doing translated Van Helsing dialogue from the Spanish version.
Lupita Tovar is far better and far more vibrant than the stiff Helen Chandler, and that's a huge deciding factor for me. Of course, Lugosi is irreplaceable.
She is far less wooden - but not exactly convincing as an upper-class English girl, which is supposed to be her character. And then there is the black negligee which this supposedly virginal girl wears to bed...
I like both, differently, and for the reasons you've stated. It would be interesting to see a mash-up of the two films, if only to see if a superior version could be created.
Laurel and Hardy would do their own foreign film reshoots right after doing the English scene. They'd memorize the sound of their lines. The *Hats Off Entertainment* channel did a documentary recently that features such a clip.
Merci pour avoir mis en ligne cette pépite dédiée au chef d'œuvre cinématographique des années révolues. Magnifique et passionnant et divertissant documentaire. 👍💜💚💜
Ultimately, for me, the versions stand or fall on the portrayals of the central character. If the casting is off there, it doesn't matter how good the rest of it is. This is the film that made Bela Lugosi's career, and his Dracula would henceforth be the gold standard against which all subsequent performances would be measured. On the other hand, one of the actors obliged to follow Lugosi's lead was Carlos Villarías in the Spanish version, and while he's not horrible, like most who have essayed the role, he isn't worthy to carry Bela's candelabra.
Great vid! I do disagree. The shot of Dracula rising up out of the hold of the ship in the Spanish version. I feel the Browning shot, is more Dracula’s style. Regal, taken stance, posturing. He is above creeping around, like a lowly scavenger hiding in the darkness. Which is the feeling nosferatu and the Spanish version put out there.
Excellent! Thanks for another great documentary. Agree both versions have their merits so difficult to identify which is superior. The Spanish Dracula remains still too unfamiliar I suspect and is likely therefore to be underrated. This is a valuable and intelligent comparison of these two pioneering horror films, classics both. 👍
Thank you Dark Corners for an excellent episode comparing two versions of film history, but since you asked, if I had to choose a version it would be the Spanish one!!!🙏👌🧛❣️
I think the only thing Spanish Drac doesn't have over Browning Drac is Lugosi. As others have pointed out, Browning acted like his camera was bolted to the floor and he was filming a stage play.
I first heard of the spanish version in James Rolfe's Monster Madness. This is a great topic for your channel. Yet another reason why I look forward to every upload of yours.
17:35 Me?... I would of had the camera angle further away from the lady,, while slowly closing in on the lady telling the story, to her close up...bringing the audience in. For sound, I would add a heart beat.
7:20 A little off-topic but on the subject of films that were shot twice, I think Back to the Future having to film much of the film over again after Michael J. Fox replaced Eric Stolz possibly contributes to why that film is so good? Having the opportunity to benchmark and improve, must have led to a better product?
Quite possibly. Films can be a juggernaut once they get moving and it is hard to turn things around. The fact that the shark kept breaking in Jaws slowed production down and they were able to rewrite much of the script. For Pixar they are able to make the films a few times before the final renders. Director Andrew Stanton lamented this loss when it came to making John Carter. Or you can look at shorts that have been successfully turned into feature films like Whiplash.
I am very interested in watching a side-by-side version, where each line or shot is first played in the English version, then paused, and the Spanish version is played, then proceeding to the next shot or dialogue. In this way, the different cuts and different lengths problems would be completely sidestepped, while still showing everything from both versions in comparison to each other.
This may sound a little odd, but if there are any AI/deep fake wizards out there, consider how interesting it would be to splice these films together. . .maybe in the style of a teaser trailer. While I certainly wouldn’t want to disrespect the performances of any of the actors or other film makers who worked on these movies back in the 30s, there are several shots and scenes from the Villarias version that I would love to see with the Lugosi version’s cast. Lugosi’s face at the top of the stairs in that beautiful panning shot, Edward Van Sloan giving the backstory for Dracula (a scene pleasantly similar to the novel), Dwight Fry’s iconic slow laugh over the slaying of the Demeter’s crew with Lugosi looking up at him from over a body (I like the scene in the Spanish version but the laugh in that scene always seems a little too boisterous and noisy to me). . .
One of the reasons there are differences in length is because there were scenes cut from Browning's film that originally made it to the screen in 1931. The original length was 85 minutes instead of 75.
Great job on this video. It’s interesting how there were two versions shot virtually simultaneously. It’s actually a great use of resources. Love the comparisons you have highlighted
I enjoyed this detailed discussion and appreciated the insights that were new to me...but I confess I was hoping to learn that I'm not the only viewer who thinks Carlos Villarias has a strong resemblance to Andy Kaufman and is pretty much impossible to take seriously.
It's difficult to give a definitive answer as to which version is better, partly because it is the existence of the American Dracula that drives many of the improvements made in the Spanish Dracula. I still give my vote to Tod Browning's Dracula. Not only is it more atmospheric, but we also get three iconic performances of iconic characters with Bela Lugosi (Dracula), Edward Van Sloane (Van Helsing) and Dwight Frye (Renfield).
Fun fact: we all know the Spanish language version was shot on the same sets at night with a completely different cast and crew, but did you know that The Transylvanian inn , where Renfield is warned against continuing his trip to Castle Dracula , was destroyed by a fire of unknown origin on October 23 , 1930 , after Browning's unit had finished shooting , according to an October 25 item in the Exhibitor's Herald - World . The inn that appears in the Spanish film is a completely new structure .
Didn't know this. Thanks.
too tired to research, true or trolling?
They showed this fun fact in the new Spanglish show about these movie en español. Y llegaron de noche!
Comparing the great talent and great actinc experience of Mr. Lugosi and others great actors and actresses in the "english talkie" version
The "Hispanic talkie" version of Dracula , with a much smaller budget and fewer resources, Actors from different Latin American countries and Spain, sound-camera technicians with very low salaries, forced to improvise and bring the film product forward at time
The Night Time schedule favored film "scared" viewing in the Hispanic version of "Dracula"
When I taught a film course, one thing I had my students was compare and contrast the scenes in these two films where Renfield arrives at the castle. They really liked this exercise, and it was interesting to see what teenagers identified as the stronger and weaker aspects of each scene.
Cool!
Comparing the great talent and great actinc experience of Mr. Lugosi and others great actors and actresses in the "english talkie" version
The "Hispanic talkie" version of Dracula , with a much smaller budget and fewer resources, Actors from different Latin American countries and Spain, sound-camera technicians with very low salaries, forced to improvise and bring the film product forward at time
The Night Time schedule favored film "scared" viewing in the Hispanic version of "Dracula"
It should be said that Dwight Frye also gave a performance that couldn't be matched. The look of him in the ship's hold is the face of my nightmares.
And the contrast between nice, handsome normie Renfield at the start and what he turns into once he's under Dracula's power...brr. Peter MacNichol did a great parody version of the character in Dracula Dead and Loving It, easily the best thing about that film.
On the whole I think the US version has the better performances. Maybe some day I'll try to do a fan edit that combines the two versions.
odd, shouldn't Dracula VS Spanish Dracula end with both of them teaming up to fight MechaDracula?
"Things I didn't know I want" for 100, please
As long as MechaDracula is played by Christopher Lee, I'm in 😃
@@blackenedwritings The Daily Double!
Or French Dracula
I think Sony would be interested in a movie with that premise.
The director of photography on SPANISH DRACULA was longtime Universal cameraman George Robinson, who later shot
SON OF FRANKENSTEIN and most of the '40s "Monster Rally" movies. He was also DP on the Abbott & Costello TV show.
I think I'm right in saying that he shot all of the Dracula sequels for Universal.
Cool...did not know that. I love the photography from "Son" and the Frankenstein sequels afterwards
That's not bad. You get hired to run the camera for a low budget, initially half-assed alternate language film, it becomes successful, and all of a sudden, you become one of company's main cinematographers.
Univision/Vix just released a Mexican television comedy series called, “Y llegaron de noche” that revolves around the production of the 1931 Spanish-language version of Dracula, which was concurrently produced with the English-language version its seven episodes long.
There's one thing, no one seems to have notice. In the U.S. movie, when the wives are backing off camera, one bride steps on another's gown. You can visibly see her struggle to hold her balance.
Not to mention the cardboard on the bedroom lamps to filter the stage lights!
@@Barnabas45 You should watch James Rolfe's video about the cardboard. (Seriously!)
@@andrewgwilliam4831 If you mean the Cinema massacre guy I already have, It was amusing!
@@Barnabas45 That's the one!
The cardboard is there to dim the lamp as she sleeps -- listen to Steve Haberman's commentary. It's not a mistake or oversight as naysayers keep harping. It's even included in production stills, which shows it was intentional "set dressing". Thing is, nobody ever even notices the cardboard until it's pointed out to them - they're too engrossed by Lugosi. I believe people who say they prefer the Spanish version are just letting the initial novelty of an alternate version get the better of them. But that novelty wears off after a few viewings.
Lugosi Dracula for this kid his old world accent really drives the point home that this person could be from ages past
Facts
I completely agree!
Comparing the great talent and great actinc experience of Mr. Lugosi and others great actors and actresses in the "english talkie" version
The "Hispanic talkie" version of Dracula , with a much smaller budget and fewer resources, Actors from different Latin American countries and Spain (Many different accents and different cultures ) , sound-camera technicians with very low salaries, forced to improvise and bring the film product forward at time
The Night Time schedule favored film "scared" viewing in the Hispanic version of "Dracula"
An amazing documentary. Very well done. I love Spanish Dracula and have for some years since I saw it when I got my Legacy boxset. But Bela baby. This is Bela in his prime, Bela at the height of his career. Bela Lugosi has so much charisma, so much power in his wicked stare ... it's got to be the American version. But you know what ... screw that. My movie collection is big enough for both, and you are right. The fact that they both exist only gives depth to the experience of watching Dracula. Anyway, keep up the good work. Damn, I need to watch Spanish Dracula again...
To be fair Batman debuted nine years later so Batman uses the Dracula logo!
No, it's taken from the film "The Bat" (1926)
One of the most horrifying scenes in Browning's Dracula is the murder of the flower seller in London, and then Dracula's visit to the opera. He's genteel, but he has just come straight from the murder. The omission of this scene is a big hole in Melford's version.
Agreed.
@@starmnsixty1209
Melford's version is riddled with holes. All this hype about it being better than Browning's classic is just that - hype. Once you delve into a closer examination it falls apart at the seams.
Ahora vivo en México y aprender español es una gran prioridad para mí. Ver esta película en español y disfrutarla con un mínimo de búsquedas en el diccionario es simplemente maravilloso. Muchas gracias por este video. Me encantan los contenidos como este.
When I watched it for the first time a couple of months ago, it reminded me of how much Spanish I've lost! :-/
Drácula is speaking old Castilian Spanish though , los of vuestra and usted. It’s very roundabout. Sort of like Faun character in Pan’s Labyrinth
I would say marrying Lupita after the movie was a lot more than "doing fine".
Right
Browning's "cutting of dialog" most likely had a lot to do with the fact that - with many theaters in the US still not outfitted for sound - his version had to also work as a silent film. That version was probably also sent to Spanish speaking areas that had no sound in theaters.
Excellent post-mortem. The Spanish Dracula does have a great deal to admire, and I find the sea voyage sequence particularly effective. I wish I could say that the entire film was at that level. Ultimately the film drags...some of the performances are wooden, there are moments that rea too calculated (the exaggerated door creaks, e.g.).
Browning's version is simply more gripping, for reasons that may have been unintentional. While it gets criticized for being static and stagy, and its lack of score deemed a disservice, I find all of that lends it the quality of a fever dream when viewed at one on the morning with the lights off. Also, when I first viewed the digital restoration of the Browning some years back, I found the space of Seward's mansion came alive where previously it had seemed flat. It's a real presence thanks to the lighting and Freund, and because of that I constantly feel the presence of the undead intruder somewhere unseen inside it, waiting to strike.
The reason Browning's version works is that he was a great director! Sadly, most of his work has fallen out of the public consciousness because it was made in the silent film era. He directed a lot of films starring the great silent horror star Lon Chaney, including the legendary lost film London After Midnight.
Comparing the great talent and great actinc experience of Mr. Lugosi and others great actors and actresses in the "english talkie" version
The "Hispanic talkie" version of Dracula , with a much smaller budget and fewer resources, Actors from different Latin American countries and Spain, sound-camera technicians with very low salaries, forced to improvise and bring the film product forward at time
The Night Time schedule favored film "scared" viewing in the Hispanic version of "Dracula"
"But Browning had Lugosi" and that is why it is hard to pit them against each other, as both have elements the other version could use.
I was REALLY looking forward to seeing your take on this. Thanks for posting!!
My biggest issue, of course, is simply that Carlos Villarias is NOT Bela Lugosi. Villarias was clearly directed to imitate Lugosi, and he just looks silly when he tries. And Villarias is utterly ridiculous when he grimaces. Lugosi always looks like a threat; Villarias comes across as more comic. Lugosi has his own unique style, which is well served by Browning's approach to the material. Villarias really doesn't, and it seems to me that George Melford's approach is more conventional. As you said, Robin, Melford's approach seems designed solely to one-up Browning and Freund, but Melford cannot even come close to Browning and Freund's sense of atmosphere.
But I think the supporting cast in the Spanish version is far stronger. The Spanish Van Helsing has a more authoritative approach, while Edward Van Sloan doesn't exactly project confidence. And, truthfully, I didn't even remember Harker and Seward were in the American film - they are just that unnecessary.
The girls in the American version are mostly forgettable, to the point that I didn't realize for years that Lucy's fate was virtually ignored. Lupita Tovar in the Spanish version is absolutely amazing, though - definitely worthy of Dracula's attention. Helen Chandler ... isn't. If only Tovar had a stronger Dracula figure to play against in the Spanish version -- and Lugosi had a stronger Mina to play against in the American version.
I have always said that it's a shame the Spanish version couldn't just use Lugosi. I wonder if he could have learned the Spanish language as he did English - it might have worked. Admittedly, the technology of the time might have made that impossible, but it seems like each version is missing something the other tried to create.
In the end, each version has its strengths, and it is difficult to really pick one over the other. If the American Dracula takes the edge, it is purely because of Bela Lugosi and the atmosphere of the early scenes. Spanish Dracula tries to do more with what it has, but doesn't have Lugosi OR the atmosphere. But both fall back on the drawing room setup of the play (even using the same stock footage for Dracula's trip to London), and I think the style simply withers for both. Both versions just suffer from missed opportunities and could have been so much more.
Ultimately, it all comes down to these unavoidable facts: the American version has Lugosi -- and the Spanish version doesn't. And the timidity of the times simply couldn't give what each needed to be a true classic.
"The Browning version" - I see what you did there!
I prefer the Browning version, mainly because of the acting, and I'm not just talking about Dracula. Most of the Latin actors are very hammy, almost as though they are playing it as comedy. I wonder if this is because of the Englishness of the original story: either the actors didn't understand the atmosphere of cool, clipped Englishness with beastly terror threatening from outside, or else they dismissed it, perhaps even thinking it was silly. Though to this I must add that the young lovers were played much more naturally in the Spanish version; in the English version they were very wooden.
Thank you so much for this, the Spanish version is my favorite in the whole world and I love every resource available about it. I love that it's being rediscovered and has a chance to be appreciated.
The Spanish version had the better Mina(Eva), the English version had the better Dracula, Renfield and Van Helsing. Also, the Fog in the English one makes the carriage scene much more atmospheric and cool. Also... in the English version, keeping Renfeild at the bottom of the staircase when they first meet, while Dracula stays nearer the middle section, forcing Renfield to look up at him longer, and thus resulting in the two not sharing the same frame in the scene, makes Dracula seem much more intimidating. Also..... Dracula waving away his brides to bite Renfield himself is essential in my opinion. It was, after all, one of Stoker's very earliest notes when preparing to write the novel. The Spanish version, while having a few superior shots, over does it in a lot of areas. A few too many loudly opening doors, etc. Dwight Frye's Renfield in the English version is perfectly creepy and still very sympathetic. His signature slow, low-pitch laughter is cinematic gold. A far cry from the Renfield in the Spanish version, who's laugh is just over-the-top, loud, and what I'd consider crazy for crazy's sake. Also, Renfield's death in the English version has every right to be "unfairly tragic"... This is a Horror film we're talking about here, not a fluffy bunny movie. Bad, unfortunate, tragic, HORRIBLE things are part of the deal, I'm afraid.
Great video. I have seen both films several times. Spanish Dracula is superior in many ways, and since Spanish is my native language, I enjoy the dialogue and the different accents (there are Spanish, Mexican and Argentinian accents in the film), but nothing can beat the screen presence, the delivery, the sinister charm of Bela Lugosi, who I think was the better actor. Villarias' performance looks too exaggerated, even for the period. Now, the two Renfields are equally good, though I have a special place in my heart for Dwight Fry. I also think Lupita Tovar did a better job as the leading lady, warmer, more natural. I enjoy both films, but Lugosi *is* Dracula. He was so impressive, so majestic, in his prime when he made this movie, so very, very handsome, and suave and dangerous. His Dracula casts a very long shadow and every other actor has had to play against him. And yet in popular imagination, he still is Dracula.
Very interesting to learn about the different accents in the Spanish language version (I don't speak Spanish). I too think the Spanish language version is the better film and that Lugosi simply is the (much) better Dracula. Hopefully some day somebody is gonna make a fan version and splice Lugosi into the Spanish language version! xD
I'm guessing Carlos Villarías did not affect an Eastern European accent for his portrayal of Dracula?
@@caulkins69 No, Villarias speaks with his very spanish (from Spain) accent. He lived in Mexico for the rest of his life after emigrating there from his native Spain but he never got to adopt the mexican accent. As some other person commented, the accents in the spanish version are all over the place, as the actors were mexican, spanish and argentinian, and even though they spoke the same language their national accents are very different. Imagine an english speaking movie with actors supposedly being from the same country but actually speaking with cockney, irish, scottish, south african and australian accent... Well, that is what happens in this movie.
My lovely wife bought me a boxed set with both versions a while back, and some commentary. But this analysis is not only excellent, but very welcome. Thanks much.
Thank you,I love these two movies,it's so hard "choosing" between them,I love them both!
"The lights go down...and then they come up again!"
is meant to show the house lights going down, and the spill from the stage lighting coming up.
I’m embarrassed that I didn’t think of that. 😂
3 years late, never seen either version. Closest thing was Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein. And yet I found this fascinating 😃
I think both films are mixed bags to a certain extent, but I give the edge to Browning's. That said, there are times where I really enjoy the more dynamic camerawork and shot composition of Melford's. My favorite example of this is the very last shot of the movie where we have Juan and Eva at the top of the stairs with Van Helsing at the bottom of the frame standing over Renfield's body.
Almost died when you said Eugene Levy🤣🤣🤣🤣 Same with the Batman logo haha! Thanks for a fascinating video!
Pretty much always wanted Spanish Dracula but with Lugosi and Fry.
I wonder if some fan is working on an ultimate edit drawing on both.
@@originaluddite Would that even be possible, considering how different each performance is for both characters. I'm no filmmaker, but it may be a tad tricky to pull it off...
Yeah, I guess it would jar, with actors shifting faces, and other issues besides.
I think editing down Spanish Dracula to match the edit/structure of American Dracula would be fairly easy. In theory you could Dub the Spanish film in a way that mimics the American one...perhaps there would be an opportunity to use the original American lines as the dubbed in material? It might be possible.
But the amount of material(wide shots, scenery shots, etc) available in Spanish Dracula that could be effectively transposed into American Dracula would be quite minimal.
You'd be able to fill out American Dracula ever so slightly but not in a substantial way.
@@creategreatness8823 If people can deepfake American politicians' faces onto scenes from Sanford and Son (and I've seen it done), and endlessly recut the Lynch/De Laurentiis version of Dune to their taste, we're not that far off from compositing Lugosi, Frye and Van Sloane into Spanish Dracula, dubbing the supporting cast into English and making some kind of 1931 Dracula mastercut.
I may have originally come for the fairly humorous reviews years ago, but i really do love these film history deep dives in to classic genre media even more, i'm glad you guys have been tackling them these past couple or so years
There are definite high points to the “Spanish Dracula” but it’s difficult to get past Carlos Villarias’ constant mugging for the camera. Yes, some (well, many) shots are better staged and composed than their counterparts in the Browning film, but Karl Fruend was by far the greatest cinematographer of the classic era. And you said it best: Browning had LUGOSI
FREUND!
You said it, pal. Lugosi was the only man to play Dracula in that period 🧛
Totally agree! It's practically a comedy.
I think it makes it more charming in an unironic way. Sure no one can top Lugosi’s iconic performance, but Carlos Villarias played a decent Dracula and the mugging shot makes it strangely creepy. Almost crazy in a way
@@ulfberht4431 perhaps.
When these two versions were made, nobody had any idea how influential "Dracula" was going to be - essentially giving birth to an entire genre of film. Intensive analysis like this would've been unimaginable in 1931.
3:57 Yeah, I know my house kinda' looks like crap, but please, make yourself at home! Real smooth, Drac. XD
while there will always be a place in my heart for dear Bela, I am firmly in the Spanish camp. scenes shot at night do have something special about them, and the image of Eva as predator about to bite her beau has always chilled me to the bone. I can never get enough of the leering Conde Dracula, and the lunatic Renfield is imo the best in the business. there is also a prelude on the Spanish DVD in which the actress playing Eva, Lupita Tovar, talks about shooting scenes at night, how she would get there early and it would be deserted and so, so creepy.
Excellent breakdown of the two films. So much of what the Spanish language version did improved upon the English language version, but the Dracula/Van Helsing confrontation and Dracula himself are much better in the Lugosi version.
I love watching any one of your videos about universal or hammer or vintage silent monster movies, watched many of them several times, you do such a professional job with so much great information, cheers
Glad you like them! They take a bit of time, but all the research we do makes the next video (hopefully) better.
Lupita Tovar also starred in the Mexican movie "Santa" 1932 which is considered the first synched talkie in Mexican cinema. Great video.
I love how informative these videos are. It's cool to learn new stuff about movies I've been watching since I was a kid.
I recently found your channel by watching your Harryhausen documentary; this lead me to check out your two part documentary on Lugosi. The part where you mentioned Hollywood Gothic by David Skal peaked my interest so I picked up a copy for myself. I'm about half way through it now and it's such an interesting read, so thank you for the recommendation! Keep up the great content 🙂
Happy Halloween Weekend Dark Corners!!! I like Bela Lugosi's Dracula more since i watch it every Halloween but i always watch the Spanish version of Dracula on Day of the Dead!!!
The lights in the theatre scene don't come back up again - at least, not the house lights. The house lights dim, then the stage lights come on - also illuminating the actors - which cues them that the show is starting, so they turn toward the stage to watch.
Lupita Tovar was born in Oaxaca, she died recently at 106. She worked in Santa, the first Mexican talkie.
Excellent analysis. Having seen both I would say the Browning version is superior for the reasons Robin gave but also because Lugosi and Van Sloan are simply much better actors at least here than Carlos Villarias and Eduardo Arozamena. Many have, unjustly, accused Lugosi of hamminess but that's exactly what Villarias and Arozamena display throughout the movie. I'm a bit surprised that DCR didn't show more of the contrast between the Browning and Melford versions of Dracula's and Van Helsing's confrontation. In the latter it appeared to be not so much a contest of wills as of eye bulging.
The Hammer Dracula’s use of the cape to cloak the kiss-bite echoes the Carlos shot, not the other way around.
Hammer went to school on these Universal Pictures classic.
I dont think he thought the Hammer films predated Spanish Dracula. I think he just realizes that a lot of people know Christopher Lees dracula, and far fewer have seen Spanish Dracula.
@@videotalktalk great point. 👍🏻
“Look out, it’ll get in your hair!” is one of the campiest lines in all cinema 😂
This makes me sad a movie Richard "Cheech" Marin wanted to make about David Manners falling in love with the actress playing Mina in the Spanish language version was NEVER made.
it still can be made... just not by Cheech and Chong, which might be a good thing.
@@MicahMicahel I don't think he was intending it as a comedy.
Thumbs up for Eugene Levy!
a fine canadian
Eugene was bitten by Dracula and has been acting for so long, appearing unchanged
One odd quirk of the Spanish version is the introduction of Van Helsing. It clearly involves a trip to and from Amsterdam that could only work if they flew there and back. In Browning's version it's not explicitly stated as a trip abroad, so makes more sense in the overall context of the film. (Assuming the version I saw in both cases was the theatrical cut.)
WOW.... thanks so much! I just bought the Spanish version on Blu-ray from eBay. Cant wait!
Good work!
The crucifix scene in the Spanish version Dracula has a heavy Nic Cage look to him.
Having the audio say "Spanish Dracula" and seeing a Mexican flag is priceless.
The flag refers to where it was released (if it referred to the language then the other flag would have to be English, not US), but the film is always referred to as 'Spanish Dracula', even on the DVD release.
I was confused as well, it should’ve been called the Spanish-language Dracula. When the video opens talking about the reuse of the same set, I was like, actors and crew came all the way from Spain just to film on the same set? 🤔
@akaLaBrujaRoja The only reason why it is called Spanish Dracula was because of the lead being a Spaniard. The distinction was forceful as both the star and the people releasing the film wanted it so.
@@akaLaBrujaRoja
You are so right
Both movies where from USA,
But one in spanish an the other in english (language).
It was wrong form him to say : the US version/Spanish version.
And those flags! 🙄
Wonderful job as always! This was such a well done video. Your deep-dive documentary style videos are such a treat! "Comparison is the thief of joy" as they say. Both films have their own virtues and they should each stand on their own. It is almost unfair to compare them, although very interesting and entertaining!
I had such a big smile on my face when I saw that this was one of your newer videos. This is one of the most fair comparisons I have ever seen between the two and I appreciate not dunking on either.
👍
You guys should do a special on Vincent Price.
YES!
This is absolutely brilliant, thank you for this analysis! My aunt turned me onto this subject in 1974 when I was 9 years old and it was all obscure at that point. Fantastic work :))
This is great, by far the most in-depth comparison I've seen.
I've always been fascinated by the story of Spanish Dracula.
Thanks!
This was so fascinating to see. I've got to see the Spanish version now
It's definitely worth watching. They're clearly the same film... and yet they're clearly not. It's fascinating!
I waited for this episode and here it was. Your love of cinema lore is inspiring.
This is a subject that has always intrigued me.
This is possibly the greatest film channel on YT. BRAVO!
Honestly, I think one of my favourite aspects from the Spanish Dracula is actually something I missed on my first viewing. Whenever Dracula exits his coffin, there's smoke. I don't know why, but I really like that attention to detail....
Both movies are good at least. I don't speak a word of Spanish, so I'd rather watch the Lugosi version, but in no way am I putting down the Spanish version. It had a short film schedule and a minimal budget, so the fact that people still compare which version is better when normally the foreign films would be completely disregarded probably says a lot...
But _why_ is there smoke? Is Dracula emerging from cryogenic suspension?
@@ThreadBomb You could think that, but in actuality, when you go back to the original Bram Stoker novel, Dracula has the power to take the form of mist or smoke, as well as a bat, and a wolf, as "seen" (it was offscreen) in Lugosi's Dracula.
@@ThreadBomb well, by that logic why is there so much fog in these old horror movies? It adds to the atmosphere
Looking forward to this one. Why nobody's done a fan edit to get Lugosi into the otherwise superior Spanish version, I don't know.
Who are you, with my opinions?!
The Spanish-language version also needs the footage from the sea crossing.
I want dwight frye as Renfield as well
@@GrosvnerMcaffrey Oh yeah, absolutely.
I just hope somewhere out there is a print of the original Browning cut. I think the lost footage would address many of the so called flaws with the original.
It's a shame because Bela Lugosi spoke very good French, as seen in Murders In The Rue Morgue, so if it was a French version of Dracula, they could've had him... Of course, that would require Universal paying him more than bare minimum.
Spanish Renfield was absolutely terrifying!
Can't freaking wait this will be awesome thanks in advance
I've been hoping for a comparison of these two!
I'd honestly like to see a shot for shot remake of these movies combined using the best of both to make a solid interpretation. It'd be an interesting experiment if nothing else.
Yes, please!
A.I. would probably allow faces and voices from the Lugosi version to be inserted into some of the better Spanish version scenes. I vote for a UA-cam teaser style video with some of those scenes. I’d love to hear Edward van Sloan doing translated Van Helsing dialogue from the Spanish version.
I would argue that both versions ARE solid interpretations. simply....different.
12:30
The Eugene Levy joke NEVER gets old. I just can't believe NOBODYS made a Nick Cage joke about Carlos Villarías yet.
Thanks for the video! You missed the way the lines were deliverd but, I loved the way you analysed it.
Lupita Tovar is far better and far more vibrant than the stiff Helen Chandler, and that's a huge deciding factor for me. Of course, Lugosi is irreplaceable.
She is far less wooden - but not exactly convincing as an upper-class English girl, which is supposed to be her character. And then there is the black negligee which this supposedly virginal girl wears to bed...
Love Lupita Tovar, frequently call my female game characters Lupita
Carlos Villarias almost turns it into comedy with his ridiculous mugging.
@@premanadi he would have made a good Renfield though.
@@DistractedGlobeGuy In a comedy version...
Guys, that was worth the wait. Nicely done.
Love this one. Please do more comparison like this if at all possible.
We try to get something out like this once a month, they just a take a little more time to research and edit.
I like both, differently, and for the reasons you've stated. It would be interesting to see a mash-up of the two films, if only to see if a superior version could be created.
Well, I have some good news for you! ifdb.fanedit.org/dracula-restored/
@@mr.e.balsam4107 that's cool!
Laurel and Hardy would do their own foreign film reshoots right after doing the English scene. They'd memorize the sound of their lines. The *Hats Off Entertainment* channel did a documentary recently that features such a clip.
There were also simultaneously-shot versions of the "Our Gang" shorts.
@@greenmonsterprod seems Hal Roach figured if one of the big studios could do it, so could he.
Merci pour avoir mis en ligne cette pépite dédiée au chef d'œuvre cinématographique des années révolues. Magnifique et passionnant et divertissant documentaire. 👍💜💚💜
Ultimately, for me, the versions stand or fall on the portrayals of the central character. If the casting is off there, it doesn't matter how good the rest of it is. This is the film that made Bela Lugosi's career, and his Dracula would henceforth be the gold standard against which all subsequent performances would be measured. On the other hand, one of the actors obliged to follow Lugosi's lead was Carlos Villarías in the Spanish version, and while he's not horrible, like most who have essayed the role, he isn't worthy to carry Bela's candelabra.
I think Villarias is laughable. He makes it seem like a comedy with all that mugging.
Thanks for the video. Now I'm going to search for the Spanish version.
Great vid!
I do disagree.
The shot of Dracula rising up out of the hold of the ship in the Spanish version. I feel the Browning shot, is more Dracula’s style. Regal, taken stance, posturing.
He is above creeping around, like a lowly scavenger hiding in the darkness. Which is the feeling nosferatu and the Spanish version put out there.
I agree. That shot in the Spanish version makes him look animalistic, which is a valid approach but contradicts his portrayal in the rest of the film.
Excellent! Thanks for another great documentary. Agree both versions have their merits so difficult to identify which is superior. The Spanish Dracula remains still too unfamiliar I suspect and is likely therefore to be underrated. This is a valuable and intelligent comparison of these two pioneering horror films, classics both. 👍
Thank you Dark Corners for an excellent episode comparing two versions of film history, but since you asked, if I had to choose a version it would be the Spanish one!!!🙏👌🧛❣️
This is a fantastic in-depth comparison. Well done.
I think the only thing Spanish Drac doesn't have over Browning Drac is Lugosi. As others have pointed out, Browning acted like his camera was bolted to the floor and he was filming a stage play.
I first heard of the spanish version in James Rolfe's Monster Madness. This is a great topic for your channel. Yet another reason why I look forward to every upload of yours.
A superb documentary of two of my favourite films.
17:35 Me?... I would of had the camera angle further away from the lady,, while slowly closing in on the lady telling the story, to her close up...bringing the audience in.
For sound, I would add a heart beat.
Does some kind of Frankenstein cut exist, with extra scenes from the Spanish release added to the English release? Because that would be fun to watch.
Love the little tributes to the icons of horror does Mr Carradine deserve one for his many roles
I'm sure we will get to him at some point.
This was a great episode. Never knew of the Spanish version, now I'm on the search for it. Thanks.
Spanish version is included in the box sets of the Dracula DVDs and Blu-Rays.
@@robertodell9193 Thanks.
7:20 A little off-topic but on the subject of films that were shot twice, I think Back to the Future having to film much of the film over again after Michael J. Fox replaced Eric Stolz possibly contributes to why that film is so good? Having the opportunity to benchmark and improve, must have led to a better product?
Quite possibly. Films can be a juggernaut once they get moving and it is hard to turn things around. The fact that the shark kept breaking in Jaws slowed production down and they were able to rewrite much of the script. For Pixar they are able to make the films a few times before the final renders. Director Andrew Stanton lamented this loss when it came to making John Carter. Or you can look at shorts that have been successfully turned into feature films like Whiplash.
I am very interested in watching a side-by-side version, where each line or shot is first played in the English version, then paused, and the Spanish version is played, then proceeding to the next shot or dialogue. In this way, the different cuts and different lengths problems would be completely sidestepped, while still showing everything from both versions in comparison to each other.
This may sound a little odd, but if there are any AI/deep fake wizards out there, consider how interesting it would be to splice these films together. . .maybe in the style of a teaser trailer. While I certainly wouldn’t want to disrespect the performances of any of the actors or other film makers who worked on these movies back in the 30s, there are several shots and scenes from the Villarias version that I would love to see with the Lugosi version’s cast. Lugosi’s face at the top of the stairs in that beautiful panning shot, Edward Van Sloan giving the backstory for Dracula (a scene pleasantly similar to the novel), Dwight Fry’s iconic slow laugh over the slaying of the Demeter’s crew with Lugosi looking up at him from over a body (I like the scene in the Spanish version but the laugh in that scene always seems a little too boisterous and noisy to me). . .
Fangtastic (groan) lol Documentary. Once again brilliant insights into these classic horror movies. 👏 Much appreciated and very much enjoyed.
One of the reasons there are differences in length is because there were scenes cut from Browning's film that originally made it to the screen in 1931. The original length was 85 minutes instead of 75.
Great job on this video. It’s interesting how there were two versions shot virtually simultaneously. It’s actually a great use of resources. Love the comparisons you have highlighted
I enjoyed this detailed discussion and appreciated the insights that were new to me...but I confess I was hoping to learn that I'm not the only viewer who thinks Carlos Villarias has a strong resemblance to Andy Kaufman and is pretty much impossible to take seriously.
Thanks for this great look at these two versions.
Amo tus videos, muchas gracias
I will never NOT love the way Lugosi says the word “here” when he tells Van Helsing to “Come here.”
The best comarison I've ever seen on UA-cam.
Really well done piece.
Excellent presentation . Well done . 👍👍
It's difficult to give a definitive answer as to which version is better, partly because it is the existence of the American Dracula that drives many of the improvements made in the Spanish Dracula. I still give my vote to Tod Browning's Dracula. Not only is it more atmospheric, but we also get three iconic performances of iconic characters with Bela Lugosi (Dracula), Edward Van Sloane (Van Helsing) and Dwight Frye (Renfield).
🧛🧛🧛👍🎃