Comparing Bela Lugosi's Dracula with Spanish Dracula...Which is Better?!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 сер 2024
- My family started Universal Studios, and I make videos about their work and legacy. Almost everyone on Earth has heard of Dracula, and most people know of the 1931 version starring Bela Lugosi, even if they haven't seen it. But what most people don't know is that Universal made another version of Dracula at exactly the same time!
This version of Dracula was a "Multiple Language Version," which was relatively common as the film industry transitioned to sound, and studios experimented with the best way to reach international audiences. Universal used the same script and sets, filming Tod Brownig and Bela Lugosi's Dracula during the day, and then at night, the George Melford and the Spanish cast and crew would come in to film their version.
Spanish Dracula was considered lost for many years, but in the 90s a copy was found and it renewed interest in the film. Today you can watch Spanish Dracula as part of the Dracula Legacy Collection from Universal!
Listen to my Universally Mini Podcast: / antoniacarlotta
Dracula (Legacy Collection): amzn.to/3Q2f0uK
Lupita Tovar: The Sweetheart of Mexico: amzn.to/3OVLNR8
Email: antoniacarlotta@gmail.com
Instagram: / antoniacarlotta
Twitter: / antoniacarlotta
Clubhouse: @AntoniaCarlotta
Antonia Carlotta
PO Box 5860
Beverly Hills, CA 90209
United States
DISCLAIMER: Links included in this description may be affiliate links. If you purchase a product or service with a link here I may receive a small commission. There is no additional charge to you! Thank you for supporting my channel!
![АЛАУДИНОВ у Скабеевой: эти их ВСУ нас НЕ ДОГОНЯТ 😁 [Пародия]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/an0anqU4WGQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I loved that the Spanish version showcased different angles to the sets. I've always loved the sets in this movie and the fact that you get to see more of them in the Spanish version makes it worth watching.
Universal studios hollywood movies on Netflix series finale season start show hollywood story life ture life movie made in the same time years
Found this vid cause I just rewatched Dracula and “Spanish” Dracula back to back for a review I am doing. I can’t express how much I love the Spanish version. I saw it the first time around 10 years ago and at first I have to say I didn’t love it. I thought it was a good flick but my mind couldn’t get around it not having Lugosi/Frye/Sloan. It took me a year or so to rewatch it putting that all together the side. Once I did the rewatch it was a complete different reaction.
The Spanish version is the superior versions. The longer run time and better editing allows it to be a more complete story. Their advantage of watching dailies allowed them to better blocking, lighting etc on their takes and thus make better scenes (for the most part) than the American version.
Carlos Villarías plays a more visceral and unchained Dracula. Pablo Alvarez Rubio’s version of Renfield is completely unhinged but also lovable. Though it’s Lupita Tovar’s Eva which really shines, there is just so much life to the character that is almost absent in her American Mina counterpart.
I prefer bela lugosi Dracula all the way
I’m sure😂
I liked Bela better. Although I prefer Lupita Tovar’s version of Mina.
She gave a more intense and sexy performance.
The Spanish version is better directed and you can tell because the director utilized the sets better and made better use of camera movements.
I agree with pretty much everything you said. I wish we could have seen Bela in the Spanish version.
The camera work on the Spanish version is just brilliant
Universal studios hollywood Ture life story made movie interview review history books documentary about biography history books years 1000th years anniversary celebration party years oasr awesome picture awards TCM hollywood movies on money made
Be la lugosi for sure
Good summary, Antonia. I liked that you were impartial. Coincidentally, I watched Melford's DRACULA last night. It really is a fascinating film, and one of my favorite "alternatives." Naturally, Browning's DRACULA will always have topmost place in my soul; however, Melford's vision makes one sit up and take notice. Yes, the camerawork is excellent; the sets are lit brilliantly; the mood is creepy in a way that escaped Browning, try as he may. Carlos, for me, tickles every bone. Yes, he's no Bela; but, he adds a sinister quality, a feral quality, to Dracula that Bela hardly exhibits. Dracula, as portrayed by Carlos, always seems to be tightly wound under the semi-civil exterior. Often, especially in the early set pieces with Renfield, one can catch the nearly animalistic glances--- short-lived--- that Dracula (Carlos) gives his somewhat wary "guest." This portrayal, for me, instills a certain eerie tension that is nearly subliminal. It's perfect. Bela is far too suave, for the most part, to allow his feelings to show. Yes, I know Carlos overacts (on occasion)--- especially in repetitive closeups; but, this is Melford's doing. Lupita, of course, is wonderful--- the reverse mirror image of Chandler's Mina. Pablo is way over the top, but interesting; I think, here, Melford should have opted to edit Renfield's monologues, which, for me, curtail the plot/action and become somewhat tedious. Arozamena, as Van Helsing, unfortunately, is no Eddie Van Sloan (who could be?). Viosca's Seward is delightful, warm, loving. Norton, as Harker, is adequate; but, David Manners has been labeled thusly, to.
Regardless, Melford's DRACULA is absolutely essential viewing for all Draculaphiles. Those not familiar should hasten to be.
Mel
Do you know that it's looks like show up in gaslight theater spoof same time years 4th year anniversary celebration party years documenty biography book club in movie theater in new horizons show documentary on money 💵💰 sent from hollywood mail 💌📬 yet to see if they have happened haunted years
Spanish version does some technical aspects better but it's like 30 minutes longer than English version and drags in spots. Plus Bela IS Dracula. If you put Lupita in the English version and add a few of those creative camera shots (like Dracula's entrance in Spanish) you got a classic.
In no way do I see the Spanish version technically superior to the English. For one thing, that dolly-in on Dracula on the steps is spoiled by a bump, and we end up on a goofy, leering Dracula. The outtakes of Lugosi and the three vampire brides from the English version are jarringly mismatched in the Spanish. At one point, Renfield's crucifix is in plain sight of Dracula, who doesn't mind. The concert hall scene is badly staged with the characters sitting in the dark talking during the performance. And as far as moving camera shots, the English version actually has more of them -- they're just integrated with better subtlety.
@@anthonycrnkovich5241 agree with a lot of what you said. I really think the Spanish version is overrated.
For me the big difference is the acting by the main character (Dracula, Renfield, Van Helsing and Mina) Only Mina is in my opinion, is superior. But I suspect also that I may have a cultural bias on the way these actor worked at the time. The Lugosi's version acting is nearer of my own sensibility. As for the camera work, the Spanish version is way better, but, and it is a big but, sometime it border on gimmicky. The english's version is way more evocative of a dream (or nightmare) which make it so enduring to me.
I have a theory that the Spanish Dracula was released in April of 1931 whereas the English version was on Valentine’s Day so ppl dont get confused therefore they waited a couple of months 2 release the Spanish version
Although the mood is much better in the Spanish Dracula, I still prefer Bela’s acting.
So glad this showed up in feed.I've since watched every video. Great work! I don't want to give the back story, but the Universal classics got my myself and my then young daughter through a truly awful period. It became a ritual; I can still see her in Creature pajamas, clutching her Bride doll.
You have a two new fans!
I think the Lugosi version was superior in every way. It was much more creepy.
Glad you're back!😊 It's really telling that Bela's interpretation of Dracula has nothing to do with Stoker, but it remains immortal.
I just recently read Gary Rhodes' incredible book about the making of both 1931 films of Dracula, and he makes a credible case for Browning's version being superior.
I'm in awe of the Spanish version's camerawork, but there is indeed a sinister silence to Browning's low key version.
I'm curious if you know what other horror films got foreign versions. Is there a Spanish Wolfman or a Spanish Mummy?
WHAAAAAAAAT?!?!? Carl Laemmle is your UNCLE???!?!?!!!
1 last note 2 quote The Road 2 Dracula hosted by ur Great Aunt Carla Laemmle, David J. Skal pointed out that due 2 the cutting edge camera movements just shows that “it feels like were exploring rooms into a familiar house.” Meaning the same sets r shot differently therefore their showing more parts of the set by using different camera movements.
Thank you for making this video! Whenever I tell someone about this, I never have a convenient link to send their way. Your video is a game-changer for my horror movie trivia drops.
Mixed reviews for Carlos is being polite. He is the only reason why I don't think the Spanish version is better .
I’m always a bit torn on Spanish Dracula - I think it does up the English version in a lot of places but the foundation is the sets and set pieces of the original so one doesn’t exist without the other.
What’s cool is we get both!
& i also wished they made a Spanish Frankenstein
Didn't know how much I wanted to see that until right this second!
Why did they re-film the entire movie instead of just redubbing everything in Spanish?
This was the Wild Wild West of moviemaking with sound! It was brand new and nobody really knew what they were doing. Making movies in more than one language was essentially an experiment as they tried to figure out how to get films to the widest audience possible.
@@AntoniaCarlotta it is still odd because the original Dracula was still dubbed in post production)) it's not the original sound we are hearing.
I always wonder, is nosferatu a property of universal, and if it is, how did universal acquire it
Lupita was lovely as was her daughter in Imitation of Life.
The main character looks
like a deranged Flamenco
singer and lacks Bela's charm.
The sexier and more explicit
tone, including the marks is more
latin.Tovar lived to be 106.
The two bites from Count Dracula substantially increased her lifespan. Obviously a joke. No disrespect intended.
I've been struggling over this comparison since I first saw the Spanish version several years ago, mainly because both have their merits. There is no doubt that the Spanish version is more dynamic in its pacing, but Tod Browning slower pace sinuously draws you into what is essentially a fever dream as opposed to an all out nightmare. Both versions suffer from an overreliance on the stage version which is particularly apparent in the second half of the films. Here the nod has to go to the Spanish version, but even there the sequence drags. So, the key to my preference came down to the performances. Here I have to side with Browning's version. Some prefer Lupita Tovar's interpretation to Helen Chandler's. I think they are about even, because each interpretation fit the differing tones of the films. The same applies to the differing interpretations of Van Helsing, though I prefer Edward Van Sloan. Of the other two major roles, one choice is obvious. There is no doubt that Bela Lugosi owns the role of Dracula. It was, and is, the definitive interpretation. ( I don't care that it doesn't match Bram Stoker's original vision of the vampire. ) I'll go further. I believe it is the scariest interpretation of Dracula. Think about it. This Dracula is handsome, charming, cultured, sexually alluring, and totally without conscience. The perfect sociopath. Carlos Villarias can't even begin to suggest these connotations. Maybe the producers of the Spanish version erred in having Villarias model himself on Lugosi's performance. Strangely there are certain moments in the Spanish version where Villarias displays a striking physicality missing from Lugosi's more hypnotic interpretation. In fact, when I first saw the film, I thought that parts of his performance prefigured Christopher Lee's interpretation. Perhaps the producers should have pitched his performance more in that direction. Then we come to Renfield. Here my nod definitely goes to Dwight Frye. In fact, I think he gives the best performance in the Browning version. ( Lugosi doesn't so much act as exude presence. His Dracula is an overwhelmingly malevolent and seductive force that anchors the mood of the film, which is the principle reason his interpretation is so scary. ) I've never seen Frye's performance as particularly campy. I've always found it strangely poignant, even when I first saw the film in my childhood. Over the years, I've come to see the nuances in his performance. If Dracula is anyone's nightmare, it is Renfield's, since he is the ultimate victim. David J. Skal perfectly summed up this aspect of the film when he posited that the real story of the film is Renfield's unrequited love for Dracula. I think this aspect of the film comes over better in Browning's version than in the Spanish version. ( But then again, didn't many of the films Browning made with Lon Chaney in the 20's - The Unknown in particular - center on some form of unrequited or thwarted love? Didn't this motif show up again in Freaks? Just wondering. ) I've gone on for too long. Though both films have their merits, I'll stick with the Browning version.
thank you so much 👍👍🙏🙏
Honestly its hard 2 say cuz the Spanish version was a bit longer & the performances r top notch but the English version feels more authentic but thats not 2 say i dont like the Spanish version I still LOVE IT!!!
In the end, the issue is simple: 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. I think Melford's approach is intended 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.
since the original Dracula was dubbed anyway due to noisy cameras, Bella and others could have done Spanish dubbing. I don't understand the need to re-shoot the entire movie. very odd choice, unless those actors were really big in Mexico.
@@CoolGobyFish At the time, the studios would refilm their movies for different audiences- that was the standard practice.
Once the English version finished filming, they would normally translate the dialogue exactly to Spanish, French, German, and sometimes other languages, and they would use a completely foreign cast for the respective versions. They did this because redubbing at the time was not a precise science, and subtitling was seen as a throwback to the silent era that had just ended. Since the English version was already complete, this allowed for an exact translation (which didn't always work), and the directors were usually obligated to film scene for scene.
Dracula was different, however, because the English and Spanish versions were filmed simultaneously instead of one right after the other. The director of Spanish Dracula George Melford had the opportunity to view the dailies and then adjust his version to improve on Browning's work, which is why Spanish Dracula is longer than English Dracula, and Melford decided to film several sequences very differently than Browning did. He wanted to outperform Browning in every way in the hope that he could do more English language films. It didn't work. but there are some interesting variances.
I may be wrong about this, but I read that the only English actor who participated in the foreign remakes of his films was Buster Keaton because no one else could do his stunts like he could. I just wish that they were able to use Lugosi in Spanish Dracula because Carlos Villarias was no Lugosi.
This is fascinating. I was not aware of this alternative version. When Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy made some of their early sound films, in certain cases, they too made Spanish language versions, but Stan and Ollie spoke their own parts in Spanish (with the aid of cue cards off-screen). I'll look forward to enjoying the Spanish Dracula film when I track it down.
I like the Spanish version too, a little much better!
But of course I like the original Dracula with Bela Lugosi! 🦇
Great analysis video Antonia! Keep up the good work! 👍👍
You mean a spainard!? Or just a Spanish speaking dracula!? From south America?
The actor that portrays Dracula in the Spanish version looks like a combination of a goofy game show host and slimey used car salesman!!! 🐵
The movie itself is fine but it's Dracula is too funny looking to take seriously. 👻
Well done !!
To bad that GM did not direct the English version .
I would have loved to have seen actress Dolores Del Rio play Dracula's Daughter. With her long, beautiful face and penetrating gaze, she would have been perfect.
It would have interesting to see Bela as the Count in the spanish version..😉😁
The dream!
Great insight on the two versions Spanish Dracula reminds me of Robert from everybody loves Raymond Carlos and i agree Bela is the superior Portrayal..
Lupita seems to emote way more though less wooden then the american one.
Awesome video!!
I love the Spanish version.
Great video, Cheers..
The Spanish version lacks Lugosi, is a needless half hour longer than the English version, has obviously mismatched shots, weak second lead performances, bad staging... in short, the Spanish version is at best a poor substitute to Browning's masterpiece.
Imo, it's not even close: the Spanish version is MUCH better than the U.S. film. The Spanish Dracula is lush, tense, and flows in a way that the U.S. version does not. As you mentioned, the U.S. Dracula is often stiff and it's just plan dull to look at. It's too bad there was not a Spanish version of Frankenstein. Comparing Whale's version with a Spanish example would be fascinating.
Lugosi version for sure. I absolutely hate the Spanish version..especially the Renfield character. Overacting at its worst!
Why is she constantly growling? It really got on my nerves.
The Spanish version was directed by an American, George Melford. The regular version has the better cast. The Spanish version has better visuals. Sometimes too much better. Why would mist be rising out of the coffin?
¿why all the people when talks about bela lugosi dracula puts a photo of him at mark of the vampire?well cause there is better dont you?