1931: Dracula, Frankenstein and the origin of Universal Horror
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 бер 2017
- Support me on Patreon: www.patreon.com/onehundredyearsofcinema
Buy Frankenstein on DVD: amzn.to/2AxzgkB
Watch Frankenstein on VOD: amzn.to/2kfZiSV
By Dracula on DVD: amzn.to/2AoqpQ3
Watch Dracula on VOD: amzn.to/2BBAvNE
Dracula and Frankenstein are probably two of the most recognisable characters in all of popular culture. They were the first sound horror films, and they changed the entire cinema landscape.
The 1931 Dracula and Frankenstein movies served as the bedrock of Universal Horror and launched a collection of classic movie monsters.
But how did come about, how were they different to the films that came before them and what was there lasting impact on cinema?
Thank you to all my Patreon Supporters!
Evan Shrubsole
Jacob Caswell
Edwin Solis
Andres Echevarria
Jimmy
Matt Quitler
Saber Tail - Фільми й анімація
Everyone talks about how technically superior the Spanish Dracula film is, but to be honest, I find the stillness and stiltedness of the cinematography of the English version to be more unsettling for the most part. The English version also had better performances, at least from Lugosi, Frye, and Van Sloan.
Yeah, whenever people talk about how much better the Spanish version is, it always feels to me like a style over substance thing.
Connor Brennan 100% agree
Actually, there are more moving camera shots in Browning's version than Melford's, they're just subtle enough to not call attention. The Spanish version is a half hour longer comprising mostly of talk which drags the pacing. The actors replacing Lugosi, Frye and Van Sloan are, frankly, terrible. A key scene is ruined in the Spanish, namely the one in the concert hall. The characters are carrying on their discussion after the lights go down during the performance! Also, the inserts of Lugosi standing in for Carlos Villarias are all too obvious. I can go on, but suffice to say that Browning's version with Lugosi's iconic performance is superior.
Impressive and entertaining work and an ambitious project to boot. No idea why the popularity of your channel hasn't exploded yet! But you sure have found a subscriber in me.
The narration on this video explains why we are still fascinated and indeed still watching these characters almost 90 years later and others will be watching then in another 90 years. Great video!
One nitpick: “The Mummy” predates “The Invisible Man” by one year, not the other way around. (And real monster kids love “Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein.” But thanks for the video.)
Its good to see a young man like yourself enjoying these movies Charlie. I would think for most people your age this movie and especially Dracula would move to slowly. When I look at new films I notice the scene changes every 2 seconds. There is constant movement the film is never static, Which I think is sad. good job well done
I'm 24 and I hold the universal monsters as the gold standard of monster movies
@@kyleshiflet9952 You can thank Junior Laemmle the son of Karl Laemmle who was President of Universal Studios for pushing his father Karl to produce the Stories of Dracula, Frankenstein, Wolfman, Mummy, and the rest of the Universal Monster franchise. Karl L. thought it was in bad taste to film those stories, But his son Junior was right, People flocked to those movies and still do. Some one said that many of these monster films like King Kong, The Hunchback of Notre Dam, The Creature from the Black Lagoon & The Mummy and more are just a modified retelling of Beauty and the Beast. I think who ever said that was right.
@@richardbartolo2890 I know and I'm glad he listened to jr
2 Of The GREATEST Horror Movies EVER.
Though Lugosi would bring his own unique nuances to the Dracula character, the overall presentation of the character as a suave attractive aristocrat dressed in evening attire and cape belongs to Hamilton Deane who adapted the novel into a play. Deane realized early on that to adapt Dracula as depicted in the novel was impossible - especially on a shoe string budget. He adopted the now familiar physical tropes for budgetary reasons solely and not artistic. Just goes to show that some of the greatest creative inspirations are bred through monetary adversity.
I wonder what Deane's performance of the character was like -- if it was similar to Lugosi's or completely different.
@@oliverbrownlow5615 Deane never actually played the count - he adapted the source material into a script for theatrical performance. I can’t remember the name of the actor that played it in Deane’s touring company offhand. Deane, who normally would be the title character in any of his other productions, chose instead to play Van Helsing. Don’t remember why; but it might have something to do with the amount of stage; Dracula has very little stage time in the original show compared with Van Helsing
@@deadpan80 It actually makes sense. Van Helsing wad the hero of the play, and probably would have been considered the leading role. But somebody originated the role of Dracula in London, and it wasn't Lugosi.
@@oliverbrownlow5615 an actor by the name of Edmund Blake first played the role but Raymond Huntley was the actor (had to look it up) that played it most over there and I believe it was his depiction that most likely informed Lugosi in some way (though I’m sure Bela added much to it with his unique delivery and cadence) Huntley was a popular British character actor but I believe he is largely unknown in the states
Interesting, it's similar to many aspects of Doctor Who :)
the mummy was released one year before the invisible man the the correct chronological order would be:Dracula,Frankenstein,the mummy, the invisible man,The wolf man and the creature from the black lagoon. Great video!
I came to the comments section specifically hoping to see that someone caught that error and noted a correction, good job!
i love the classic movies so much
Great review. You do some of the best film reviews on youtube and every time one of your videos pops up I pounce on it. Only wish the content was uploaded a bit more regularly
Mary would have hated the first official look of Frankenstein in that film.
The Original Dark Universe, the first Cinematic universe before MCU. Am I right?
Love your commentaries on films!
your reviews are really, really good! deserve way more views
Cool, new videos! Love your series man
I'm glad there are people like you. Thank you for your insightful commentaries. They're very enjoyable.
Am I the only person that likes Frankenstein meets the wolfman? It kept the tragedy that made the first few so effective and it was just a good movie.
No, you're not. Lots of people like it.
And it's the only Universal monster classic that throws a musical production number into the middle of the proceedings.
@@oliverbrownlow5615 and it brilliantly builds to larrys outburst at the end of the song.
yes i think you're the only one
Universal Classic Monsters are for ever cool.
If you can find it, there is a Universal telegram that states "Do not, repeat, DO NOT hire Bela Lugosi for Dracula." I don't why, but it seems here that Universal had a dislike for Lugosi. They hired Lugosi because of time constraints. Time to begin shooting vs who'd play the lead. Lugosi even took a substantial pay cut to play Dracula. Universal, now loving Lugosi, offered him Frankenstein. He refused because he was offered the first script which had him playing a Golem type of monster. Universal had just declaired him the new "man of a thousand faces," Lon Chaney's title. Now refusing it, the studio began this dislike of him. But this gave us a new script and a new director, that of James Whale. His script offered a more sensitive and sensational monster. Lugosi was right to turn down his offered script. It would've been interesting to have seen him play the monster first and not in the later movies. The studio did not appreciate the talents of Lugosi and what uses they could portrayed him in their horror films.
Funny how it was Universal that created the shared universe and yet have recently failed in establishing a new shared universe to go against the now famed MCU,huh??
I wanted the Dark Universe to work so badly! I would have loved a really well produced re-telling of Frankenstein, that took elements of the original but gave it a modern twist. ahh well, we can dream, right?
happy halloween! to the ogs
I think the problem is that they are more concerned with a shared universe than they are with making good films
@@jonjonrods5776 precisely I felt as if they should've focused on making compelling movies with iconic characters & I felt they should've added the Monsterverse to it I mean how can you make a horror cinematic universe without Godzilla & King Kong .
Way back in 1963,there were assembly kits so kids could,"make their own monsters."I remember kits of the Phantom of the Opera, Dracula, Frankenstein, the Mummy,the Wolf Man and the Creature from the Black Lagoon. The next year I read more about the old time monster movies in a paperback with old articles from the magazine,"Famous Monsters of Filmland."
Wow. I could not have put it so eloquently myself. love your video. 🦇
I’m a tad bit late to finding this video, but this was fantastic! I‘m definitely gonna check out your channel!
ok
Watch Dracula closely, the background has cardboard pieces blocking out certain lamps, odd angles, someone on the set said that sometimes no one was behind the camera, it's obvious that the whole making of that Dracula was looked down upon by the movie industry people, until it blew up at the boxoffice and suddenly a great more attention to detail was put into these creature movies, funny how things change.
Great video!
awesome vid bro
Exellent doc. Thank you.
Such a masterpiece of a video I’m subscribed! I can tell how much do you enjoy cinema, Film and movies as a whole and as a nostalgic piece of art. I’ve been a movie buff for a long time and having a jailbroken Amazon fire stick I watch everything from movies from the 1930s up to modern films . It makes a lot easier to be a fan of Cinema! Get your popcorn ready guys 🍿 🎥 🎞
Excellent work. Very good job! I just suscribed.
I had the opportunity to watch Dracula and Frankenstein back to back and was surprised how much better Frankenstein is. Whale's film is better photographed, edited, acted, and actually has a score. With the exception of the lead actors' performance, the Spanish language Dracula is head and shoulders better than Browning's effort.
I think for many years was Dracula considered the better of the two, but I have to agree that Frankenstein is the better of the two. For me The Bride of Frankenstein is not only the best of the Universal Monster films, but also one of the best films ever made.
Yeah, Frankenstein is better, but that doesn't negate Dracula's own greatness.
+Awesome Inspector Frankenstein is charged.
Dracula sucks.
I love both films, but DRACULA edges out FRANKENSTEIN for me. I find the former's quiet, understated style uniquely creepy, and Lugosi is magnificent. I also find the Spanish DRACULA inferior in its dragged out pacing and woeful lead performances, all except Lupita Tovar -- she's the only reason for watching. I highly recommend giving the DRACULA audio commentary by Steve Haberman a listen -- he nails it.
I love the series! Pls keep on with this awesome work
Beautiful presentation..watching 103121..Halloween usa...thanks!!
Universal Horror is about the Tragedy of Monster.
The way I see it, if we’re still talking about it even after 80 years, don’t question it just enjoy it
Thats how you know if something is influential.
Dracula 🧛♂️ is 90 now
Update: So is Frankenstein 🧟♂️
I first saw Dracula on television's "Shock Theater" when it was only 27 years old. (1958) You would think the print would have been in fair shape, but I remember it looked ancient even then! Evidently those were the days before film preservation. As an eleven-year old I was so fascinated by Lugosi I was hoping he was still living, and was disappointed to find he had died only a few years before. I remember "Shock" airing on Detroit's WXYZ at 11:30pm Fridays and my wonderful mother let me stay up to watch it. What I wouldn't give to see a kinescope of the intro to the show with the face of "Mr. X" dissolving into a skull. It was all done live then and they didn't save it.
I like your literate and probing approach towards Universal's early horror mythology You researched your topic very well How different the history of horror and fantastic films would have been if Chaney Sr had survived Would Chaney have opted for a LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT type of bloodsucker in his version of DRACULA? We can only guess Another what if- Conrad Veidt was being groomed as the next " big " horror star after Chaney and just before Lugosi Veidt was offered DRACULA but turned it down (because of his less than perfect English?) I have been curious if Veidt had accepted the role would he haved opted for a Nosferatu type of Dracula or the suave yet deadly Lugosi type?
Recently rewatched Dracula and was astounded at how inferior I thought it was to Nosferatu. Dracula has serious editing issues and pacing problems as well as an ending that defies suspension of disbelief (Dracula decides to just take a nap while running from his enemies and is subsequently killed). Nosferatu tells a better story and, I think, is genuinely scarier.
I agree that Nosferatu is the better film. To be fair, though, I don't think Dracula just decided to take a nap... Vampires have to rest in their native soil during the day, it's part of their whole deal.
Spanish Dracula ftw
Then u make a movie smh
@@ChaddyMack Not a valid response to criticism. Why not tell a director "why don't YOU write a review?"
Hey man, put your Patreon and other links in the description! I know it's at the end, but a lot of people will never make it to the end of the video, as unfortunate as that is it is also true. Plus if you catch someones attention they may want to know more but forget by the time they stop watching.
Thanks man! I am on it!
Yes, for some one so young you know more than l do & im 58, & have studied them for most my life. Do you write it? Because who ever does did there homework. Awesome.
Make sure u all c Young Frankenstein!
Thank you Bella lagosi
Nice video, but you didn't mention Werewolf of London 1935. Also as far as the Dark Universe, starting with The Mummy and being female at that was not a good way to reboot the franchise. If they're going to make a dark universe work, the monsters have to look like their 1930's and 40's counterparts. Dracula has to look like Bela Lugosi. Frankenstein the monster has to look like Glenn Strange, a'la Abbott and Costello. That's the ultimate iconic Frankenstein look. So on and so forth. But werewolves can be of two types: The Henry Hull type and he Lon Chaney type.
It's funny how Universal is the oldest movie franchise of all time & that today they failed at creating a cinematic universe when they created the 1st ever cinematic universe.
great man ....Divine
Cant wait for a clockwork orange
Nice.
Does anybody remember gill man from the ocean man music video?
Excelente
you're the man
You can see a dead person in a mirror. So Dracula would have a reflection. Dracula would have to make himself invisible for him to have no reflection in a mirror.
Dracula isn't dead; he is "undead". But don't look for logic in "monster" movies; they have to make up lots of illogic to make them work.
Check out Noel Carol, e.g. "Why Horror"
You have the greatest sense of humor lol.
I absolutely love horror classics, but there is something about the endings of the movies that I still dont like fully. On the oposite the hole movies are a masterpiece, specially for the time.
Back in the days where Hollywood movies were worthy to watch
They tried a bunch of actors for the role of Dracula, they didn't want lagosi, they thought his heavy accent and little English would hurt, they ended up conceding to lagosi for pennies, all other cast got way more than lagosi, funny happenstance.
The Mummy came first, the Invisible Man in 1933.
I would argue the 2 groups would have to pre mid 70s and post mid 70s.
my name is, Dadacuula
Or coocoo nest
0:06 isn’t that the count from Sesame Street
If this is supposed to be about Dracula then why does the thumbnail use a picture from Mark of the Vampire?
It was the correct size, resolution and composition for my thumbnail and I didn't think anyone would notice. Good eye!
Thanks, it's a particular picture that I just always notice.
Are you living in Japan? This think so. Do tell.
Great video!! Keep it up!! Can you please check out our recent we know that you will love it!
I like waffles
Who else thinks Nosferatu is better than Dracula?
I don't like to compare them; one is silent, the other is sound so each has its merits. I will say that I find DRACULA's use of sound effects quite effective; the creaking doors, howling wolves, scurrying vermin and slamming coffin lids all punctuate the otherwise quiet atmosphere.
As an Englishman, why on earth do you say LABORATORY the stupid American way Labbra-tory instead of the correct English way LabORatory ? No excuse ! Take a hundred lines, that Boy !
Thats NOT a photo of Bela Lugosi as Dracula. Its Lugosi in MGM's 'Mark of The Vampire'