Fascinating, to witness the cinematic evolution of the "Dracula" story, from Murnau's "Nosferatu" (1922) to Browning's "Dracula" (1931) to Fisher's "Horror of Dracula" (1958).
The silent (and first) "Nosferatu" is by far the eeriest. "Horror of Dracula" is by far the most beautifully produced.
Yet Tod Browning's "Dracula" (with Bela Lugosi), as cinematically primitive as it is (coming just two years after the first "sound" film, "The Jazz Singer") remains the most effective.
Why? Bela Lugosi, of course.
"Dracula" was Lugosi's 43rd film, if you include his European silents. He'd been banging around Hollywood for over twenty years, before he made "Dracula." He was 49 years old. He either couldn't, or never bothered, to eliminate his Hungarian accent in all those years, unlike many other European actors of the time.
His "foreignness" worked perfectly for "Dracula." Simply, there has never been another screen actor like him. Perfect casting in the perfect role. Since "Dracula" is a period piece to begin with, Lugosi's accent and "staginess" fits the character magnificently. He is mesmerizing and utterly convincing.
He never before, nor ever again, achieved anything remotely as triumphant as that performance. (Boris Karloff, by contrast, was a far more versatile actor whose active screen career outlasted Lugosi's by decades.) Almost 30 years later, Hammer Films produced "Horror of Dracula" with Christoper Lee in the title role.
Lee's characterization occupies, at most, ten minutes of screen time. Yet he is indelible in the role. Strikingly handsome and tall, he embodies all the dangerous eroticism and supernatural athleticism of Dracula.
In color, yet.
Magnificently produced at the Bray Studios, "Horror of Dracula" was filmed in the same English estate that Hammer Films used for numerous pictures -- simply redressing the rooms for different films. It looks like it cost a fortune. In fact, it was a cheapie.
Yet the conviction and talent of all the actors involved raised the bar for horror films of the time.
Truly, "Horror of Dracula" is one of the best-produced, best-acted "Draculas" ever filmed.
Yet today it falls flat. It is "dated" in a way that Lugosi's "Dracula" can never be.
Alas, one wishes Christopher Lee were given more to do, on screen, as Dracula. But he's almost a secondary character in the script as shot. Nor is he remotely "Transylvanian." His accent is straight from Mayfair.
By contrast, Lugosi is the centerpiece of Tod Browning's hypnotic "Dracula," and deservedly so. We've never seen anyone like this character on screen, before or since.
Nearly 80 years on, Lugosi remains the definitive Dracula.
Astonishing, really, when you think about it.
The silent (and first) "Nosferatu" is by far the eeriest. "Horror of Dracula" is by far the most beautifully produced.
Yet Tod Browning's "Dracula" (with Bela Lugosi), as cinematically primitive as it is (coming just two years after the first "sound" film, "The Jazz Singer") remains the most effective.
Why? Bela Lugosi, of course.
"Dracula" was Lugosi's 43rd film, if you include his European silents. He'd been banging around Hollywood for over twenty years, before he made "Dracula." He was 49 years old. He either couldn't, or never bothered, to eliminate his Hungarian accent in all those years, unlike many other European actors of the time.
His "foreignness" worked perfectly for "Dracula." Simply, there has never been another screen actor like him. Perfect casting in the perfect role. Since "Dracula" is a period piece to begin with, Lugosi's accent and "staginess" fits the character magnificently. He is mesmerizing and utterly convincing.
He never before, nor ever again, achieved anything remotely as triumphant as that performance. (Boris Karloff, by contrast, was a far more versatile actor whose active screen career outlasted Lugosi's by decades.) Almost 30 years later, Hammer Films produced "Horror of Dracula" with Christoper Lee in the title role.
Lee's characterization occupies, at most, ten minutes of screen time. Yet he is indelible in the role. Strikingly handsome and tall, he embodies all the dangerous eroticism and supernatural athleticism of Dracula.
In color, yet.
Magnificently produced at the Bray Studios, "Horror of Dracula" was filmed in the same English estate that Hammer Films used for numerous pictures -- simply redressing the rooms for different films. It looks like it cost a fortune. In fact, it was a cheapie.
Yet the conviction and talent of all the actors involved raised the bar for horror films of the time.
Truly, "Horror of Dracula" is one of the best-produced, best-acted "Draculas" ever filmed.
Yet today it falls flat. It is "dated" in a way that Lugosi's "Dracula" can never be.
Alas, one wishes Christopher Lee were given more to do, on screen, as Dracula. But he's almost a secondary character in the script as shot. Nor is he remotely "Transylvanian." His accent is straight from Mayfair.
By contrast, Lugosi is the centerpiece of Tod Browning's hypnotic "Dracula," and deservedly so. We've never seen anyone like this character on screen, before or since.
Nearly 80 years on, Lugosi remains the definitive Dracula.
Astonishing, really, when you think about it.