In both of their glowing reviews of this 1958 Hammer ground-breaker, Dennis Giford and Eric B. Olson cited how ironic it was that audiences once said Christopher Lee could not measure up to Bela Lugosi as Dracula, but that when Frank Langella took up the cape audiences said he could never measure up to Christopher Lee. This is a classic example of how the pupil will surpass the master, but will end up repeating his mistakes that will be noticed when a 'New Man' comes around, even if the man is initially mocked, and so the cycle continues. I'm not saying that the following versions of 'Dracula' surpassed the originals(in fact, neither were the originals unless you want to overlook a little silent masterpiece called 'Nosferatu')but I think it's time that a 'New Man' proposes a re-evaluation.
I am that man. And I come to challenge this long-standing contender to the throne. Word is that this version surpasses the 1931 version in every respect, the other word is that no, nothing can beat the original. I challenge both viewpoints.
I think it goes without saying that Terence Fisher was a better director than Tod Browning, and that technically speaking; 'Horror of Dracula'(as it is most commonly known)is a superior film. However, one can argue that the 1931 version is better because of it's importance, so let's leave things like technical proficiency and historical importance aside and weigh these films where they REALLY matter; in terms of acting, pacing and entertainment value.
The consensus is that the Browning version starts off good then becomes dull aside from some supporting performances after the initial Transylvania sequences, while the Fisher version is great from beginning to end with no weaknesses aside from budgetary constraints. Want the truth? Both have the same pacing issues. Both films start off with a bang in the scenes at the castle(this version never leaves Transylvania and takes place in a neighboring village that's apparently just a few hours ride, almost all reviews say it moves to London), but lose momentum after wards. Almost all of Fisher's version after the opening is comprised of TALKING, and since it's a longer version and more 'modern' film, it shows. The difference is that while Browning's version undeniably has a let-down of an ending, Fisher's ends with a bang. So while the thrilling parts of Fisher's version are superior, both films have much of the same drawing-room boredom and lengthy explanations of things anyone with a brain could have figured out themselves.
The other issue is the acting. Most say that Lugosi's performance is the only good one in browning's film, although some(though still not enough IMHO)credit occasionally goes to Edward Van Sloan and Dwight Frye. Truth is, Lugosi's performance hasn't aged well and Sloan & Frye dominate the proceedings. Despite being in the hands of more capable actors, Fisher's version actually has LESS chops in the acting department. Christopher Lee exudes a raw savagery and sexuality as Drac, but really, the performance gives him so little to do that any stuntman, or even another good actor in the film could have done. It's just like Lugosi's; Iconic, but not great by any means. The really great performance is Peter Cushing as Van Helsing, he's not nearly as faithful as Sloan to the book, but he dominates the entire film and sure as hell is much more glamorous and active, less a professor and more a prototype for vampire slaying superheroes like Blade and the Belmont clan. Michael Gough is much better as Arthur Holmwood(the Harker character)than David Manners, but it's mostly a thankless part when it had real potential to show a character who is a non-believer become a believer. All of the other performances are bland as can be except for a hilarious cameo by Miles Malleson as a talkative coffin-maker. So the films are narrowly matched in acting terms; an iconic but uninteresting role, some fun supporting bits but only one standout.
So the truth is, both films are more or less equals in the acting and pacing department. But which is more entertaining? Well, Fisher's version. The good scenes hit harder than Browning's does. And as dull as the talkative scenes are, a good chunk of the talking is by Peter Cushing, and he's one of those actors who is so good you'd watch him read the phone book. The incredible James Bernard score also helps, and many shots of orange leaves and cloudy night skies help build a nice Halloween atmosphere.
It's also interesting how in the Browning version, Renfield takes on Harker's role in the early scenes but Harker remains the same. Here, Harker makes the journey, but becomes a vampire like Renfield, but is mercifully killed early on, instead Mina takes on the Renfieldian role and Arthur Holmwood is the hero. An Interesting commentary on the role reversal. I also like how just as many of the scares come from Van Helsing as Dracula. When Van Helsing's hand pops up out of nowhere to scald Lucy with a crucifix it's a much more frightening moment than anything the Count does. In fact, the two most gory and violent scenes also stem from Van Helsing. Perhaps something could have been made of this, but sadly nothing was(probably religious reasons).
In short, Fisher's version is a better made, better looking and more entertaining film than Browning's, and this all earns it one more star. Otherwise, they are very evenly matched, with the gulfs in quality present, but not nearly as big as they are made out to be. Good film, but as far as it's reputation suggests? As Van Helsing tells Arthur 'That's a common fallacy'.~
I am that man. And I come to challenge this long-standing contender to the throne. Word is that this version surpasses the 1931 version in every respect, the other word is that no, nothing can beat the original. I challenge both viewpoints.
I think it goes without saying that Terence Fisher was a better director than Tod Browning, and that technically speaking; 'Horror of Dracula'(as it is most commonly known)is a superior film. However, one can argue that the 1931 version is better because of it's importance, so let's leave things like technical proficiency and historical importance aside and weigh these films where they REALLY matter; in terms of acting, pacing and entertainment value.
The consensus is that the Browning version starts off good then becomes dull aside from some supporting performances after the initial Transylvania sequences, while the Fisher version is great from beginning to end with no weaknesses aside from budgetary constraints. Want the truth? Both have the same pacing issues. Both films start off with a bang in the scenes at the castle(this version never leaves Transylvania and takes place in a neighboring village that's apparently just a few hours ride, almost all reviews say it moves to London), but lose momentum after wards. Almost all of Fisher's version after the opening is comprised of TALKING, and since it's a longer version and more 'modern' film, it shows. The difference is that while Browning's version undeniably has a let-down of an ending, Fisher's ends with a bang. So while the thrilling parts of Fisher's version are superior, both films have much of the same drawing-room boredom and lengthy explanations of things anyone with a brain could have figured out themselves.
The other issue is the acting. Most say that Lugosi's performance is the only good one in browning's film, although some(though still not enough IMHO)credit occasionally goes to Edward Van Sloan and Dwight Frye. Truth is, Lugosi's performance hasn't aged well and Sloan & Frye dominate the proceedings. Despite being in the hands of more capable actors, Fisher's version actually has LESS chops in the acting department. Christopher Lee exudes a raw savagery and sexuality as Drac, but really, the performance gives him so little to do that any stuntman, or even another good actor in the film could have done. It's just like Lugosi's; Iconic, but not great by any means. The really great performance is Peter Cushing as Van Helsing, he's not nearly as faithful as Sloan to the book, but he dominates the entire film and sure as hell is much more glamorous and active, less a professor and more a prototype for vampire slaying superheroes like Blade and the Belmont clan. Michael Gough is much better as Arthur Holmwood(the Harker character)than David Manners, but it's mostly a thankless part when it had real potential to show a character who is a non-believer become a believer. All of the other performances are bland as can be except for a hilarious cameo by Miles Malleson as a talkative coffin-maker. So the films are narrowly matched in acting terms; an iconic but uninteresting role, some fun supporting bits but only one standout.
So the truth is, both films are more or less equals in the acting and pacing department. But which is more entertaining? Well, Fisher's version. The good scenes hit harder than Browning's does. And as dull as the talkative scenes are, a good chunk of the talking is by Peter Cushing, and he's one of those actors who is so good you'd watch him read the phone book. The incredible James Bernard score also helps, and many shots of orange leaves and cloudy night skies help build a nice Halloween atmosphere.
It's also interesting how in the Browning version, Renfield takes on Harker's role in the early scenes but Harker remains the same. Here, Harker makes the journey, but becomes a vampire like Renfield, but is mercifully killed early on, instead Mina takes on the Renfieldian role and Arthur Holmwood is the hero. An Interesting commentary on the role reversal. I also like how just as many of the scares come from Van Helsing as Dracula. When Van Helsing's hand pops up out of nowhere to scald Lucy with a crucifix it's a much more frightening moment than anything the Count does. In fact, the two most gory and violent scenes also stem from Van Helsing. Perhaps something could have been made of this, but sadly nothing was(probably religious reasons).
In short, Fisher's version is a better made, better looking and more entertaining film than Browning's, and this all earns it one more star. Otherwise, they are very evenly matched, with the gulfs in quality present, but not nearly as big as they are made out to be. Good film, but as far as it's reputation suggests? As Van Helsing tells Arthur 'That's a common fallacy'.~