ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Mar 17 15 7:00 PM
Casey62 wrote:I always considered DRACULA as a film that invites me to imagine 'what's going on behind the curtain'. It's part of its mystique for me. I experience a lot of it with my mind's eye as well as with what I'm seeing on the screen, and, as I stated in another thread, this is why I think the film evokes a unique, dreamlike quality. Not everyone sees it this way, but I always did and so I have difficulty attaching to it all the criticism of how it should have shown this, or did that, etc,etc. And frankly, I don't see why I should.
Mar 17 15 8:24 PM
The Batman of Gotham wrote:Casey62 wrote:I always considered DRACULA as a film that invites me to imagine 'what's going on behind the curtain'. It's part of its mystique for me. I experience a lot of it with my mind's eye as well as with what I'm seeing on the screen, and, as I stated in another thread, this is why I think the film evokes a unique, dreamlike quality. Not everyone sees it this way, but I always did and so I have difficulty attaching to it all the criticism of how it should have shown this, or did that, etc,etc. And frankly, I don't see why I should.So, what you're really saying is.... - GJS : ^ )
Batman,
I happen to agree with everything Monsterpal and Casey62 said, in addition, DRACULA was a 1931 horror film, the first in the genre, based on the stage play of the same name, not the novel. For film critics, professional and amateur to declare the film "too much like a stage play" and pan it for that reason, is like stating the obvious, duh! It was an adaptation of a successful stage play not an original film, so audiences in 1931 got what they paid for and so do we. The first half of the film with all the extra story was a bonus. Now that being said, I'm not gonna begrudge all the talented computer whiz kids on these boards the fun of playing director and film editor. If that's their bag, then by all means let them go for it. But, for my money the film stands as is and keeps standing on it's own merits. It has done so for 84 years. Not a bad track record for a film that some horror film fans either love to hate or hate to love.
Mar 17 15 8:51 PM
Mar 17 15 8:57 PM
Mar 17 15 9:27 PM
Mar 17 15 9:46 PM
Wich2 wrote:..."Could have been", you bet; the "was likely meant to have been" part, Rhodes undercuts pretty well. Or at atkalu said in the other thread: the final SCRIPT is the source of MOST of what people have seen as the film's problems over the years. Kerry and Clark's fan edits make the film a bit smoother; but it still droops mightily after the bang-up open.
Mar 17 15 9:49 PM
Mar 17 15 9:54 PM
Wich2 wrote:Yours, long ago; we've discussed this many times. Kerry's recently. And as far as the "undercuts," Gary was speaking of the film as a whole, not just the minor Mina mixup.
Mar 17 15 10:04 PM
Mar 17 15 10:08 PM
Wich2 wrote:...And the point also remains, that there is no hard proof for that theory. None. In fact, the complex series of writes, rewrites, shoots, reshoots, previews, and cutting tweaks (fairly standard, for the time) that Rhodes documents, stands against the simplistic concept of CUT ONE: BROWNING'S, LETTER-FAITHFUL TO THE SCRIPT and CUT TWO: LAEMMLE"S BASTARDIZATION OF CUT ONE. -Craig
Mar 17 15 11:10 PM
The Batman of Gotham wrote:Nobody loves the theatrical DRACULA more than I do. It's the movie I watch and re-watch more than any other. I'm never bored by it - but, I can understand why many people are. I'm not depriving it of "standing on it's own merits" - not by a long shot. But neither am I going to ignore it's obvious flaws. The re-edits demonstrate how much better it could have been ( and was most likely meant to have been ). I can see the merits of both - and enjoy watching them both. Some people just aren't open-minded enough to see it that way. - GJS
Mar 18 15 12:23 AM
Mar 18 15 12:39 AM
Mar 18 15 1:19 AM
Mar 18 15 1:49 AM
Mar 18 15 5:36 AM
Mar 18 15 7:59 AM
Mar 18 15 9:27 AM
Mar 18 15 9:37 AM
Mar 18 15 11:35 AM
Share This