ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Mar 18 15 7:12 PM
stephendsullivan wrote:It doesn't make sense to me that a director of Browning's experience would make cuts that harm the storylines of the film. Browning's films tend to have problems, IMO, but disjointing the story to create an eerie feeling in the audience isn't one of them. Browning knew how to creep people out with story alone, and his storylines tend to be fairly easy to follow, despite what I sometimes feel are unnecessary twists. DRACULA has story issues that, to me, don't seem related to the source materials (including the play), bur are rather because of editing choices. And, as a professional writer and storyteller, I have trouble believing that Browning would have made those choices. He didn't seem to in his other films. (I also doubt that they are entirely the result of it being an early talking picture.) Since the Spanish-language version of the film (shot at the same time) has fewer of these issues, it makes sense to me that someone in the editing room made some "bad" choices. Maybe it was Browning; we'll likely never know. But in the light of his other, less disjointed work, I tend to think the problems were more likely with a studio edit -- no matter who ordered them.
Nor do I see any issue with Clark and Kerry re-editing Dracula to show what "might have been" and how with a few tweaks (and perhaps following the script), the film could have been better. And I'm pretty sure that all of us love DRACULA as it exists (flawed or not), or we wouldn't be engaged in such exercises or discussions to begin with. But sadly, we may never actually know why the DRACULA we have took the final form it did. All we have from the Spanish version and script are intimations of what might have been. So, if you don't like reconstructions (or deconstructions), don't watch 'em. We'll always have the DRACULA we have.
Share This