Yuku free message boards

Browning apparently complained in later years that Universal had edited the film badly, and considering that (IMO) the simultaneous Spanish version is edited better, he has a point. But as for that whole "sound movies ruined visual storytelling," nah, I don't buy it for a minute. The camera gets around in DRACULA, when he has a mind to: pushing in on Lugosi in his first shot, sailing through the air into the sanitarium and up to Renfield's window, a quick push in after Dracula smashes the mirror. And one scene (Lennig or Cremer mention this in their Lugosi books-- or maybe it's Dave Skal. Or maybe ALL of them)-- one scene actually MOVES cinematically, although there is actually precious little real movement: the intercharge between Van Helsing and Dracula. There are apparently more cuts back and forth between them during the confronation then there are in entire reels of the movie.

But in general. the movie is incredibly static and awkward when compared to other --better-- films of the time. It is mostly un-cinematic-- it does not look like a "movie," it looks like a stage play... shots of people standing there talking.

Manners (who's dreadful in it, and whose disdain for the project in later years may reflect his attitude back then) dismissed Browning as a "creative" element entirely, calling Freund the big honcho. FREAKS moves better, has better performances (even given the wacky casting); MARK OF THE VAMPIRE has the same absence of music, but manages to be super eerie. And Browning wasn't an utter novice at talkie technology by DRACULA either.

Browning's taken some flack for the lack of apparent coverage in the Harker/Mina scene, where the entire scene is played on her, without intercutting with a shot of Manners, who's doing most of the talking. I recall something which happened to me that may have a parallel here. I written a movie called X-Factor 2, a sequel to one I'd also written. The shoot was behind, and I was asked to go direct the opening scene while the "director" shot others. That was a three page all-dialogue scene in the back of a limo with three characters, which set up the backstory & plot gimmick as well as established who the new characters were. We drove around in the limo and everybody was pretty good about their lines, not perfect, but OK with a few stammers and hesitations. Then we made close-ups on each actor, and finished the third character's scene just as the magazine ran out of film. Cool, over and done with, just enough to cover the scene, enough to keep an immobile scene visually interesting, and to cover any actor's hesitations or odd pacing. So what does the editor do when he cuts the film together? Uses just the master shot. It was just easier to lay that in than to actually take a couple hours to create some sort of cinematic flow.

So maybe there's Browning stuff laying around that the editor never bothered with-- and Browning's reputation suffers because of it.

Yet there are obvious errors that were clearly things anybody could see right on the set-- the mismatched focus-spots on Lugosi's eyes, for instance. Jeeze. What did Browning say about that? "OK, close enough, let's move on"? And to repeat the same problem in several different shots? Arrggghh. The stiffness, broadness and theatricality of some of the performances-- versus the relatively naturalistic acting in others. That's something a director's supposed to watch for... and you can certainly see it on the set.

Better.

Not just Roland West (who would've been excellent), but

Jacques Tourneur

Lambert Hillyer

the slightly-dead Paul Leni

the slightly-dead Fred Murnau

Robert Florey

Victor Halperin

Jack Conway

Rouben Mamoulian

Frank Strayer

... I think every one of them would have made DRACULA far more inventive and interesting, based on their other works. John Huston was noodling around with screenwriting about that time; considering the respect he had when adapting literary material (e.g. THE MALTESE FALCON), a 20-something Huston directing DRACULA could've been astounding.