Dracula 1931 (Something I MUST SAY!) in Universal Horrors Forum

0 Points

Forum Jump

Dracula 1931 (Something I MUST SAY!)

Author	Comment
Wich2		#81	[-]
Jul 13 10 12:27 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I think there'd been a reprint riding on the coattails of the B'way show, Tom. And as far as people still reading it today? All I know is, there are TONS of current pb editions out there, both Complete and "Simplified" for younger readers.
	Remove this ad
Kongu is Kingu		#82	[-]
Jul 13 10 1:44 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Wich2 wrote: Well, seeing your Matinee Vamp walking around haired up like he was in APE MAN, on Broadway, is very different than a cutaway to a shaggy shepard running across a night lawn set, in the film... True indeed. I can't even remember if the Spanish version showed the scene at all.
TomWeaver999		#83	[-]
Jul 13 10 1:48 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	A CHFB lurker e-mailed me and answered my "Does anybody happen to know if the novel DRACULA was still in print and (reasonably) well-known in 1930?" question above: << Of course it was! The play was a big noise in England and then NY in 1927 and toured all over the country! << He sent me an image of the cover of the Grosset "play edition" that was in print from circa 1928-31 until the movie edition superseded it. So (obviously) not a soul was meant to go into DRACULA wondering, "Is this guy gonna turn out to be a vampire?" and still not know for sure when the picture was half-over. How inane.
Sid Terror		#84	[-]
Jul 13 10 1:48 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Wich2 wrote: "The same can go for several other examples armchair film-makers come up with after the fact." Is the insult really called for, Sid? Aren't we all, in most of the posts at most of the boatds like this, doing just what you describe? Craig, I'm really disappointed that you took that as an insult of some kind. It wasn't meant that way and was not directed at anyone in particular. Just being matter of fact. Apologies if you took that wrong. "Looking at it now, we can say "Of course he's a vampire, he's Count Dracula fer crissakes!", back in 1931 for Dracula's first outing, it was more ambiguous." And I respectfully call "baloney" on that, Sid. BEFORE the cheap cheats I'm talking about, we've seen Drac walk through a cobweb w/o breaking it, salivate over Renfield's cut, watched his brides attack, and seen him bite the girl in London. We know what he is; it hasn't been brilliantly hidden from us by staggeringly complex artfullness. The cobweb scene and a lot of other bits may be examples of "wow, isn't that weird?" or "Wait a sec, did that just happen?" but no real comment is made about it. Renfield just kind of shrugs it off like hmmm and brushes the web out of the way with his walking stick. Dracula gets weird when Renfield gets cut, and Renfield notices this to be sure, but misreads it and calmly assures him it is alright that it is just a small cut. We never see the extent of any of the attacks either. No one is sucking on anyones neck, fangs are never shown, no one is licking the blood from their lips, no one gets bit. The Count goes in for the flower girl, but the actual bite / attack happens when they step behind a pillar or something. Blood loss, anemia, and bite marks are talked about after the fact, but what are they all leading up to? We are given little bits of information and eye witness reports of events, but it is still ambiguous and we are given a chance to make up our own mind what it all means. What I'm saying is we are never directly spoon fed the information, and that is a part of the way the film is crafted. We aren't REALLY given anything solid to hang our hat on until Van Helsing notices Dracula has no reflection in te mirror of the cigarette box... And that fact is then hammered home in about four separate shots in succession, to make sure we get it now. That is when the tone of the film changes and we know for sure what Dracula is.
Joe Karlosi		#85	[-]
Jul 13 10 2:01 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	"Carl," I don't think I've ever read anyone on this board say that the film has no merit! I have read many (most?) folks listing its flaws as well its strengths. Honesty is good. -Craig Craig, you say this as if the film definitely has inherent flaws which are obvious and undebatable. Did it ever occur to you that such perceived "flaws" may be merely a matter of individual subjective opinion? I happen to feel DRACULA is a flawed film myself, but I know this is MY opinion, not a "fact".
Sid Terror		#86	[-]
Jul 13 10 2:09 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	TomWeaver999 wrote: "Holy horror-movie-history beginners' class." "So (obviously) not a soul was meant to go into DRACULA wondering, "Is this guy gonna turn out to be a vampire?" and still not know for sure when the picture was half-over. How inane." In the 1930's just like today there are two distinct audiences, those who read books and those who see movies...some people do both, but not the majority. I made that distinction clear in my original post when I said: "...the character DRACULA was a fairly new concept for film-makers as well as movie goers (though the book had been around a long time and wasn't exactly unknown)." . Don't call names and throw insults just because you chose to gloss over that bit. This film was designed for BOTH audiences. If you read the book you obviously knew he was a vampire already and didn't need to relearn the fact. ...But if you hadn't read it you perceived the film differently and had a chance to discover the clues and make up your mind as the film played out.
Joe Karlosi		#87	[-]
Jul 13 10 2:11 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Sid, I have to believe that EVERYONE watching DRACULA -- whether they read a book in their lives or not -- knew going in that Dracula was a vampire. It's everywhere in the ads. Hell, that's the reason they probably went to see the movie in the first place... to see a horror film about this vampire guy.
Kongu is Kingu		#88	[-]
Jul 13 10 2:21 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Or the "strangest love ever known". Ammusingly, this tagline was on a poster showing Dracula looming over Renfield. Guess no-one got Junior's memo!
Sid Terror		#89	[-]
Jul 13 10 2:22 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Joe, But remember also how many films (the vast majority) would explain it away in some unsupernatural way or with a cheater Scooby-Do ending. Audiences were conditioned to look for the loophole that gave away it was a fake. This film kept you off balance that way. And it was quite relentless at the time, for the end when you find out it is true and the guy actually had a stake pounded through him and wasn't coming back with a "It was all a sham" ending. Don't you also think it was by design that Browning was the one who directed DRACULA, after his history making that film with the cheater ending in 1927? Ol' Tod wanted to DELIVER this time, but lead some folks to believe that maybe he wasn't going to deliver. Last Edited By: Sid Terror Jul 13 10 2:26 PM. Edited 1 times.
Kongu is Kingu		#90	[-]
Jul 13 10 2:28 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I wonder if this half hearted approach was not so much for audiences as for Uncle Carl, who was very wary about the whole idea to begin with.
	Remove this ad
Kongu is Kingu		#91	[-]
Jul 13 10 2:30 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Sid Terror wrote: Don't you also think it was by design that Browning was the one who directed DRACULA, after his history making that film with the cheater ending in 1927? Ol' Tod wanted to DELIVER this time, but lead some folks to believe that maybe he wasn't going to deliver. I don't know, given his attitude in contempoary press to London, and repeating the trick in Mark, I think he couldn't rise above it being a lot of phoney baloney to fool McDougal's customers.
TomWeaver999		#92	[-]
Jul 13 10 2:31 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I bet most people went to FRANKENSTEIN wondering if the Monster was really a Monster, or just some guy in crazy makeup that Colin Clive hid under the sheet as part of a scam. NOT. Koo-koo! Koo-koo!!
Kongu is Kingu		#93	[-]
Jul 13 10 2:38 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The funny thing about a lot of these villian-fakes-a-haunting melodramas is that a REAL haunting would be more beliveable!
Wich2		#94	[-]
Jul 13 10 3:19 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	"We aren't REALLY given anything solid to hang our hat on until Van Helsing notices Dracula has no reflection in te mirror of the cigarette box..." Umm, Sid - what the hell happened to the entire crew of the Vesta? "I think he couldn't rise above it being a lot of phoney baloney to fool McDougal's customers." Bingo, KiK. Which is why I think Browning was NOT the best man for this job. Last Edited By: Wich2 Jul 13 10 3:21 PM. Edited 1 times.
TomWeaver999		#95	[-]
Jul 13 10 3:25 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	In my e-mailbox from a CHFB lurker: << What about these original newspaper ads: "Dracula - the Human Vampire!" "The Vampire Thriller Just Like the Play!" "Ghostly Vampire Melodrama" "The Human Vampire -- Dead 500 Years Yet Alive!" Even the damn posters proclaim THE VAMPIRE THRILLER. And in the first 5 minutes, we are told "We people of the mountain believe at the castle there are VAMPIRES." Two minutes later, the coach driver (who had blazing eyes) is gone and a big bat is driving the horses on. About a minute later, we see Dracula get out of a ***ing coffin in a crypt. 8 minutes later, Dracula is bending over Renfield to obviously drink his blood. Yeah Sid, it's reeeeeeeeeeal* vague. << Let's get back to talking about something sensible, eh guys?
Sid Terror		#96	[-]
Jul 13 10 3:38 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Someone needs to stop eating the sugary cereal, he is in one of his manic moods inventing mail from lurkers again. We'll get back to ya when the buzz wears off and you actually take time to read and understand what you're replying to. Yes, the "big bat" is leading the horses. It is implied (but vaguely and not for sure) but we also are never given a look at the coachmen's bench to verify they are one in the same. We only see it when Renfield does, after he exits the coach. Last Edited By: Sid Terror Jul 13 10 3:43 PM. Edited 2 times.
TomWeaver999		#97	[-]
Jul 13 10 3:41 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	<< Someone needs to stop eating the sugary cereal, he is in one of his manic moods inventing mail from lurkers again. << There's only one pathological liar around these parts, and we alllll know who it is. Hey, howzabout we make a bet: If I can't produce the guy who sent me that, to everyone's satisfaction, I'll leave the CHFB. If I can, you hit the bricks for good. Deal?
Sid Terror		#98	[-]
Jul 13 10 3:48 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	There he goes again...buzz buzz buzzz... and with the name calling. He's on a roll now. boiiinnng
Rakshasa		#99	[-]
Jul 13 10 3:49 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	TomWeaver999 wrote: Let's get back to talking about something sensible, eh guys? Right, like how audiences in 1975 walking into the theater to see JAWS thought it was going to be a film about a dentist. Links To All The Classic Monster Stills I've Posted: http://monsterkidclassichorrorforum.yuku.com/topic/30758
TomWeaver999		#100	[-]
Jul 13 10 3:56 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	<< There he goes again...buzz buzz buzzz... and with the name calling. << No name-calling. Just a diagnosis. And I knew you wouldn't take the bet. You were lying yet again when you posted that you believed I made it up. By not taking the bet, you've proved that. What mental condition impels you to publicly embarrass yourself here 24/7? There's a great big world outside, little boy.
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

Dracula 1931 (Something I MUST SAY!)