ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Jan 24 12 9:02 PM
Joe Karlosi wrote:Despite what some critics or viewers thought/think, I'd say Bela Lugosi's iconic presence as DRACULA is safe and secure regardless. Second-class Carlos Villarias just ruins the Spanish Version for me. He's terrible in the film. And while I'm at it, the Spanish Version for all its impressive mood and ambiance is just as 'slow' as Browning's.
Jan 24 12 9:26 PM
Joe Karlosi wrote: And while I'm at it, the Spanish Version for all its impressive mood and ambiance is just as 'slow' as Browning's.
Jan 25 12 12:35 AM
todmichel wrote:Quote: "When completed, the Spanish version of Dracula cost just over $66,000 to make and only took 22 nights to film, compared to the seven weeks and $450,000 it took to film the English version. In fact, the Spanish crew shot the film so fast that they ended up shooting some of their scenes on sets that weren’t completely finished. Rather than wait for them to be finished, the filmmakers compensated for the empty sets with clever lighting."If true - and I think it is - this is the absolute proof that the Spanish version wasn't "just a copy of the Browning" but an original work, vastly superior on all points to the Browning film - including Villarias, who is far better than Lugosi in spite of some unfortunate almost comical shots. But, after all, some critics thought that Lugosi was simply "ridiculous" in DRACULA. Bertrand Tavernier, for instance. He also called the US version "a boring anonymous pensum".
Jan 25 12 2:19 AM
When completed, the Spanish version of Dracula cost just over $66,000 to make and only took 22 nights to film, compared to the seven weeks and $450,000 it took to film the English version. In fact, the Spanish crew shot the film so fast that they ended up shooting some of their scenes on sets that weren’t completely finished. Rather than wait for them to be finished, the filmmakers compensated for the empty sets with clever lighting.
Jan 25 12 2:35 AM
Jan 25 12 6:20 AM
Jan 25 12 8:50 AM
happydude33 wrote: HalLane wrote: And it will also be great to have these digital restorations sitting neatly on a hardrive where you won't have to fiddle with clumsy disks and dusty packaging, which is even nicer.I like your style. Totally agree.
HalLane wrote: And it will also be great to have these digital restorations sitting neatly on a hardrive where you won't have to fiddle with clumsy disks and dusty packaging, which is even nicer.
todmichel wrote:Melford's version has better ambiance/atmosphere, better use of the sets, better editing (I know it's not Browning's fault, but it's a fact), far better photography and effects, far more impressive violence (the mirror's scene, Dracula's death, etc), more coherence, best casting, etc. All together, for many people outside of the Lugosian fan club it makes a superior version. And all the rest, including this strange American idolatry for Bela Lugosi, is just popular belief based on faith, and not facts. Including this legend about Melford's staff watching the rushes of the US version. It was maybe true at the beginning, but the Hispanic version was "in the can" AND previewed far before Browning - or Freud - finished the other version. In other termes, the Hispanic Dracula is "the real thing" and the US version its pale copy, not the contrary.
"Physical Media: Alive and Well, Forever!"
Jan 25 12 11:43 AM
Jan 25 12 11:58 AM
Jan 25 12 12:14 PM
todmichel wrote:And, no - we haven't any "idolatry" for Carlos Villarias just because we don't have idolatry for anybody.
Jan 25 12 1:04 PM
Jan 25 12 1:41 PM
"Hooo - easy with dem chompers there, Carly!!!"
Jan 25 12 2:44 PM
Jan 25 12 3:12 PM
Jan 25 12 4:12 PM
Jan 25 12 4:40 PM
Jan 25 12 5:02 PM
Jan 25 12 5:47 PM
todmichel wrote:Wasn't Jerry one of the better Jekyll-Hyde ever seen on screen? so, it's rather a compliment in my book.
Jan 26 12 7:54 AM
Jan 26 12 9:55 AM
Rick wrote: And, at least, with both todmichel and HerbertFlay here, we are in no danger of tipping over. We are perfectly Bela-balanced!
Share This