One of the most important and influential horror films ever.
Tod Browning's Dracula is a landmark. Not simply among horror films, but a landmark for all of cinema. It played a vital role in moving the horror genre into the sound era, and setting the blueprints for the various other 'monster' films that followed throughout the 30's and 40's. It also cemented the Universal brand as being the chief mass entertainers of the age, with their brand of Gothic horror leaving a gigantic mark on film history. However, outside of this titanic influence, does the film still hold up after 83 years?
Firstly the acting. Bela Lugosi's Dracula is truly immortal and has not aged a day. It still holds as a perfect example of actor and character becoming one, and there is a reason that Lugosi stands as the iconic Dracula, despite innumerable other renditions of the character. Dwight Frye is also wonderful as Renfield, bringing chilling creepiness to every scene he inhabits. He also carries a sympathetic weight and tragedy throughout adding layers to the role. Between these two, the acting is already a treat regardless of the other performances. Edward Van Sloan is the only other performance of note, filled with the authoritative dignity the man was renown for. However despite these great stars in the leading roles, the supporting cast is a massive letdown. Average at best, distressingly bland and wooden at worst. Many scenes begin to slump together as a result of these limp performances. Overall however the acting does stand strong due to the leads, but suffers from uneven support.
The set design and imagery is stunning. One of the most iconic Gothic mansion ever put to film features in the opening, a true treat for a fan. However the visuals do dip slightly upon arrival in England, where more generic period sets feature. Some nice lighting and creepy highlights (a sequence featuring live rats running around in a coffin filled basement in particular) do keep the momentum of the opening go throughout however, so overall the sets and imagery do hold up well. The cinematography is far more dated, it is often stiff and doesn't take full advantage of the locations. This fault was fixed in the alternate Spanish version of the film, with far more haunting camera movements.
The lacking score is a dividing point for many. Some view it as creepy and ambient, where's other feel it is awkward and an example of the holdover elements from silent cinema. I personally agree more with the later, however it does work at times (the rat sequence once again springs to mind).
Overall the film is still strong. However when compared to the work's of contemporaneous director 'James Whale' (who also made monster films for Universal), it is clear that it is severely lacking in polish and shows its age far more than it really should. There is enough immortal material here to warrant its continuous status as a classic. However many elements hold it back, not least of which is an almost laughably anti-climatic climax and ending which leave an oddly sour taste in the mouth.
Firstly the acting. Bela Lugosi's Dracula is truly immortal and has not aged a day. It still holds as a perfect example of actor and character becoming one, and there is a reason that Lugosi stands as the iconic Dracula, despite innumerable other renditions of the character. Dwight Frye is also wonderful as Renfield, bringing chilling creepiness to every scene he inhabits. He also carries a sympathetic weight and tragedy throughout adding layers to the role. Between these two, the acting is already a treat regardless of the other performances. Edward Van Sloan is the only other performance of note, filled with the authoritative dignity the man was renown for. However despite these great stars in the leading roles, the supporting cast is a massive letdown. Average at best, distressingly bland and wooden at worst. Many scenes begin to slump together as a result of these limp performances. Overall however the acting does stand strong due to the leads, but suffers from uneven support.
The set design and imagery is stunning. One of the most iconic Gothic mansion ever put to film features in the opening, a true treat for a fan. However the visuals do dip slightly upon arrival in England, where more generic period sets feature. Some nice lighting and creepy highlights (a sequence featuring live rats running around in a coffin filled basement in particular) do keep the momentum of the opening go throughout however, so overall the sets and imagery do hold up well. The cinematography is far more dated, it is often stiff and doesn't take full advantage of the locations. This fault was fixed in the alternate Spanish version of the film, with far more haunting camera movements.
The lacking score is a dividing point for many. Some view it as creepy and ambient, where's other feel it is awkward and an example of the holdover elements from silent cinema. I personally agree more with the later, however it does work at times (the rat sequence once again springs to mind).
Overall the film is still strong. However when compared to the work's of contemporaneous director 'James Whale' (who also made monster films for Universal), it is clear that it is severely lacking in polish and shows its age far more than it really should. There is enough immortal material here to warrant its continuous status as a classic. However many elements hold it back, not least of which is an almost laughably anti-climatic climax and ending which leave an oddly sour taste in the mouth.
Originally posted 16/10/14 on IMDB.com, as part of HALLOWEEN HORROR REVIEWS 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment