Unbelievably (considering I've had the Universal Dracula set for years and years), I've never bothered to watch the 1931 Spanish version of Dracula. I tend not to like having to read subtitles, which is a being reason I never bothered. Over the years, I've read articles and reviews where people have claimed that in some ways it's superior to the 1931 Bela Lugosi version. So the other day I watched it. I was really excited to find out what was different about it. Of course, for 50+ years now, Bela Lugosi (for me) is Dracula. As much as I love Christopher Lee's Dracula movies, when I think of Dracula, I picture Lugosi. So sure, there's gonna be some bias.
I honestly thought I'd like it more. Even accounting for not enjoying reading subtitles and half a century of loving Lugosi in the role, I just didn't like the Spanish version anywhere near as much as I expected to. The best way I can explain it is that if I watched it on its own, without ever having seen the original Lugosi version, I would like it a lot. No doubt. But comparing it to the Lugosi version, and even accounting for the aforementioned bias, I thought it wasn't that good. Lugosi is clearly far more sinister, creepy, menacing. The actor in the Spanish version looked more like a crazy, lunatic type character to me, with his eyes bulging out. He just didn't convey the same deadly menace Lugosi did. He looked wild, dangerous, sure. But not menacing and frightening the way Lugosi was.
And then we have Renfield. Dwight Frye damn near steals the show in the Lugosi version. If we compare the laughing when they first discover him as the sole survivor in the ship, the Dwight Frye laugh conveys far more insanity to me. Sure, the Spanish version actor had a great laugh - a more maniacal, hysterical laugh. It definitely conveyed his craziness. But not compared to the English version, where Frye portrays a more broken psyche type crazy. It was just more chilling.
In the scene where Harker arrives at the in and is attempting to go on to Borgo pass to meet the Count, I thought the scene in the English version was far more effective.
And so on and so forth. To me, the acting in the English version was far better, as was the dialogue. Granted, some of that may be due to translation issues, but generally I thought the dialogue was far, far better in the English version - far better than can be explained simply by subtle issues with language differences in translation. For example, when Renfield first arrives at Castle Dracula, the scene with the giant spider web and Lugosi saying "The blood is the life, Mr. Renfield"...to me, the English version was short, to the point and said all that needed saying. The Spanish version seemed too "talky" to me. Excess verbiage.
I did like some scenes that showed different angles of the castle in the Spanish version. I did like the scene at the beginning at the play where Dracula is shown taller than Dr. Seward, as opposed to how they filmed the English version that made Dracula appear shorter than Dr. Seward because of how they were standing on different levels.
But I can't comprehend how anyone would think the Spanish version is better. Good, yes. Better, no way. What about the rest of you?
Also, some of the characters just looked weird to me in the Spanish version. Dr. Van Helsing, for example, looked like he was drawn by Richard Corben!
Anyone who thinks the Spanish version is a superior effort is kidding himself.
There's a theatrical screening coming up next weekend. I'm anxious to see it again.
(https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/800x600q90/922/qgBN4R.jpg)
I pretty much agree, Barlow. I enjoyed finally seeing it when I first got the 1999 DVD release. It has some interesting shots and different views, which were cool, but Lugosi will always be my Dracula.
I watched this a little over a week ago for only the second time. It's probably impossible to judge the movie on its own merits. I think it is more atmospheric than the Browning version, beginning with the opening titles. We don't get the flower girl kill in London but we do get Van Helsing and Harker leaving a cemetery after staking Lucia ("Lucy"). One of these days, I really should watch them back-to-back. I think Villarias is a very good Dracula, although there are scenes where he just doesn't match Lugosi, especially the scenes with Edwardo Arozamena's Van Helsing. Arozamena is serviceable, but he's no Edward van Sloan (and the description of him as a Corben illustration is 100% accurate). I think the rest of the cast are just as strong as the Browning version, although Barry Norton (Harker) and Lupita Tovar (Eva) may be a little more engaged than David Manners (Harker), especially, and Helen Chandler (Mina). The sets are shown off to better effect, Dracula gets a mist effect, and not featuring an armadillo in Dracula's castle was a wise move.
I still think they should have done Villar Dracula merch for the period they were on the outs with the Lugosi estate.
I read on the Wiki that filming a Spanish version off hours was common. So why is Spanish Dracula the only famous Spanish classic I've ever even heard about?
Quote from: LaettnersLegacy on October 28, 2021, 06:50:19 PM
So why is Spanish Dracula the only famous Spanish classic I've ever even heard about?
"The Cat Creeps" (1930) was another Universal movie with a Spanish version. (Both versions are lost.)
It was quite common in the early sound days (before the tech was available to dub films in other languages) to make Spanish and French versions for those markets. Laurel and Hardy starred in their own foreign language versions by learning the dialog phonetically. (Who else would you get to play L&H?)
I watched the two in theater back-to-back when Fathom showed them a few years back. I think the Spanish Film is a better looking film, and much more cinematic than the rather stagey Dracula. Yes, I know this horse has been beaten to death about Dracula, but its true. Once Dracula gets to London, it becomes the stage play on film for the most part.
But...the Spanish version doesn't have Lugosi. And Villarias interpretation is way too broad, and honestly quite humorous. He keeps making a face like something on set smells bad for one. No offense to him, but he wouldn't even make a good understudy for Lugosi's masterful Dracula.
In a perfect world, I would love to see Lugosi in a film that has the atmosphere and kinetic energy the Spanish film has. But the English version wins on the cast alone. Lugosi, Frye and Van Sloan are fantastic in Browning's movie.
Chris
A friend of mine told me about the Spanish version over 30 years ago. Before that, I never knew about it. He said it was a better version. Believe it or not, I still have yet to watch it, even though I have the DVD and Blu Ray's with it. I keep meaning to watch it, but never do, don't know why. One of these days..........
I don't feel that it's better than Lugosi's at all, but it's very good & worth a look.
Quote from: LaettnersLegacy on October 28, 2021, 06:50:19 PM
I read on the Wiki that filming a Spanish version off hours was common. So why is Spanish Dracula the only famous Spanish classic I've ever even heard about?
They discontinued the production of these movies due to the technological advances made before the rest of the Universal Monster movies were made.
Ah. That makes sense
I like the brides in the Spanish version. A bit more feral looking. More predatory. I'm not sure if I prefer them to the strange etherealness of the English ladies, but I still like them.
Carlos Villarias performance as Dracula is eccentric, compared to Bela's performance. Bela's is exceptional, great and classic.
While I find the Spanish version a better directed piece, the lead is waaaay too hammy for his own good. You basically can't touch Bela, even if the movie is a bit stagy.
Advantage: Bela.
I always thought that if you put Lugosi with George Melford's vision, the movie would have been fantastic. Browning was much more static than the dynamics of Melford. Although Carlos Villarias did a fine enough job, he could match Lugosi's performance.
A friend of mine first told me about the Spanish Dracula around 1988. I never got around to watching it, even though I have the Monsters box set from '99 and the blu ray box set. I really should, because he passed away due to a heart attack last year, so I owe it to him to watch it. He told me it was better then the Lugosi version and I have heard from many people that it is superior. But, I have also heard the opposite.
I think it's overrated. I've watched it several times over the years, and never got into it. Carlos Villarías played the role almost as if he were acting in a silent film. He had none of the charisma that Bels Lugosi had.
While the directing might have minimally better, I find little about the film that puts it above the English version. I had the chance to see Dracula and it's Spanish cousin in a double feature a few years ago at AMC theater. Me and every one else in the theater got up and left the cinema right after the English version ended. Literally not one person stayed for the Spanish version.
Quote from: Majere on June 25, 2022, 12:12:25 PM
I think it's overrated. I've watched it several times over the years, and never got into it. Carlos Villarías played the role almost as if he were acting in a silent film. ...
The Spanish version featured the typically broader acting styles found in Spanish (especially Mexican) cinema.
I compare the acting in the English (American) and Spanish Draculas the same way I compare the acting in
Tora! Tora! Tora! The English directed and acted portions seem so much more subdued than the Japanese directed and acted segments. Just a different way of reflecting the world.
And yes, Carlos looked like he was in a silent movie.
That makes sense. I agree with a lot of what's already been said in this thread. I find it interesting to occasionally give the Spanish version a look again, but I always prefer the Bela film. One scene I like is when Carlos is coming up from inside the ship with Renfield laughing/screaming hysterically. Carlos actually looks quite menacing in that shot.
Overrated
Two nights ago, I watched the American version. Last night, I watched the Spanish. Pretty much still feel the same about them. Bela IS Dracula. Carlos could never have matched him, but what really hurts him are those over-the-top facial expressions. Bela had such a macabre charisma in the role. No wonder he could never escape it. I still say there are some things in the Spanish version that are worthwhile though. You can tell they tried hard to compete with their counterpart. I like some of the differing camera shots of the castle. Lupita Tovar is quite gorgeous and very sexy. Plus, I think she did some fine acting in her role. Pablo Álvarez Rubio as Renfield is pretty decent, but Dwight Frye is unforgettable and more tragic. The American version crushes it in the Van Helsing vs Dracula scene. I do like the Spanush version including a short moment verifying Lucy's release and Van Helsing mentioning he would do the same for Renfield at the end. I can only guess a stake in the heart of his corpse would save his soul, even though he was just under his master's control and not yet a full fledged vampire.
So again, I still like the Bela version best but find I can also appreciate the Spanish take. I also find I enjoy watching all the bonus material on this beautiful Blu-ray again each time I want to get my Dracula fix.