The Bela Lugosi Appreciation Thread

[DoctorDeath]

I absolutely don't think of "Return of the Vampire", as a sequel.  Why does there have to be only one movie vampire, and that he has to be a count.  olumbia gave Armand Tesla his own history, and was able to make it into a wartime story at the same time.  This is an outstaning classic in it's own right, and was honestly a much better vampire movie then the ones with Carradine or Lon Chaney Jr.  Of course if someone wants to make a case why "Billy the Kid meets Dracula" is a superior film, I'm more then willing to listen.

I think the reason people think of it as a sequel is because it was supposed to be a sequel before Universal got involved.

I completely agree about Carradine and Chaney, Jr. While I enjoy their turns as Dracula, it just doesn't have the magic that Lugosi had.

[Mord]

I agree about the end of Lugosi's career. No one but Wood wanted anything to do with him. I still get chills though every time I watch Bride of the Monster. Lugosi, even at that age and condition, could still out-act most of the classic actors, including Karloff.

Irespectfully disagree. Karloff was the better actor (and got the best parts), but Lugosi had the most personality.

[marsattacks666]

I agree about the end of Lugosi's career. No one but Wood wanted anything to do with him. I still get chills though every time I watch Bride of the Monster. Lugosi, even at that age and condition, could still out-act most of the classic actors, including Karloff.

Lugosi was indeed a terrific and fantastic actor. But, I would not get carried-away and say, Lugosi could out-act
Karloff. I would strongly disagree. Yes, both actors were different, both were charismatic. But Karloff was much
more well-defined. Extremely structured.

[Haunted hearse]

I think the reason people think of it as a sequel is because it was supposed to be a sequel before Universal got involved.

I completely agree about Carradine and Chaney, Jr. While I enjoy their turns as Dracula, it just doesn't have the magic that Lugosi had.

Maybe the intent was to make a sequel, but the resulting film was not a sequel.  There was a sequel to Dracula, and it starred Gloria Holden and Van Sloan.
  Lugosi was a great actor, but it isn't helpful to his legacy to say that he was better than Karloff.  It might help to remember that some of us on this site are fans of both. 

[Scatter]

I think Ygor was his greatest role, with the Black Cat as his finest movie (IMO, of course).

Again, I concur entirely.

[DoctorDeath]

Irespectfully disagree. Karloff was the better actor (and got the best parts), but Lugosi had the most personality.

Don't get me wrong, I love Karloff. I just personally prefer Lugosi and think he was the better actor. Karloff got the better roles but Lugosi was kind of pushed to the side due to his willingness to accept smaller amounts of money at the beginning of his career.

[Haunted hearse]

Sorry.  Lugosi was a great actor, but Karloff was better.  Of course it's sort of like debating if Leonardo DaVinci or Michaelangelo was the better artist.  As far as being given better roles, don't you think that there's an istsy bitsy teeny tiny baby chance that maybe, just maybe, one of those "better roles" was one Lugosi flat out rejected?  Again, this is the Bela Lugosi appreciation thread, and it would be best not to bring Karloff into it, except for maybe how well they worked together in films like "the Black Cat", and "Son of Frankenstein".

[Paladin]

I definitely think that Lugosi was an early casualty of stereotyping (typecasting) after Dracula was filmed- which was something of a shame. Don't forget that he portrayed the Count on stage before the movie was made and I think that this hurt his career in a big way, though he probably didn't realize it at the time.  After Dracula, he made a few picture where he even went uncredited. He had a lot of good roles but never became the star that Karloff became. He got hooked on pain medication and his career sort of took an erratic turn. His physical condition wasn't great and perhaps he went back on his heels a bit.

Boris, on the other hand, became a charter member of the Screen Actors Guild. He not received more offers, he was also respected because of his voice- over work (which he did almost up to his death in 1969).

As far as the "better" actor, I guess it's safe to say that Lugosi was pretty much the "perfect" Dracula for his time and that Karloff was the perfect monster for his time. 


In my own opinion, Karloff was a better thespian and I don't even think it's close.

[Haunted hearse]

The one thing that did more to hurt Lugosi's future in films was his attitude toward playing the Frankenstein Monster.  If Lugosi had seen the monster as a trapped being, instead of a mindless brute, he would have had an opportunity to create a character vastly different from the Count.  If Lugosi had had the right mindset when it came to the Frankenstein monster, like he had when it came to Ygor, I would think he wouldn't have been so typecast.

[Mord]

One thing that also hurt Lugosi in Hollywood was his very thick accent. It was a little hard to understand what he was saying (especially in his earlier films). I love Lugosi almost as much as I love Karloff, but Karloff was the more versatile actor. Though Haunted Hearse is absolutely right, it is a disservice bringing up Karloff in a Lugosi appreciation thread. It only serves to divide people.

[Paladin]

One thing that also hurt Lugosi in Hollywood was his very thick accent. It was a little hard to understand what he was saying (especially in his earlier films). I love Lugosi almost as much as I love Karloff, but Karloff was the more versatile actor. Though Haunted Hearse is absolutely right, it is a disservice bringing up Karloff in a Lugosi appreciation thread. It only serves to divide people.

Your right, Mord, about comparing the two in what should be Lugosi's appreciation thread but there is no other "barometer" to measure his accomplishments than to compare his with Karloff's. Universal's two biggest stars. I'm not dissing Bela by any means it at all but in my opinion he just didn't have the versatility (and skills) that Karloff had.
Something else is that personal life does come into play with a lot of these old timers, especially those from foreign nations. Lugosi came from a war- torn nation as compared to Karloff. Different backgrounds and upbringing can play a huge role in someone's success.

[Mord]

I agree with all your comments, Paladin. Karloff was the better actor, though Lugosi gained a cultish, underdog status due to all of the drama in his real life. I think people tend to romanticize Lugosi since he seemed to have the darker, more interesting personality. Once you look at their bodies of work objectively, it becomes apparent (at least to me) that Karloff did the best work. Though they did work beautifully together. Watch their final scene in "The Bodysnatcher" to see what hights they could reach together. Both were absolutely breathtaking performances.

[Zackuth]

I've always been a fan of Lugosi and have liked his performances, regardless of what I thought of the movie, I liked what he did.  I do remember from a biography on tv that he was a Shakespearian actor and was considered a romantic leading actor in Hungary.  I also believe that overall Karloff was a better actor.  However, I cannot see Karloff giving a better performance as Dracula than Lugosi did.  Likewise, I can't see Lugosi topping Karloff as Frankenstein's monster.  Both have played mad scientists at different times, but I can't tell you which I like better. 

[aura of foreboding]

Quite honestly, I have seen the character of Dracula performed hundreds of times in various mediums, and no actor has ever come close to achieving what Lugosi does.  In Universal's Dracula, it is all him.  Lugosi keeps the movie going and is really one of the only reasons we consider it a must-see classic.  Unlike Frankenstein, it would fall apart without a strong performer in the lead role.*  Granted, Frankenstein is better because of Karloff, but Karloff does not carry his picture like Lugosi does.  Without Karloff, Frankenstein would be a much different film, but it would still probably be memorable based on its own merits.  Lugosi, on the other hand, makes Dracula memorable.  I think that's a notion that is sorely misunderstood in the whole Frankenstein vs. Dracula debate.  Both are great films, but for different reasons.  (Now, Bride of Frankenstein is, in Lugosi's words, "another matter."  Without Karloff, that film would not be as memorable as it is.  Then again, it was a film made for Karloff, whereas Lugosi was made for Dracula.) 

*To Karloff's credit, he manages to steal the "lead role" from Clive, whereas another actor probably could have kept his "second billing," and Clive could have carried the picture with the help of the excellent film-making. 

[Rich]

I watched Return of the Vampire today and it was awesome. Right now I am enjoying Devil Bat in color.