#both gray/white at some point too!! also basically the only ones differentiating from most characters (besides the main protagonist)

[plasky]

I made something stupid out of my two current hyperfixations

[cidolfus-a-trahan]

The very first MonsterClash!

As part of the kick off for my yearly series of horror reviews on my Youtube channel, I dug up the very first review I ever wrote, which was a comparison of the 1931 Universal film Dracula with the 1992 Francis Ford Coppola Version.

Since the video, which you can see here references this article, I had decided to post the full text here rather than link to the original Facebook page that hosted it.

Be warned, this was written long before I started writing film reviews in earnest and has not aged particularly well.

Without further ado, here is the very first edition of MonsterClash

Romney’s Reviews “Reviews I’d want to film but am unable to.” #1: Bram Stoker’s Dracula 1931 vs. 1992

Dracula, his name is known the world over. Many images come to mind when it is uttered. Starting out as a fictitious character in the novel by the Irish author, Abraham “Bram” Stoker, in 1897, this icon of gothic horror has appeared in everything from movies, to television, to even video games among other things. Even the original story itself has been adapted numerous times as stage plays, movies, and games. Now I know what you’re probably thinking, what about Vlad Țepeș? Contrary to popular belief, this Romanian prince was not the direct inspiration for Dracula. According to his working notes, Stoker had the basic outline of the story already layed out before tying in the stories of Vlad the Impaler. Many scholars believe that this is more of an afterthought, but I digress.

What I am here to talk to you about are the two most well know adaptations of the famous novel. The first version being the 1931 version of Dracula directed by Tod Browning and starring Bela Lugosi as the titular villain, and the 1992 version, directed by Francis Ford Coppola and starring Gary Oldman in the role of Dracula. Both versions have been praised by fans and critics alike. Having now seen both versions, this review shall compare the two, seeing what each one has over the other. From here on in, it shall be category based, so let’s not waste anymore time.

The first category, or round, shall be: Atmosphere

One of the major facets of any horror film is the world it creates and how it pulls you in. This category shall go into the details of setting, sound design, and to a lesser extent music.

1931 version: The settings of this film evoke the imagery we always see when we think of horror films. It shows the quaintness of the Transylvanian village, the eeriness of Castle Dracula and the various undercrofts depicted. The gothic sets are extremely well done, although simple by today’s standards, capture the gothic atmosphere that was most likely what Bram Stoker had pictured. The sound design in this film is minimal at best, more of the focus put on the dialogue. There are a few audio cues inserted here and there, but only to really announce the arrival of Dracula. In the case of music, the version I watched was the version with the added score by Philip Glass, however, I managed to see what I could of the original version. In the original version, the only music in the film served as overture and concluding themes as well as a few diegetic pieces for the music box and the scene at the symphony. In the version with the Philip Glass score, the music overpowers certain parts of dialogue and detracts a little bit from the atmosphere of the film. I don’t know if it’s always the case with this version, but on the DVD I watched it on, the music was too loud and got a little irritating. To me, it seemed as if it was composed more for a silent film.

1992 version: The settings in this film are on the same level as the 1931 version, but Coppola didn’t hesitate to use many colorful elements as part of the sets. However, as it can be seen in both the film and the interviews with the costume designer, Coppola used the principle of “the costumes are the sets”. He uses color to differentiate the different settings, a grim black for Transylvania and a shade of gray for London, and more extravagant colors to express the characters’ personalities. The sound design is a lot more atmospheric and really draws you into the world. However, it is important to note that sound design was on a different level of priority at the dawn of the talking motion picture, but the effort is an added bonus. The music in this film is more present, with the amount of diegetic music greatly reduced. The score of this film functions in the same manner that a film score is usually employed, so there is not much else to say.

Victory Tally

Setting: Tie

Sound: 1992 version

Music: 1992 version

Conclusion: 1992 Version, the atmosphere of this film is a little more complete and is a little bit easier to be drawn into.

Round 2: Cinematography

Where would film be without the camera? Last time I checked, there hasn’t been any film made without a camera, thus the name of the medium, FILM. (Even animation uses cameras people.)

1931 version: The cinematography of this film is what makes some of the moments of this film classic. It shows the grandiose and derelict nature of Castle Dracula, making the halls and undercrofts look even emptier. When you remove the Phillip Glass score, a lot of the shots create the eerie atmosphere we associate Dracula with today. This was what made the film terrifying to most people in its initial run. One of my favorite scenes in this film is the standoff between Van Helsing and Dracula. The shots are simplistic, but in the same fashion as the silent film, the picture is worth a thousand words. The rest of the film is filled with moments like this, again more effective without Philip Glass’s score.

1992 version: You can tell that this film pays homage to the rich film history that Dracula is associated with, at one point even being shot with an old camera, changing the type of film mid- scene from black and white to two color Technicolor and then finally to full color. Everything in this film is shot in a style that is reminiscent of all of the classic horror films, but Coppola also puts his own style into the film with some of the more artistic shots. It achieves it’s eeriness in a completely different way that doesn’t rely entirely on the cinematography, which can be considered either a plus or a minus, depending on which school of thought you come from.

Victory Tally

IT’S A TIE! The Coppola version wouldn’t be there without the standards set by its predecessors.

Round 3: Characters

What’s a story without characters? Not a story, that’s what. They don’t always need to be human, but there are always characters. This round comes in two parts; I don’t feel that need to explain why.

Part 1: Dracula

1931 version: Even though there were versions before this version, the earliest surviving example being Murnau’s Nosferatu, Bela Lugosi’s performance set the standard for how Dracula is portrayed in many other forms of media. A fact that is only known amongst the more hardcore film buffs is that Lugosi got the role because of his performance in the Dracula Broadway play, so he was already adept at his performance when they began performing screen tests at Universal. In addition to his earnest performance, Lugosi had a look that was both alluring and terrifying, reflecting the hypnotic effect a vampire is known to have on people.

1992 version: The way Gary Oldman portrayed Dracula captured both the terrifying elements as well as more of the romantic elements that were brought to the character in the 1979 remake made by Universal. However, some of the terrifying elements were aided by the make-up, cinematography, and the other atmospheric elements. However, when it came to the romantic elements of the character, that is where, in my opinion, Gary Oldman is at his strongest. It may not have been on the same level as Lugosi, but Oldman gave a performance that create another original form of Dracula that has also translated to other media, as well as indirectly serve as inspiration for some “other” vampire lore.

Part 2: The Other Characters

1931 version: The cast of characters is greatly reduced in this version from the original novel, mainly Arthur Holmwood and Quincy Morris are omitted. The dynamic between characters is also changed. For example, the love affairs of Lucy Westerna (changed to Western in this version) are also omitted. Dr. Jack Seward’s character is aged to the same age as Professor Van Helsing and is the father of Mina in this version. Instead of Harker visiting Dracula in the beginning, it’s Renfield who delivers the deed to the Count, the incidents that took place at the castle being the explanation for his madness. The characters that are focused on in this film are Dracula, Van Helsing, and Mina. I say this because they are the only ones who have any real character development. Harker looks as if he was put in just as the love interest and potential victim of Mina, therefore, he has little to no personality in this version. The insanity of Renfield is done incredibly well in this version, capturing the split personality and schizophrenic elements of the character. The suave and intelligent nature of Van Helsing is captured beautifully, making for a character who is almost a badass. The innocence of Mina is a typical female archetype, so it’s not something someone can do wrong unless they try REALLY hard.

1992 version: The characters in this version are a little better developed. In this version, Quincy and Holmwood are present and play a great role in the story. All of the characters in this film have an equal role and are a little closer to the personality of the characters in the original novel. Now the believability of some the characters is thrown in to question, mainly with Harker, played by Keanu Reeves. To his credit, he did give a decent performance, but I had trouble taking his accent seriously at certain points. Mina and Lucy are given more of a personality in this version. Lucy is seen as the flirtatious romantic, toying with her three suitors the way many women do today. Mina is seen as a more headstrong character that has her weaknesses that she tries to keep hidden. Renfield’s madness is on the same level as the Renfield of the 1931 version, but is given more animalistic traits. Van Helsing’s more quirky traits are more apparent and Seward’s ambitious nature shines through in this film. Despite the casting choice, Harker is given more personality in this film and is seen more as the guy who’s in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Victory Tally

Dracula: IT’S A TIE! (This is turning into Telos* people, be very afraid.) The winner can’t be decided because it’s two entirely different schools of thought at work here. It’s a case of classic vs. contemporary. I leave this decision to you.

Everyone else: 1992 version. These characters are a little more fleshed out and developed. They have more personality and make the film feel a little more complete.

Round 3: Story

The purpose of film is to tell a story, whether realistic or fantastic. So let’s take a look at the overall story of both films.

1931 version: The story of this version is a simplified version of the story from the novel. As a result, this gives off the same air as an adaptation of Greek mythology like the original Clash of the Titans. Things are kept simple and treated like a stage play. The pacing of the story does feel a bit rushed at times, with some unexplainable transitions put in to keep things moving. To me, it feels a bit like the cliff notes version of Dracula.

1992 version: This version is a little more complex than the 1931 version and has more events happen overall. The pacing of this is steadier, nothing feels rushed nor dragged on. Now the fact that so much happens may feel a bit stymieing, but it’s not like so much is packed in that it leaves the viewer confused. This seems like a more detailed version of a mythological adaptation that adds subtle nuances here and there to make a more realistic world.

Victory Tally

IT’S A TIE! That’s mainly because it depends on how you want to see the plot. If you want a simple, more mythic version, the 1931 version is a good place to start. If you want something a little more detailed, then the 1992 version may be more up your alley.

Round 4: Faithfulness to the source material

This is a common case of argument for and against a movie based on a book. This round is to show which one is more faithful to the original novel by Bram Stoker.

1931 version: This version has minor deviations throughout. I’ve already mentioned the omission of Quincy and Holmwood as well as the replacement of Harker in the opening scene with Renfield. The climax itself is also different, with only Van Helsing killing Dracula in the undercroft of Carfax Abbey instead of the full party of Harker, Van Helsing, Quincy, Holmwood, Seward, and Mina slaying him back in Transylvania. The other deviations are mainly character based while the main heart of the story, that of a demon terrorizing the civilized world, is kept intact.

1992 version: A good friend of mine put it best with this sentence. “It’s the truest to the novel, but it makes the biggest departure.” It stays incredibly true to the novel, but it’s large departure is the romance between Mina and Dracula, this involves a subplot about Dracula’s lover from when he was alive, Elisabetha, looking exactly like Mina. This was probably added to make Dracula a little more sympathetic, but people tend to be divided about this, especially in recent years with “certain” iterations of vampire lore.

Final Round: Overall

Both films are noteworthy in their own right, but which film is the definitive version of the tale? Looking at the tally so far, although it is close, there can be only one winner.

WINNER

1992

Bram Stoker’s Dracula

Directed by Francis Ford Coppola

Starring

Gary Oldman

Keanu Reeves

Winona Ryder

And

Anthony Hopkins

The 1931 is a classic, but the 1992 version is the more complete film. If you are in the mood for a poetic form of gothic horror, then this is the version for you. I still highly recommend the 1931 version of Dracula since it’s a classic and gives you a great insight into the evolution of the vampire in fiction. This version is also great to watch if you have kids watching with you, while the 1992 version is better enjoyed with a more adult audience.

Well, I hope you have enjoyed this review. We conclude, I shall impart on you the remaining words of a lost speech, given by Edward Van Sloan, the actor who played Professor Van Helsing, after a screening of the 1931 film in its initial run.

“Just a moment, ladies and gentleman…just a word before you go. We hope the memories of Dracula won’t give you bad dreams, so just a word of reassurance. When you get home tonight and the lights are turned out…and you’re afraid to look behind the curtains…and you dread to see a face at the window….well, just pull yourself together and remember, after all… there are such things as VAMPIRES!”

Thanks for reading, and Happy Halloween.

*Telos is an awards show where the students of my high school would submit short films to be judged by outside parties that had film experience. During this particular year, a number of films had tied with one another across multiple categories, so much so that it became a running joke throughout the awards show.