#carlos villarias

[weirdlookindog]

Carlos Villarías in Drácula (1931)

[roskirambles]

Horror Movie of the day: Dracula (1931)

The 1897 Bram Stoker's novel, a well known literary classic: the nefarious vampire who comes from beyond the Carpathians to take over England by settling in Cairfax Abbey, London. A blood eating fiend who is drawn in by the virginal Mina Murray, to then be confronted by her fiancé Jonthan Harker and Dr. Abraham Van Helsing. So when Tod Browning was hired to adapt it to the silver screen, from its theatre adaptation nonetheless, the end result became transformative in the world of cinema… forever.

Now, it's easy for modern audiences to be desensitized to its lack of violence and campy theatrics, with a performance from Bela Lugosi as the count that has been parodied to death and then some. And yet, over 90 years after it was seen for the first time it's still considered as THE iconic interpretation of the vampire upon which Halloween costumes are based on and from which many lines not found in the novel are imitated. Why is that? The key word is charisma.

Behind the obvious camp, there's something performative if not outright uncanny about the count. Yes, a 6 feet tall vampire who is always staring and cups the sky in his hand like a poorly directed Shakespeare villain can come across as a tad goofy, but he thoroughly sticks out and it's hard to look everywhere else when someone acts so strangely and somehow makes everyone start following his pace, simultaneously a relic of the time yet still captivating, magnetic even.

A pragmatic adaptation that simplifies the story (cutting out Lucy Westenra's suitors entirely, cutting Jonathan's trip Trannsylvania out) this film keeps most of the essentials about the book while optimizing the screen time, while changing the angle to emphasize the rivalry between Dracula and Van Helsing. The end result is moody and atmospheric, with some admittedly hooky effects but hitting just right at many moments.

It's only natural for a movie still worth watching.

Yes, I emphasized Lugosi's performance during the main body of review, but that was honestly warranted: a movie named after its antagonist lives or dies by that performance specifically, and the classically trained Hungarian honestly knocked it out of the park to the point he codified what vampires look like for decades, only horror film legend Cristopher Lee ever coming remotely close to the same leve of iconicity. But reducing the movie's success to JUST Legosi's performance is undermining the effort of the rest of the cast, with Edward Van Sloan's performance as Abraham van Helsing playing a great foil to the count, or Dwight Frye's compelling range as Renfield really selling the madness and tragedy of his character.

But above all, Tod Browning's directorial achievements in what was effectively a new field.

Sure, horror films existed before this one, so did Dracula adaptations even. But this movie had a challenge past ones didn't have to deal with: making horror work with sound. An herculean task he understood better than some people might give him credit for; while archaic to modern eyes with it's nigh total absence of music (including the now awkward use of Tchaikovsky's Swan's Lake as the opening credits theme), finding things like the sound creaking doors used to build tension THIS early in cinema history isn't as self explanatory as it might seem. It required an intuition as to how the soundscape of a situation instinctively affects the emotional state of the viewer.

That isn't to mention that for how shoddy those bats on strings look, the atmosphere of the film still manages to hit the mark. Even fairly goofy facial expressions can be rendered creepy under the right lighting conditions.

But then, there's some other matters about this film, like how the changes to the book have affected the perception of many characters (hitting Mina the hardest by making her JUST the damsel in distress), the fact Lugosi was not the first choice for Dracula and had to fight for it(showing that even back then you had an internal politics conflict in Hollywood), or the existence of a score which was added in later releases and adds to the film's atmosphere.

...or the fact it's actually TWO separate films from from the same script.

As dubbing and putting subtitles to films wasn't a common practice during the 30's, to export this movie to other markets a completely separate version in a different language would have to be made for each. And since Mexico is the immediate neighboring country, a Spanish version was shot at nights on the same sets as the English one, helmed by George Melford.

The end result is a very similar yet also decidedly different movie, lasting over half an hour more, addressing plot points that are either glossed over or shortly talked about, and having more ambitious cinematography, but with acting that doesn't quite match the overall level seen in Brown's effort. Specially poor Carlos Villarias, who was mandated to imitate Lugosi as close as possible and wasn't allowed to make the character his own, remembered only as a pale imitation of the so called original.

Still, a window into two different takes from the same script is a rarity in the world of cinema and well worth looking into.

[cosetterose90]

[mudwerks]

(via The Grim Gallery: Exhibit 4450)

Carlos Villarias as Dracula (1931)

[collinsportmaine]

Carlos Villarias as Conde Dracula

[schlock-luster-video]

On April 4, 1931, the Spanish version of Dracula debuted in Mexico City.

[horrororman]

#Horror films released on April 24th...

#Drácula 1931.

#CarlosVillarias

#NightofTerror 1933.

#BelaLugosi

#TheHand 1981.

#CannibalFerox 1981(Italy).

#Ms45 1981.

#ZoëTamerlis #thriller

[pizopop]

Carlos Villarías and Bela Lugosi, from the Spanish and English versions respectively, of Dracula - produced simultaneously by Universal Pictures. Both were shot on the same sets - the English cast filming during the day and the Spanish cast overnight.

[twistedtummies2]

Top 5 WORST Dracula Portrayals

Anyone who knows me well by now should also know that one of my favorite stories of all time is Bram Stoker’s Dracula. I love the book, and I love seeing how the story and its titular character are reimagined throughout the breadth of pop culture. And there are PLENTY of reimaginings and adaptations to go around: Count Dracula, alongside Sherlock Holmes, is one of the most frequently reinterpreted characters in the history of fiction. Of course, with so many interpretations, there are plenty of great Draculas out there: Christopher Lee, Bela Lugosi, Max Schreck, Gary Oldman, and more. But with the good must also come the bad: there are a LOT of really terrible Dracula movies and portrayals out there, just as there are a lot of really fun ones… …And I actually haven’t seen many of them. Well…actually, I suppose I have, but it depends on what you’re really looking at. For example, I love John Carradine’s PORTRAYAL of Dracula, but the movies he was actually in were often sub-par. Grandpa from “The Munsters” and the version from “Hotel Transylvania” are comical, incompetent buffoons, but they’re meant to be parody characters and I like them for the humor and campy silliness they provide. There are even a couple of Draculas that a lot of people seem to dislike that I actually think are okay. I have no big problem with Rudolf Martin from “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” (admittedly, this may partially be because I have only watched all of two episodes of that show), nor with Richard Roxburgh from “Van Helsing,” yet in researching this list, I found out that a LOT of people REALLY dislike those interpretations, as an example. Finally, it’s worth pointing out that I have, in fact, DELIBERATELY AVOIDED watching several bad Draculas because…well…they’re bad. And I KNOW they’re bad. Why in the world would I want to watch something that is notoriously terrible, aside from just…ascertaining that it IS, in fact, terrible. So, for instance, I haven’t seen “Dracula in Istanbul,” “Blacula,” “Dracula’s Dog,” and/or many, many other horrendously dreadful renditions that have gained some notoriety.

With all that said, this doesn’t mean that I’ve liked every single version of Dracula - as a character or as a story - that I’ve seen. Even I know a few Draculas that I frankly just don’t like. And it’s worth knowing the mistakes that have been made when handling this character, as much as it is worth praising the achievements. So, today, in honor of World Dracula Day, we’re gonna take a look at some of the worst of the worst from Transylvania. These are, in my personal, humble, and EXTREMELY biased opinion, the Top 5 Worst Portrayals of Count Dracula.

5. Carlos Villarias, from “Spanish Dracula.”

What is “Spanish Dracula,” some of you may be wondering? Well, here’s the basics: in 1931, Universal wanted to release their screen adaptation of Dracula in both English AND in Spanish. This was still in the early days of sound, and as a result, dubbing was a concept that really hadn’t been fully figured out. Typically, the way American studios handled making foreign-language movies, as a result, was just doing a second version of the film with different actors, all speaking the language intended. Very, very few of these alternate language films exist, and I think many would agree that the Spanish version of Dracula is one of the most famous to survive. In English, of course, Dracula was played by the immortal Bela Lugosi…and for the Spanish cast? They got this guy: Carlos Villarias. Many critics feel the Spanish Dracula is actually better, on a technical level, than the Lugosi outing. Having seen both films, I can’t say I agree: SOME things ARE better in it, but other things…ehhhh, the English version has them beat by a mile. It’s biggest problem is the cast, and ESPECIALLY Villarias as Dracula. I know nothing about this actor beyond this movie; maybe he’s great in other things, maybe he was just miscast…I don’t know. All I DO know is that, even if you take Lugosi’s iconic interpretation out of the equation, this is an AWFUL Dracula. How bad is he? Imagine if “Dracula: Dead & Loving It” was actually trying to take itself seriously. THAT is the best way I can describe this performance. Villarias comes off as more comical than creepy, his exaggerated and often bizarre expressions seeming like a parody of something that hasn’t even gained the legacy it needs to BE parodied yet. We all love to mock Lugosi occasionally, but Villarias feels like self-mockery already in the works, and - through both his performance and some differences in the writing/direction - comes across as a clownish idiot rather than a superior monster or an elegant aristocrat. The Spanish Dracula has its ups and downs, but Villarias certainly proves that one bad element can bring down an otherwise decent product.

4. Peter Karrie, from Nosferatu the Vampire: The Musical.

I am aware of at least four musical theatre interpretations of Dracula. The most famous one is a stage show by Frank Wildhorn, which isn’t great, but does have some good songs and has been done quite a few times with great actors. Another was a concept album by the musical trio of Evans, Orton, and Lynn; that one featured Michael McCarthy as the Count, and was never actually staged. Like the Wildhorn show, it’s not really that great, but it has a few good songs and performers. There’s also a musical comedy version, which I haven’t actually looked at, but I’ve heard is pretty good…and then there’s this show. Ostensibly, “Nosferatu the Vampire: The Musical” is a musical adaptation of the classic silent film “Nosferatu,” which is widely considered the first true Dracula movie ever made, and is certainly the oldest surviving adaptation. HOWEVER, that’s not really the case: the show is really sort of a blend of Nosferatu, the Bram Stoker novel, and some original material, all rolled into one…and it is ABYSMAL. I was SHOCKED to learn that this show has been staged more than once, and that the original cast recording actually featured some pretty big names in musical theatre. The most notable is poor Peter Karrie, one of the greatest performers of another Gothic legend, the Phantom of the Opera. I’ll give Karrie credit, his voice is beautiful (he’s played the Angel of Music, it kind of has to be), but not even his golden pipes can save this train wreck. The plot is terrible, the characters are bland, the morals are confusing, and there’s WAY too much focus on the sexual angles of the story in this for my comfort. (The sensuality of the vampire IS a topic that is present in the book, mind you, and far from something new...but you have to be VERY careful how you touch it. Trust me.) Worst of all, the music - very frankly - just isn’t that good. The lyrics are vapid and rambling, the orchestration and rhythms feel very “samey” throughout…it’s just DULL. With the other musicals, I can at least give them credit for a few catchy numbers, but this one? I can’t really remember much of anything these characters say or sing, I just remember the boredom and nonsense of the whole clumsy heap. As a result, Karrie’s shot at playing the Count is essentially the opposite of our previous pick: sometimes not even having a great performer can save terrible material, and this is a good example of that.

3. The Version from “Dracula: Sovereign of the Damned.”

I’ll confess that I hesitated to include this Dracula on the list - as well as another one later on - because he’s actually based on Marvel’s Dracula, specifically. Marvel’s Dracula - in other things - has been good. However, after some minor debate, I felt that both of the aforementioned versions simply HAD to be addressed, since - ties to Marvel or not - they are abominable interpretations. Released in some countries under the title “The Tomb of Dracula” (taken from the comic series it is purportedly based on), “Sovereign of the Damned” was an anime movie made by Toei, released in the early 80s. In the original Japanese version, the Count is voiced by Kenji Utsumi; in English, he’s dubbed - VERY badly - by Tom Wyner. If you’re wondering if the dubbing is in any way a contributing factor to this film’s terribleness…don’t worry: this movie is ATROCIOUS no matter what language the characters speak. (Believe me, I know.) The film unwisely attempts to adapt an entire many-issue comic series into a single hour-and-a-half-long story, which works about as well as you’d expect. The plot is like the Grinch’s soul: “an appalling dump heap, overflowing with the most disgraceful assortment of deplorable rubbish imaginable, mangled up in tangled up knots.” Character development goes entirely out the window, and Dracula himself arguably suffers the worst for this. The Count comes across as a total klutz in the film: the movie attempts to make him a sympathetic anti-hero, but the story is such a shambles you never really get to know him well enough to root for him, and he spends most of the movie either running away from danger or being foiled at every turn, with little indication of how truly powerful he really is. He comes across as an idiot much of the time, and isn’t even present for a big chunk of the film to begin with! With a title like “Sovereign of the Damned,” I can safely say I expected more.

2. All of the Actors from Legend of the Seven Golden Vampires.

This is probably one of the weirdest Dracula movies I’ve ever seen, as well as one of the worst. “Legend of the Seven Golden Vampires” was an out-of-continuity entry in the popular Hammer Dracula series, which famously starred Christopher Lee as the Count. At the time “Seven Golden Vampires” came out, however, Lee had left the role, feeling deeply disappointed by the previous and “official” final film in the series, “The Satanic Rites of Dracula.” Hammer studios, meanwhile, was teetering on the brink of collapse, and was really struggling for creative ideas. The result of these combined problems led to this colossal, mad junkyard of a movie: a bizarre blend of Kung Fu action adventure and Gothic chiller. Now, this combination, on its own terms, I actually don’t think is a totally bad idea: if you look far enough, you’ll find good examples of how you can blend the styles of martial-arts-focused action and Gothic horror together. This, however, is not one of them, and part of the problem stems from how poorly Dracula, himself, is managed. Without Lee to handle the reins, Hammer called instead upon contract player John Forbes-Robertson to play the Count. However, Forbes-Robertson doesn’t even GET to play Dracula for most of the film: he only appears at the beginning and in the climactic final battle between himself and Van Helsing. For most of the movie, Dracula’s spirit has possessed the body of a Chinese criminal known as Kah, played by Chan Shen. Instead of getting Forbes-Robertson to do the voice, Kah’s “Dracula Voice” is provided instead by dubbing actor David de Keyser. All three of these actors…are terrible. Forbes-Robertson is a stiff and somewhat silly Dracula when he is onscreen, and is defeated in a highly anticlimactic way in the end. Chan Shen as Kah comes across as a caricature more than a true "character," and his bodily performance feels like a strange blend of kabuki and English pantomime. Meanwhile, Keyser’s very badly-dubbed performance is wooden and stilted. When it takes three men to replace just one, and NONE of them do the job even remotely well? It feels like a true disgrace not only to the character, but also to the one who played him before. I’ll give all three of them this, they at least help to show what made Lee’s Dracula so singlehandedly spectacular.

1. Dominic Purcell, from Blade: Trinity.

This is the other Marvel Dracula on the list I mentioned a while ago. All of my entries up till now have been very long-winded, I know…but my reasons for naming poor Dominic Purcell from the abominable shambles that is “Blade: Trinity” as my pick for the absolute worst Dracula I’ve ever seen is much easier to explain. That reason can be summed up in the following phrase: this is not Dracula. This simply isn’t. I get what the movie was attempting to do - trying to focus on Dracula as this ancient, demonic warrior figure rather than “the Count,” so to speak. However, as various other versions have shown, there are ways you can focus on the “aggressive” aspects of Dracula AND STILL MAKE HIM FEEL LIKE DRACULA. Purcell is simply miscast and misdirected: he doesn’t look like a duck, he doesn’t quack like a duck, he doesn’t waddle like a duck, and therefore it’s fair to say he ain’t Duckula. I’m sure he’s trying his best, but - and it's a shame to say these words - his best just isn’t good enough. For that reason, above all else, he takes the number one spot on this list. There is literally no worse sin I can think of than looking at someone playing such a character and having nothing else to say but, “you, sir, are no Dracula.” 

(DIS)HONORABLE MENTIONS INCLUDE…

Leslie Nielsen, from Dracula: Dead and Loving It.

I know lots of people actually like this movie, but I personally do not. I just don’t think it’s very funny, for the most part, and even as far as spoofs go, I feel Leslie Nielsen is a weird choice for the character. It isn’t completely terrible, however - there’s a few jokes that make me laugh strewn throughout, and I like Peter MacNicol as Renfield - so it gets a pass from the top five.

Lon Chaney, Jr. from Son of Dracula.

It’s left somewhat ambiguous if the character in this film, “Count Alucard,” is indeed the Son of Dracula, or Dracula himself. This, for the record, is why things like “Hellsing” and “Castlevania” have used the name Alucard for both purposes: this is the movie that came up with that alias. While the invention of the name is noteworthy, the film itself is flawed. Chaney - God bless him - is woefully miscast. Whether he’s Dracula OR his Son, I think he did much better in his other Universal Monster roles.

Udo Kier, from Andy Warhol’s Dracula AND Langley Kirkwood, from Dracula 3000.

In both of these cases, I haven't even FINISHED these movies because they're just so freaking terrible. I've only seen parts of them, never the full thing through. I didn't feel it was fair to give them actual placement on the ranks as a result, but they're definitely worth noting for their own dreadfulness levels. In Udo Kier's case, I'd much rather watch him riding on the back of a T. Rex...bravo, if you got that reference.

[ilovedamsels1962]

Lupita Tovar and Carlos Villarias in Dracula (1931) (Spanish Version)

[weirdlookindog]

Dracula (Universal-Spanish Adaptation, 1931)

[sunnyartsstudio]

Fun fact: The real name of El Gordito, the man who masqueraded as Dr. Spinoza in The Wild Thornberrys episode Blood Sisters, is Carlos Villarias - after the actor who played Dracula in the 1931 Spanish film version.

[frankendavis]

Number 2 of my Rockwell parody series for November.

[collinsportmaine]

Eduardo Arozamena as Van Helsing discovered Conde Dracula’s secret in the Spanish language version of “Dracula” (1931). Dracula is played by Carlos Villarías

[schlock-luster-video]

Happy Worldwide Candle Lighting Day, monster movie fans! Here's some art inspired by the English and Spanish versions of Dracula to celebrate!

[screamscenepodcast]

We travel to 1935's Mexico for EL MISTERIO DEL ROSTRO PÁLIDO from the father of Mexican horror himself, Juan Bustillo Oro!

The film stars familiar face Carlos Villarías, and newcomers Joaquín Busquets and Beatriz Ramos. This mad scientist Phantom of the Opera meet-cute is a film you won't want to miss!

Context setting 00:00; Synopsis 17:27; Discussion 36:13; Ranking 48:55