Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by Richard--W, Aug 7, 2019.
LOL, he is so creepy in this. It's mindblowing...
Good one! Can't forget Al.
"( blank ) The FCC!!!"
I would have voted for William Marshall as my runner-up
William Marshall didn't play Dracula. He played a different character named Mamuwalde.
No relation to Dracula. Al Lewis didn't play Dracula either, and neither did Ferdy Mayne.
Nor did Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt. Not every vampire is Dracula.
Grandpa was referred to as 'Count Dracula' in several episodes. Even his car was called 'Drag-ula"
Oh please, who the heck is this ridiculous imposter?
Do you have the Blu-Ray Box of the Universal Movies?
nope...I have the DVD sets and some BD sets of the individual Monsters...
Creature From The Black Lagoon
Very well said and is exactly why I voted for Lugosi. Some have mentioned the slow pace of this film as a negative, but for me it is a positive as it fits the atmosphere and otherworldy-ness that you mentioned.
I think the Lugosi vs. Lee thing is generational to an extent, depending on which Dracula you grew up with.
You can forget this memorable clip with Bela/Dracula
Not entirely. I first read the novel at age nine. My first exposure to horror movies were the classic Universal ones before I saw a single Hammer one. And once I saw Lee as Dracula I preferred him to Lugosi. Heck, I also preferred Palance to Lugosi as well, & even Carradine in the two House movies.
If I were to pick my favorite Lugosi vampire performance onscreen, it would be as Armand Tesla in The Return Of The Vampire from 1943. But even then he was Dracula in all but name.
Since this is a Dracula thread in a music forum.....
Wow, I can hear that exactly as Dr. Tongue would say that! I alwayth wondered if he wath related to Perthy Dovetonthils though.
This is the Visual Arts forum.
I would like to see the spines without the statuette in front of them.
Also the shelf below, if you don't mind snapping another photo.
That's probably very true, although I grew up with both the
Universal monsters and the Hammer horrors at same time.
I've always thought Christopher Lee was sensational as Dracula.
Horror of Dracula had a huge impact on me and remains one
of my most admired films. I don't think too highly of the sequels
because Count Dracula is largely irrelevant in them. Christopher
Lee himself said that if you add up all his scenes together in the
sequels his total time onscreen is less than 25 minutes. Or did
he say 12 minutes? His performance in Franco's Count Dracula
(1970) gives you an idea of another direction Hammer could
have gone in. It's a bad film inadequately produced and ineptly
made, but Lee essentially directs himself, and Franco lets him.
He does his own costume and make-up, and plays scenes out
of the book that he no doubt wrote himself. Internally it's a
very different performance, rich with feeling and nuance. In
contrast his Hammer character had deteriorated into a "look"
with no content.
Interesting. While I grew to enjoy Coppola's take on Dracula, I always felt that Reeves, Ryder, & to a lesser extent Oldman were miscast, (hell, I think the entire movie is somewhat miscast with the exceptions of Sadie Frost & Tom Waits!), but I do feel he "grew into" the role as the film progressed. However, I never saw him as scary, & that's due as much to the script & thematic context of Coppola's version as to anything in his acting.
I'm pretty fond of the film now, but wasn't when it first came out.
The script stinks and the cast sucks.
The British accents are laughable coming out of those Californian mouths.
Every time Keanu and Winona open their mouths they take me out of the film.
But the film looks and sounds darkly beautiful. Technically it's an elegant
piece of work. Coppola's operatic direction and visual aesthetics are the film.
It's a feast for the eyes. Like you I've become fond of it as a director's movie.
I watch it occasionally with the sound turned off and the commentary on.
I haven't become fond of it in the least, but I agree with everything else you said here. I might try the sound off/commentary method and see how that goes.
Soak up the visuals. Coppola's composition and grand sense
of movement, his colors and textures, are darkly beautiful.
His visual sensibilities were never more acute than in this film.
Whatever we may think of Schreck or Lugosi - creepy or corny - the fact remains that their portrayals of the vampire have colored or influenced nearly every screen depiction since. Very durable influences, that's for sure.
Oy, that script!!
I don't think the entire cast sucks, like I said. Sadie Frost as Lucy Westenra is very good, & Tom Waits is fine as Renfield, (a confession; years ago I played Renfield in a production of the Ted Tiller play Count Dracula, so I'm rather fond of the character & very picky about actors playing it). Oldman gets better as the Count as the movie progresses. Hopkins chews the scenery but is fun to watch because of that. Reeves, Ryder & Elwes are simply hapless, helpless & hopeless as Harker, Mina & Holmwood. The rest of the cast is adequate at best.
Visually it is indeed sumptuous & Coppola's direction can't be faulted. I've often wondered how great it could have been if he'd tackled the story in the 70s, with a script as true to the story as the BBC/Jourdan version, & with Lee & Cushing in the roles of Dracula & Van Helsing, Klaus Kinski reprising Renfield, & with the same budgetary level as his 1992 version.
Agreed. And that's why I prefer Bela in A&C Meet Frankenstein, (though I'm not a big A&C fan overall), or as Armand Tesla in Return Of The Vampire. He's fine in Dracula, it's the direction & the rest of the movie & cast around him, (with the exception of Dwight Frye as Renfield), that disappoints.
Max Schreck was simply terrifying in the role.
Separate names with a comma.