|
|
Post by Mrs Vindecco on Jul 28, 2011 8:05:44 GMT
Jack Shepherd is an amazing Renfield- pretty much my headcannon for the book. I'm incredibly fond of that Dracula, espically the Renfield/Dracula undertones and Renfield's crush on Mina. Also Quincey Morris' accent is fantastic. I completely agree. I think what is missing from many of the versions is that while on the surface Renfield appears mad, he is the only one that really knows what's going on and sometimes the films rely on Van Helsin to inform the protaganists. I so wish Dwight's Renfield was given a scene like this with Mina, that she saw something else behind the madman. I need to watch this version again when i get the chance because I really enjoyed it. |
|
|
|
Post by liz on Jul 28, 2011 15:10:03 GMT
Jack Shepherd is an amazing Renfield- pretty much my headcannon for the book. I'm incredibly fond of that Dracula, espically the Renfield/Dracula undertones and Renfield's crush on Mina. Also Quincey Morris' accent is fantastic. I watched it, and it was fun to see Renfield kiss Mina! That aside, he is in good competition with Tom Waits and Alexander Granach for the closest to the novelization in my book. |
|
|
|
Post by Violet on Feb 20, 2012 1:49:41 GMT
The first Dracula film I ever saw was the 1979 version starring Frank Langella, Laurence Olivier and Donald Pleasence. I was tiny when I first saw it - too tiny, I had nightmares for a month! My mum was watching it as she had a crush on Frank Langella - can't say I blame her.  It really terrified me and it is very saucy (especially for someone who hadn't hit double digits yet) but it is now one of my favourite adaptations. The acting is great and the music is wonderful. It was filmed in England and although it can get quite gory, I think it is a beautiful film. Dead and loving it is wonderful! Peter MacNicol did such an amazing job. I also love Nosferatu, and Vampyr (1932) is stunning! |
|
|
|
Post by revolveroftheloom on Feb 27, 2012 21:48:47 GMT
I have yet to see "Dead and Loving it" but this forum topic is just all the more reason to do so!
When I first really got into the 1931 "Dracula" I was entirely smitten with it. It was not until december of the same year (last year), however that I reflected upon my romance with the film, that I realized...it isn't...that...great. Dwight's performance is jaw dropping just...perfection (we know this) Van Sloan is quite fantastic, and Lugosi is quite phenomenal himself (though I think dwight outdid everyone- the amount of effort that goes into something like that...)
It's exactly what Mrs. V said- that is is more to the play than the book. And I haven't seen any adaptation of the play (christ, why can't I have a time machine?) but I would be very curious to. I admire the slow panning, and the vast set shots- though not many of my other friends who have seen it do. I am kind of disappointed in the lack of soundtrack but I know this is because sound was new at the time and they were a bit worried how the audience would react to so much audio.
When I read the book first, I was 12 and I was bored to death. I picked it up again when I was 18 and was less bored to death- I love the first few "chapters" though I am personally not a fan of letter/document layouts. The other thing is that Ren in the 1931 film is replacing Harker's role for some time. I would have liked to see them just extend it into the rest of the film much like Harker is in the book.
Ultimately I would -love- to see a perfect combination of the play, 1931 film, and book.
My sincere, deepest apologies if that was too lengthy, I'm just really excited to be someplace where I can talk about this stuff and hear all of your truly great comments on stuff you've seen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mrs Vindecco on Feb 27, 2012 22:45:23 GMT
The first Dracula film I ever saw was the 1979 version starring Frank Langella, Laurence Olivier and Donald Pleasence. I was tiny when I first saw it - too tiny, I had nightmares for a month! My mum was watching it as she had a crush on Frank Langella - can't say I blame her. It really terrified me and it is very saucy (especially for someone who hadn't hit double digits yet) but it is now one of my favourite adaptations. The acting is great and the music is wonderful. It was filmed in England and although it can get quite gory, I think it is a beautiful film. Dead and loving it is wonderful! Peter MacNicol did such an amazing job. I also love Nosferatu, and Vampyr (1932) is stunning! I do have the Frank Langella version and thought he made an excellent Count, but I think I was slightly niggled at how the Renfield character was presented. I haven't see it for a while so I should give it another chance. I need to see Vampyr at some point. My Mum had it playing on a loop at our Halloween party last year and I wanted to watch it but it wasn't at the best time. I think that's one I'll need to borrow. |
|
|
|
Post by Mrs Vindecco on Feb 27, 2012 23:05:15 GMT
I have yet to see "Dead and Loving it" but this forum topic is just all the more reason to do so! When I first really got into the 1931 "Dracula" I was entirely smitten with it. It was not until december of the same year (last year), however that I reflected upon my romance with the film, that I realized...it isn't...that...great. Dwight's performance is jaw dropping just...perfection (we know this) Van Sloan is quite fantastic, and Lugosi is quite phenomenal himself (though I think dwight outdid everyone- the amount of effort that goes into something like that...) It's exactly what Mrs. V said- that is is more to the play than the book. And I haven't seen any adaptation of the play (christ, why can't I have a time machine?) but I would be very curious to. I admire the slow panning, and the vast set shots- though not many of my other friends who have seen it do. I am kind of disappointed in the lack of soundtrack but I know this is because sound was new at the time and they were a bit worried how the audience would react to so much audio. When I read the book first, I was 12 and I was bored to death. I picked it up again when I was 18 and was less bored to death- I love the first few "chapters" though I am personally not a fan of letter/document layouts. The other thing is that Ren in the 1931 film is replacing Harker's role for some time. I would have liked to see them just extend it into the rest of the film much like Harker is in the book. Ultimately I would -love- to see a perfect combination of the play, 1931 film, and book. My sincere, deepest apologies if that was too lengthy, I'm just really excited to be someplace where I can talk about this stuff and hear all of your truly great comments on stuff you've seen. Please do not apologise for lengthy entries, we all enjoy the different opinions.  The 1931 film does have it faults but if you put it into context, and how it influenced the horror films that followed, one can not deny it is a very important movie. Karl Freud did a wonderful job with cinematography and I think he is probably responsible for most the good techniques displayed in the film. Personally I can't help but compare Dracula '31 to Frankenstein '31 and the latter just seems much more advanced, better paced, better written- technically light years ahead of Dracula, it's hard to think the two were made only months apart. I'm sure the Hamilton Deane play was good in it's day, especially live. Sometimes I find it funny that it was so successful in the US because it does seem so English at times, very stiff upper lip. I should check out other theatrical productions at some point. I know the Scottish playwright/poet (plus my old Uni tutor) Liz Lochhead adapted a version so perhaps I should investigate  |
|
|
|
Post by revolveroftheloom on Feb 28, 2012 15:59:28 GMT
Oh my if they were to perform it again in the next few years that would be fantastic.
I see what you're saying about the Frankenstein film. What do you think contributed to that? the directors? Whale was a fantastic artist..
Which reminds me they are doing a revival of the play starring Benedict Cumberbatch as both the doctor and the monster (on alternating evenings)...it's coming to New York and I'm going to die if I can see it..
|
|
|
|
Post by Mrs Vindecco on Mar 2, 2012 23:39:11 GMT
Oh my if they were to perform it again in the next few years that would be fantastic. I see what you're saying about the Frankenstein film. What do you think contributed to that? the directors? Whale was a fantastic artist.. Which reminds me they are doing a revival of the play starring Benedict Cumberbatch as both the doctor and the monster (on alternating evenings)...it's coming to New York and I'm going to die if I can see it.. Yeah I think Frankenstein is such a great film is probably due to James Whale and his casting of Karloff. I'm amazed Benedict Cumberbatch has time to be in the Frankenstein, he seems to be in EVERYTHING at the moment! I wonder if it is the same production as this one from last year: www.nationaltheatre.org.uk/62808/productions/frankenstein.html |
|
|
|
Post by revolveroftheloom on Mar 4, 2012 6:22:28 GMT
Oh my if they were to perform it again in the next few years that would be fantastic. I see what you're saying about the Frankenstein film. What do you think contributed to that? the directors? Whale was a fantastic artist.. Which reminds me they are doing a revival of the play starring Benedict Cumberbatch as both the doctor and the monster (on alternating evenings)...it's coming to New York and I'm going to die if I can see it.. Yeah I think Frankenstein is such a great film is probably due to James Whale and his casting of Karloff. I'm amazed Benedict Cumberbatch has time to be in the Frankenstein, he seems to be in EVERYTHING at the moment! I wonder if it is the same production as this one from last year: www.nationaltheatre.org.uk/62808/productions/frankenstein.htmlYes! I am fairly certain that is the very same one! |
|
|
|
Post by mblood93 on Jun 12, 2012 4:22:19 GMT
To me, Horror of Dracula is superior to Dracula only by a little bit. I plan on discussing this more in depth on Count Rickula's Sinema Sarcophagas.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mrs Vindecco on Jun 22, 2012 10:04:01 GMT
The early Hammer's are interesting because they were trying to capture much of the Britishness of the novels, while trying to avoid to much comparison with the Universal hits. The Hammer's are nastier, even as Van Helsing Peter Cushing is quite stern and not as appproachable or cuddly as Edward Van Sloan's eccentric, friendly uncle version. I appreciate Hammer and my arguement is these were actually more frightening than the Universal classics, but I still prefer the earlier.
|
|
|
|
Post by mblood93 on Jun 27, 2012 0:59:17 GMT
Mrs. V - While I haven't read Dracula yet (I have the edition with Edward Gorey's illustrations), isn't the novel about sexual repression? The character of Dracula is a sexual predator. He wants female blood, and once he gets it, he has no further use for them.
I think that the '31 film does have weak moments, but the powerful moments overshadow them imo. Watch the scene where Renfield goes into Dracula's castle. The door creaks open (a little touch that for some reason adds a lot), he steps in to find a gothic castle in ruin, with cobwebs and mold. And then, Dracula comes down the staircase slowly, stops, and utters the immortal lines, "I am Dracula." That sequence is fueled by pure gothic atmosphere, making the film more than an effective chiller and a great, great horror movie!
|
|
It really terrified me and it is very saucy (especially for someone who hadn't hit double digits yet) but it is now one of my favourite adaptations. The acting is great and the music is wonderful. It was filmed in England and although it can get quite gory, I think it is a beautiful film. 
