Goodnight, Mr. Renfield: Comparing the Two 1931 Dracula's

[@conrad4852]

This was a very enjoyable comparison. I loved the granular detail you went into as well as discussing the merits of both.

[@edwardroneill]

Thank you! It was a lot of fun to make.

[@garysatterlee9455]

Wonderful comparison video. Browning's version is a masterpiece. Melford makes a few interesting choices here and there but, it's plain to see which director knows his craft better. Browning filmed during the day and had to conceive how it would all play out. Melford shot at night and watched the footage Browning had shot of the scenes before his crew tackled the same subject matter.

[@danielespinoza6215]

Very interesting video. I've been very into the movies Dracula (1931) and Renfield (2023) lately and I was wondering about this exact subject since I heard the Spanish one was 30 minutes longer. 😁

[@edwardroneill]

It's super-interesting to watch both! There's another video comparing the two: more historical. Thanks for commenting!

[@someguy42093]

lol. It’s not 30 minutes longer. It’s the same movie. Line for line. Shot for shot

[@christopherb475]

​@someguy42093 literally shows the difference in the first 30 seconds of the video lol

[@someguy42093]

@@christopherb475 isn’t that what the Vietnamese used to say?

[@christopherb475]

​@@someguy42093 🤢

[@nitrateglow2087]

Great video! I agree with your evaluation: Melford makes some interesting choices, but Browning's film is just tighter and better staged. I think Browning was just more suited to the material-- he made a career out of the macabre. People complain about the plot logic in his films, but the man knew how to stage scenes and keep a story going. It's interesting to me how Melford is now best remembered for directing the Spanish Dracula, a relatively late title in his career. He was a prolific director during the 1910s and 1920s, and came to cinema from an acting career onstage (maybe that partially explains the more theatrical bent in his staging?). Were it not for Spanish Dracula, his most famous work would have been The Sheik with Valentino!

[@officialFredDurstfanclub]

Man, Lupita Tovar is absolutely stunning

[@edwardroneill]

I agree 100%. Lupita Tovar later married producer Paul Kohner. Their daughter Susan played Sarah Jane in the 1959 IMITATION OF LIFE. Susan Kohner's son became a director, and her grandchildren Chris and Paul Weitz made AMERICAN PIE! A Hollywood dynasty!

[@generalscheisskopf7435]

I learned recently that Browning's version was actually about 12 minutes longer than what we see today. The footage was deleted for the 1936 re-release of Dracula (too frightening, I guess?), and has since been lost, presumably forever. But you can get an idea of the deleted scenes by reading the original shooting script, which should be available online. Overall, Browning's is the superior version.

[@edwardroneill]

Frightening indeed! Thanks for contributing to my understanding of this classic!

[@creategreatness8823]

All things being equal, I favor efficiency. The older a film is, the more distant and unusual the style is through modern eyes. It benefits a film to be shorter, more direct and to the point. We can mulch over every single aesthetic trade off...but the fact of the matter is the American version of Dracula is an iconic film. The Spanish version loses Lugosi's legendary performance and adds HALF AN HOUR to the runtime. I'll take the shorter version with the iconic performance. Indulgence is not always equivalent to increased quality.

[@edwardroneill]

Well put.

[@creategreatness8823]

@@edwardroneill I appreciate that!

[@nitrateglow2087]

"Indulgence is not always equivalent to increased quality." YES!!

[@anthonycrnkovich5241]

It's always been very clear to me that Browning's version is superior to Melford's. The only reason I even watch the Spanish version is for Lupita Tovar.

[@edwardroneill]

I think most people agree with you. I do find things Melford did well. There are more, but I didn't want to make an even longer video!

[@conrad4852]

This seems like such an odd claim to me. I think most people actually prefer the Spanish version. From what I've seen of written reviews & youtube video reviews I think most prefer the Spanish save for the fact Carlos Villarias does not hold a candle to Lugosi (also Dwight Frye is just as good as Pablo Rubio).@@edwardroneill

[@creategreatness8823]

@@conrad4852 I think "most people" aren't even aware that there is this Spanish version of the film. Among the die hard fanbase that IS aware...I think more of the, for lack of a better term, "pretentious" film afficionados like to just say that the Spanish version is better, or like the sort of parrot that opinion becomes it seems to be the sort of "in" opinion amongst that sort of critical "film expert" wing of the fandom. The fact of the matter is removing Lugosi's iconic performance does irreparable damage to the energy of the film overall. Imagine some alternate, 3 hour cut of The Dark Knight where someone else played Joker instead of Heath Ledger. I think the Spanish version ruins the pace and structure of the film, while gutting it of one of the most iconic performances in film history. There is no amount of small, moment to moment, scene to scene embellishments or cinematography decisions that outweigh those massive facts.

[@junehanzawa5165]

​@@creategreatness8823 Correct. Just like nothing outweighs the fact that neither movie does anywhere close to justice to the novel. These were just based on a fairly short stage play of the 1920's which left the vast majority of the novel out and used their own plot points.

[@2prize]

❤❤

[@juncatv]

I like Browning's version better, specially the face off between Dracula and Van Helsing. Melford seems to be trying to find his own language but it seems to me that he still directed as theater like in some shots and in some close ups they looked like the silent films (the Van Helsing close ups lifting eyebrows). Melford's camera move in the beginning, presenting Dracula, is interesting, but that's all in all truth. Also: I think Carlos Villarias over the top Dracula is similar to the Dracula of Nicolas Cage as played in Renfield (2023).

[@Kaghemsuha]

Spanish version with Lugosi as Dracula would've been the perfect version.

[@Lord_Imperion55]

The Spanish version may be “better” in terms of how good the movie is but the Spanish Dracula does not even compare to the OG one

[@chungkingexpress94]

The idea that the Spanish version is superior to the English one is a popular, but false imo. Spanish version gets credit for that interesting camera move in the beginning, but the English version has some good stuff too like when Renfield goes to the floor and crawls over to the maid who fainted. Great shot for the time. As you point out here, many of the Spanish version's takes on scenes look like television because of the way they're blocked and shot in flat wide two shots. You could shoot something like Dracula hypnotizing Van Helsin not in shot-reverse-shot mediums, but in that era they just didn't have the fluidity of camera movement and editing to make that work yet. So, the single mediums work best in this era.

[@edwardroneill]

I also don't agree that the (Melford) Spanish-language version is superior. The blocking in the Melford version IS more flat: this shows Browning's expertise. (Although Melford did not lack experience: he shot hundreds of films, many shorts. But that was experience shooting QUICKLY, not carefully.) But I disagree that they "didn't have the fluidity of camera movement and editing" to do so: when the luggage is taken off the coach, Browning uses quick pans in both directions. And when Renfield watches Dracula leave the room, the camera movement is very graceful--and creates suspense about whether or not Dracula is still in the room or not. One of my points in the comparison is that both these directors were experienced, but Browning had definite preferences that add up to a more sophisticated style. Melford is not bad, but shooting at night must have been exhausting. It's not at all good vs. bad. Different people have different careers which lead them to different choices. Melford had a career as a second-stringer. Was it because he was bad? I don't think so. The lighting is definitely second-rate compared to Freund. But who isn't?!

[@BohemothWatts-vz1lc]

VERTILAK GORKAVHEN NOVAHESTUM

[@junehanzawa5165]

Overall, the Spanish version is better. However, Lugosi steals the movie back for the English version. The actor playing Dracula in the Spanish version unfortunately could not hold a candle to Lugosi's natural "strangeness," which was a key point of the character in the novel. With that said, for those that have never read it, neither movie does any justice to the novel. These were basically versions of a stage play which changed almost everything from the novel. For example, in the novel, Renfield never goes to the castle. It was Mina's fiancé, Johnathan Harker, who went. And those first 5 chapters with Harker are the very best part of the whole story. It sets everything up for the rest of the story. In the novel, Dracula's brides are a major part, and have key roles, not simply the brief few seconds, non speaking parts of these movies. Nor are there any key and major characters from Dracula's time in England included. And lastly, the whole 3rd act (the second best part of the whole story) when Dracula tries to escape back to Transylvania with the hunters on his trail was totally skipped.