Not too much history on this one. In the early days of sound, many were skeptical of audience expectations and the limitations of the technology, especially when it came to dubbing in other languages. Thus, many films had a completely separate version filmed in another language (usually Spanish, French, German, and Swedish), with different native speaking actors, but which usually had the same sets and wardrobes than their English counterparts. Aside from that,the films were actually given a little more license and laxer restriction by the main studios to just improvise with their material. Given Latin America was a large market for American movies, Spanish language versions became the main examples of this. Such was the case here. The Spanish version of Dracula was filmed on the sets at night after Tod Browning concluded filming during the daytime. The director, George Melford, didn't speak or understand Spanish, so his co-director Enrique Tovar Ávalos was the main interpreter. The film was done on a lower budget, but the production ran much smoother than its English counterpart, completing a few days before the latter. The Spanish version is more than 30 minutes longer, mainly because Melford didn't cut as much of the film, and censorship wouldn't be a big issue in the countries it was released in. The film is also more explicit in terms of violence and sexuality because of that. However, much like other productions of this nature (which eventually lead to the discontinuing of the practice), the actors were from different parts of the world. For instance, Dracula was played by Spanish actor Carlos Villarías, while Eva (Mina) was played by Mexican Lupita Tovar (notably a centenarian who lived to 106 and the star of one of Mexico's first sound films.) The result was a mismatch of differing accents and dialects. Of the actors, only Villarias was allowed to see rushes of concurrent English version, so that his performance could emulate Lugosi's. The film was unknown and incomplete until the 1990's, where it had resurgence on home video.
No real need for a synopsis here, since it's the same story.
The longer length of this film definitely improves a lot of it. A lot of the scenes feel a lot more complete, there is a lot more development given to the characters and to the titular character, who does feel like more of a menace disrupting the lives of these people. The more explicit nature of the film helps increase the horror of it, with more explicit and definite biting and death scenes (especially at the end.) It's much more of a satisfying watch. Spanish actor Pablo Álvarez Rubio does a much more intimidating and interesting Renfield than Dwight Frye. Big question: is Carlos Villarías better than Bela Lugosi? Well.... he's certainly different to some extent. Villarías is a lot more emotional and feral than Lugosi, having adverse, stronger reactions and emotions. That doesn't necessarily make the performance better, but it does provide an interesting contrast between the two. Lugosi plays Dracula with more finasse and menace, while Villarías has a lot more energy and viciousness to his performance. They're different, but one isn't really better than the other.
While the extended length is generally a good thing, part of the film does drag a little, since it feels a lot slower in the middle. It's not too grating, but it definitely has a lot slower pace. Maybe to build the horror, but it was hard to keep interest until the climax and ending happened. Also, like the English version, the Spanish version just ends. It doesn't really have a satisfying ending, just kind of stops before the conclusion can come through.
I wouldn't say this was better than the English version, but it definitely feels a lot more of a complete film. A lot less editing, and a lot more focus on developing the characters and story. It's definitely an interesting watch, especially if you see the Bela Lugosi version first to compare and contrast.
Next up, we're looking at one of the most iconic films ever made: Frankenstein.
No real need for a synopsis here, since it's the same story.
The longer length of this film definitely improves a lot of it. A lot of the scenes feel a lot more complete, there is a lot more development given to the characters and to the titular character, who does feel like more of a menace disrupting the lives of these people. The more explicit nature of the film helps increase the horror of it, with more explicit and definite biting and death scenes (especially at the end.) It's much more of a satisfying watch. Spanish actor Pablo Álvarez Rubio does a much more intimidating and interesting Renfield than Dwight Frye. Big question: is Carlos Villarías better than Bela Lugosi? Well.... he's certainly different to some extent. Villarías is a lot more emotional and feral than Lugosi, having adverse, stronger reactions and emotions. That doesn't necessarily make the performance better, but it does provide an interesting contrast between the two. Lugosi plays Dracula with more finasse and menace, while Villarías has a lot more energy and viciousness to his performance. They're different, but one isn't really better than the other.
While the extended length is generally a good thing, part of the film does drag a little, since it feels a lot slower in the middle. It's not too grating, but it definitely has a lot slower pace. Maybe to build the horror, but it was hard to keep interest until the climax and ending happened. Also, like the English version, the Spanish version just ends. It doesn't really have a satisfying ending, just kind of stops before the conclusion can come through.
I wouldn't say this was better than the English version, but it definitely feels a lot more of a complete film. A lot less editing, and a lot more focus on developing the characters and story. It's definitely an interesting watch, especially if you see the Bela Lugosi version first to compare and contrast.
Next up, we're looking at one of the most iconic films ever made: Frankenstein.
No comments:
Post a Comment