I occasionally grew impatient or bored during the English Dracula ; as it plodded along, I kept waiting for something to happen that would spark some suspense or excitement, but those instances were pretty rare. Take two early examples to see what I mean. First, compare our introductions to the Count himself. The English edition abruptly jettisons him from his coffin; we start to see him emerge and there he is! In the Spanish film, however, Drac's appearance comes about more slowly and eerily; it establishes a much greater air of mystery and suspense.
Even more glaring is the difference in the scene that takes place during Dracula's boat voyage to England. Both versions feature carnage, but the English film simply depicts Drac's release from his coffin and the aftermath. In the Spanish edition, the scene adds one wonderful touch: we watch Renfield and his maniacal laughter as he witnesses the violence.
It may not sound like much, but it makes the entire scene much scarier and more compelling. In the Spanish Dracula , little touches abound that add to the film's atmosphere. Sound effects are used more skillfully.
For example, doors creak open ominously, while they just open in the English film. The list of differences is long, and virtually all of them favor the Spanish edition. For the most part, the Spanish cast offers much better acting than the English performers.
Of the five main performers, I think two of the Spanish actors are much better, one's a little superior, another's a draw, and only one is inferior. That latter role is Dracula himself. His combination of menace, charm and creepiness made him perfect for the role. Spanish counterpart Carlos Villarias does a decent job as Dracula but he doesn't approach Lugosi. Villarias' Count has the charm down pretty well, but he can't muster much terror.
Whenever Villarias - who bears a certain resemblance to Nicolas Cage - tried to look scary, I thought he just appeared goofy and semi-psychotic; there's a disturbed gleam in his eyes that seems more appropriate for Renfield.
Speaking of whom, Renfield is one of the two roles that I definitely prefer in the Spanish film. English-speaker Dwight Frye was a solid actor who made his Renfield memorable, but he was pretty hammy as well, and I thought he made the character seem too cartoonish; that silly laugh of his was unusual but it didn't work for me. On the other hand, Pablo Alvarez Rubio turned Renfield into a much more believable person. With Frye, you got the impression he was always like that, but Rubio created a more effective transition in the character.
Renfield spends much of the movie battling his urges and wishes to regain his humanity - he knows what he does is wrong but he's too weak to stop himself. That sense of pain comes through much more clearly in Rubio's performance, and he gave Renfield's more lucid moments greater heft and reality. Most of the characters in the Spanish version either retained their English names or altered them slightly - as for "Juan" Harker or "Lucia" - but this name has been completely changed for some unknown reason.
Chandler is so dull that you think zombies beat the Count to her; she barely registers in all of her screen time, and I couldn't help but wonder why Drac was so drawn to such a dud. In the Spanish film, we get a better idea of the attraction.
Tovar provides a full-blooded and well-rounded portrayal of Eva. She's believable at all times, whether as proper young lady or as lusty vampire-to-be.
The difference between the two actresses comes out most clearly in those latter instances. Chandler can handle acting like a priss; she just has no idea how to display other emotions. Tovar made Eva come to life, and we really see the changes through which she's gone during the scene with Harker in which it becomes most clear that she's on her way to undead status. Never for a second did I buy Chandler's "transformation", but Tovar makes it convincingly real.
Harker remains a terribly flat and dull character - I don't think any Dracula has made him seem otherwise - but at least Norton creates a bit more passion in the part; I found his love for Eva more convincing and true. The only drawback to Norton is that the guy looked like he was about twelve-years-old he was actually The one part I find to be a toss-up is that of Professor Van Helsing.
Overall I think Eduardo Arozamena to be a more natural and honest actor, but Edward Van Sloan scores points just because he looks better in the role; he seems a lot closer to my idea of Van Helsing, unlike the kind of tubby and unimposing Arozamena. Both men are good actors, though, so both work well. On the other hand, the Spanish version delivers a creepy, effective rendition that easily surpasses its more famous sibling.
This was a borderline stunning representation of the film. Overall, sharpness looked positive. At times, I thought wider shots appeared a smidgen soft, but those examples created only minor distractions. The majority of the flick provided quite good definition. No issues with jagged edges or shimmering appeared, and I noticed no edge enhancement. Natural grain appeared here, so the flick maintained a nice film-like appearance. Blacks seemed solid. Low-light shots occasionally seemed a little murky, but they usually offered acceptable to good delineation.
Source flaws were minimal; occasional instances of small specks appeared, but these were rare. Honestly, this was a revelatory presentation of the film.
I also felt the monaural soundtrack of Dracula held up well for its age. The biggest distraction came from background noise. Though without clicks and pops, the audio suffered from a lot of hissiness.
Speech showed a thin, trebly side but was perfectly acceptable and lacked significant edginess or other flaws. The original soundtrack featured almost no music; films of the day generally didn't offer scores, so we only heard music to accompany the opening credits and also in a theater scene. I felt that the audio worked pretty well within the expectations of its era.
When compared with the disc, the Blu-ray delivered cleaner, smoother audio as well as cleaner, tighter visuals with stronger contrast. The Blu-ray replicates previous extras, and we open with two separate audio commentaries. We first hear from film historian David J. Skal , as he offers a running, screen-specific chat. Though the track occasionally sags, Skal usually makes it interesting and informative.
He covers a nice array of issues and does so in a bright, concise manner. He provides a running, screen-specific discussion that discusses the same kinds of production and cast and crew elements covered by Skal, but Haberman also offers his comparison between the English and Spanish versions of the flick.
I am curious to see what the other films in the set look like, hopefully they will be posted on that site soon. Things have made things clearer- unfortunately Lugosi's hairpiece now looks obviously fake. Unread post by jacksparrow » Tue Sep 25, pm according to Universal they used as nitrate positive print. I believe it was a silent aperature ratio. You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Unread post by All Darc » Tue Sep 25, pm It look too good to be a print, even a original print. Many people confuse terms, and call print for anything with positive image, even a fine grain positive master. A fine grain it's not a projection print. Probably the information of this page is fully reliable. I think the right term is tranfered According this they have the original negative, but in bad shape, and missing footage, so they prefer to use a very good master.
The Spanishversion appears to still have problems in the worst damaged scenes. Unread post by rudyfan » Tue Sep 25, pm I hope that after the holiday season Universal will release them as singles. Unread post by Scoundrel » Wed Sep 26, pm David Skal has reported on another board that the print he had seen at the Film Forum in July was "fixed". This leads me to presume the film elements used was a fine grain low cntrast shot from camera negative and not a projection print.
Was justhe staircase brightness contrast changed?? I supose the contrast was changed for the entire frame, well I hope The Invisible Man and The Mummy also looks good, but a tad more grain reduced.
Dracula keeps some nice small sharper grain. The review said Mummy And Invisible Man have interesting grain, but I bet it is noticeable for motion, while in screen captures we see somewhat a fuzzy grain texture.
But still impressive and invitting. Re: Dracula Another great trasnfer. Unread post by salus » Sat Sep 29, pm Don't forget that in 3 weeks Carla Laemmele who was an extra in this film 81 years ago turns Her first film was in and she currently has 2 films she has appeared in in post production here in 87 years later.
Listen to what they did to the main title. In "fixing" the audio tug in "Swan Lake" they altered the beat structure. They said they took matching music from the Spanish version. In a blindfold test I wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Unread post by Doug Sulpy » Sat Oct 06, am I'm a little confused, watching the demo, how they can boast one moment about changing the contrast on just part of a frame, and then claim the next moment that their aim was not to leave any footprints.
I'm sorry The epilogues was at most one or two minutes long. Makes you wonder what the prudes at the Breen office found so offensive. It's a shame that so many Pre-Codes that happened to be re-released in the late 30's, 40's and 50's now only survive in a Sarah Palin approved form. Since when has Sarah Palin wanted to censor movies?
Now, maybe Tipper Gore The restoration other than the missing footage still being missing looks absolutely superb in what may well be the best HD transfers I've ever seen from Universal Home Video who used to be notorious for intrusive digital "noise reduction" softening of the image in a misguided attempt to reduce or eliminate film grain. If all old movies looked like this on video, most people would be less likely to think of them as "old movies" with their preconceived concept that they'd obviously be fuzzy and grainy like the poor copies of worn dupes of old movies they've seen before.
The bonus features, with a few exceptions dealing with Universal's centennial, are all standard-definition, ported over from the old DVDs. I'm really looking forward to going through the rest of the set. The booklet and postcard-sized lobby cards are included. I like the way the discs are housed too - no cardboard sleeves. Official Biographer of Mr.
Again it looks better than I've ever seen it, with amazing clarity, although the first 20 minutes or so do seem to have some very slight digital grain reduction and edge ehancement that give it an almost "overclean" slightly video look, but by minutes into the movie the grain remains very natural and the picture throughout the film has great contrast and detail. I've got the U. I believe that the U. Unread post by Christopher Jacobs » Sat Oct 20, am Finally got through the other four films in the set over the past couple of nights.
Beautiful contrast and visible but fine, natural-looking film grain on both films.
0コメント