Drácula (George Melford, 1931)

You know the backstory to this Spanish-language alternate release already. Universal wanted their Dracula in the Spanish-language market but lacked adequate tech to dub the film.  Their solution, not uncommon at the time, was to film it twice: when Browning and Lugosi went home for the night, another director and a Spanish-speaking cast would make the same film with the same script and sets. The question is how well it stacks up. IMO, not that well, although I'm always on flux on this one. Admittedly I was thrilled to see it when it was released on VHS years ago and thought it a thorough delight. I'm not unappreciative now and am glad to own it but my joy at having it colored my appraisal at the time. Perhaps I'm too dismissive of it now. After all, it is the same script and the production values are the same.

Overall the direction and cinematography are workmanlike. Shots are most often of the proscenium arch type, lit with no attention to mood or depth, exposing the sets as exactly that and no more. The compositions are dull, the blocking of the actors is transparent...it's a stage mentality that speaks of inexperience with or indifference to cinema, a distinct lack of curiosity for the possibilities of film. You need more than the occasional unmotivated dolly shot to make a film fluid! This alternate version fails to evoke the atmosphere of the Lugosi version, and I'm thinking now that I haven't given near enough credit to Browning – the Spanish version also lacks a score, so that could hardly have been the whole of what I responded to before.

There's also a glaring lack of fog, not least of which when the dialog makes a point of directing our attention to it...

Testimony has it that Melford and company watched Browning's dailies, and accordingly recreated what they felt worked or improved upon what didn't. Well, the star was paying attention (see below) but I'm not so sure about the rest. Consider the passage below from both versions:

(Van Helsing examines Mina's hidden neck wounds as Dracula arrives)

the Browning:

Harker: What could have caused them?

Maid (offscreen, announcing a guest): Count Dracula!

The Melford:

Van Helsing: How long have you had these marks?

Eva: Since the day before yesterday.

Maid: Conde Dracula!

Not all of the movie is that flat, but most of it displays a tin ear and missed opportunities. One passage is a distinct improvement – the sea voyage, with Renfield laughing hysterically out a port ad the vampire goes out to hunt the terrified crew. It's a brief handful of shots, no dialog, and smothered in atmosphere: freakin' terrifying. If only the entire film had been of the same quality.

Alas, it's not, neither in mood nor in brevity. Melford's pace drags on and on, worse as it goes. Again it reminds me to cherish Browning's.

As for the cast, Carlos Villarias (or Villar as he's listed in the credits) is no Lugosi. Hell, he's not much of a Villar either considering he spends much of his screen time trying to be Lugosi and failing badly. The man simply does not have anything like as much presence or charisma. There's no power in his stare or ferocity in his outbursts. Brandish a cross at him and he doesn't know how to play it – we get a silly-looking sour face.

Villarias is often directed to bare his teeth a lot. It's menacing enough despite the obvious lack of fangs, it's what you expect of a vampire (was this the one that started that?) but it made me think about Lugosi...it's often pointed out that Lugosi had no fangs, but in truth Lugosi always keeps his upper teeth hidden. That always bothered me when he goes on for a bite, it looks as if a toothless old bloodsucker is threatening to gum his victims to death. I wonder if it wasn't a canny move after all: we never see that he doesn't have fangs.

By contrast, Pablo Alvarez Rubio wisely refuses to ape Dwight Frye and makes Renfield his own (the best thing in the movie). It's a slightly different take, farther gone but a tad less tormented about it, he's less menacing which may not serve the film well as a horror but it does make him a little more engaging. Certainly more so than the rest of the cast, though. Much of the acting is community stage caliber. Lupita Tovar gives a much more fluid performance than Helen; Chandler, who is rather forced. Eduardo Arozamena makes a solid Van Helsing, not as cold as severe as Edward Van Sloan. No fault of the actor but Van Helsing is a dead ringer for Eugene Levy... Barry Norten makes a much more agreeable Juan Harker than David Manners.