Yes, that's certainly true; Lugosi did play the role of a vampire much better in those films, although I wished he could've had more to do in "Mark Of The Vampire" in his role as Count Mora. Alas, he was only "playing" the role of a "Vampire" in the film's plot to help Lionel Barrymore's Professor Zelen uncover and reveal the true murderer.
I saw the Bela Lugosi version when I was a kid and it seemed stilted and boring. The next Dracula I encountered was Nosferatu, which was NOT stilted and boring! Christopher Lee did a much cooler Dracula. Yet Lugosi is set in everyone's mind as the Count. As boring as it was, the older version hit a nerve.
Yeah, you're quite right; Nosferatu has excellent pacing and visuals for a silent era film. It never lets up for a second in terms of story, and the character of Count Orlok is truly menacing, and Christopher Lee plays a much better Dracula, hands-down. In terms of film history, Lugosi was the first European stage actor to play Dracula in the sound era, so in spite of my increasing misgivings, at least we can give him that. Other than that, over subsequent years of re-watching the film, Bela Lugosi has been slowly but surely losing ground in my estimation for being the "definitive" Dracula. If anything, Lugosi's version of Dracula is nothing more than an overly ripe supernatural Don Juan dressed in evening clothes, and that's pretty much all his stilted characterization amounts to.
I think that there is no right or wrong opinion: it is all a matter of taste. Because I love old cinema, I tend to be a fan of Lugosi. I was never scared when I watched those films, but I absolutely love the sets, the atmosphere, and I think that black & white is a big plus. It is true that Lugosi’s delivery is sometimes a bit awkward, but he wasn’t fluent in English at the time. Which I feel is positive because Transylvanian Count Dracula wouldn’t have been either. So it makes him more believable. Also Lugosi looks aristocratic, the way he moves, the way he walks. In that sense, Christopher Lee isn’t my best choice. I always felt (rightly or wrongly) that he played the count almost as a thug at times. But it’s been a while; maybe I should watch a few Christopher Lee films again, just to make sure. But I never felt the aristocracy of his Dracula. I do agree with you on Jack Palance though. I absolutely love his interpretation, and that makes him my #2 as well. That being said, I enjoyed your video and will come back for more.
Thank you very much for leaving your thoughtful comment, it's very much appreciated. Yes, you're quite right; it's all a matter of personal taste in the end. It could even be said it's how we interpret what we see and hear, and the mood we're in at the time. There is no right or wrong interpretation on how to be a vampire, I suppose. Sure there are some basic tenants and characteristics we associate with vampires but it's in the way the actor can give you that chilling impression of the supernatural when you see them on screen. I would definitely recommend re-watching Christopher Lee's Dracula cycle. Mind you, the first few were his best in the role. His later films were not that great in terms of plot but still, I would most certainly watch "Horror of Dracula." and "Dracula, Prince of Darkness." for sure.
@@RetroEntertainmentArchive I own both those Christopher Lee films. I'll watch them, I promise. But it could take several days as I'm binge-watching a TV show right now. 🙂
Both Mark of the Vampire and Return of the Vampire show Lugosi as "The Count" in a much better light.
Yes, that's certainly true; Lugosi did play the role of a vampire much better in those films, although I wished he could've had more to do in "Mark Of The Vampire" in his role as Count Mora. Alas, he was only "playing" the role of a "Vampire" in the film's plot to help Lionel Barrymore's Professor Zelen uncover and reveal the true murderer.
I saw the Bela Lugosi version when I was a kid and it seemed stilted and boring.
The next Dracula I encountered was Nosferatu, which was NOT stilted and boring!
Christopher Lee did a much cooler Dracula. Yet Lugosi is set in everyone's mind as the Count. As boring as it was, the older version hit a nerve.
Yeah, you're quite right; Nosferatu has excellent pacing and visuals for a silent era film. It never lets up for a second in terms of story, and the character of Count Orlok is truly menacing, and Christopher Lee plays a much better Dracula, hands-down.
In terms of film history, Lugosi was the first European stage actor to play Dracula in the sound era, so in spite of my increasing misgivings, at least we can give him that. Other than that, over subsequent years of re-watching the film, Bela Lugosi has been slowly but surely losing ground in my estimation for being the "definitive" Dracula.
If anything, Lugosi's version of Dracula is nothing more than an overly ripe supernatural Don Juan dressed in evening clothes, and that's pretty much all his stilted characterization amounts to.
I think that there is no right or wrong opinion: it is all a matter of taste. Because I love old cinema, I tend to be a fan of Lugosi. I was never scared when I watched those films, but I absolutely love the sets, the atmosphere, and I think that black & white is a big plus.
It is true that Lugosi’s delivery is sometimes a bit awkward, but he wasn’t fluent in English at the time. Which I feel is positive because Transylvanian Count Dracula wouldn’t have been either. So it makes him more believable. Also Lugosi looks aristocratic, the way he moves, the way he walks.
In that sense, Christopher Lee isn’t my best choice. I always felt (rightly or wrongly) that he played the count almost as a thug at times. But it’s been a while; maybe I should watch a few Christopher Lee films again, just to make sure. But I never felt the aristocracy of his Dracula.
I do agree with you on Jack Palance though. I absolutely love his interpretation, and that makes him my #2 as well.
That being said, I enjoyed your video and will come back for more.
Thank you very much for leaving your thoughtful comment, it's very much appreciated.
Yes, you're quite right; it's all a matter of personal taste in the end. It could even be said it's how we interpret what we see and hear, and the mood we're in at the time. There is no right or wrong interpretation on how to be a vampire, I suppose. Sure there are some basic tenants and characteristics we associate with vampires but it's in the way the actor can give you that chilling impression of the supernatural when you see them on screen.
I would definitely recommend re-watching Christopher Lee's Dracula cycle. Mind you, the first few were his best in the role. His later films were not that great in terms of plot but still, I would most certainly watch "Horror of Dracula." and "Dracula, Prince of Darkness." for sure.
@@RetroEntertainmentArchive
I own both those Christopher Lee films. I'll watch them, I promise. But it could take several days as I'm binge-watching a TV show right now. 🙂
@@candide Not a problem at all, by all means, take your time. I'm looking forward to seeing your thoughts about them. 🙂