Cineanalyst
Made during the nights at Universal while the English-language "Dracula" was filmed during the days, this Spanish-language version offers an interesting comparison of another cast and crew approaching the same script and sets differently. While some, like David J. Skal (author of "Hollywood Gothic"), have praised the Spanish "Dracula" for its supposedly superior cinematography and, consequently, better pacing, I partially disagree. Some of the setups and camera-work, indeed, are better and much of it's different, but some of it's worse. And, if anything, the 30-some- minutes of padding to the runtime doesn't help (originally, it may've been closer to 20 minutes, as the English version has lost footage). Moreover, while there are some other interesting differences between the two, including the acting, I think the most overlooked and, perhaps, important differences are related to the languages and the intended audiences. One consequence of this is that the Spanish "Dracula" emphasizes Catholicism more, which, in this respect, makes it more faithful to one of the main conceits of Bram Stoker's novel.Although Stoker was, reportedly, an Anglican, "Dracula," as has been noted by D. Bruno Starrs, reads as Catholic proselytizing; indeed, the Anglican characters in the novel, by the end, practically adopt the Catholic faith. And, of course, the story is full of Catholic iconography, which is used to combat the soulless vampire. Whereas other adaptations, including the 1931 English version, include the use of crucifixes and rosaries to ward off vampires and a bit of kneeling prayer and signs of the cross, they seem to be included as part of the occult intrigue—and about as effective as wolf's bane. That makes sense for the English "Dracula," because it was primarily meant for a majority-Protestant domestic audience. The Spanish "Dracula," on the other hand, meant for mostly-Catholic viewers, such as in Latin America, is far more expressive of its characters' Catholic faiths. So, Van Helsing and others more frequently make the sign of the cross, including the kiss of the thumb, which would also presumably be the general practice of said audience.While this film might be the best adaptation of the Catholicism in Stoker's novel because of its language orientation, it also suffers from an absence of accents from non-Spanish-speaking counties. Bela Lugosi's genuine, thick Hungarian accent is an important reason that his Dracula is better than the toothy, bug-eyed impersonation by Carlos Villarias. The English film also featured Hungarian-speaking extras in an early village scene, which seems a bit like an Easter egg regarding its star's heritage. That's gone here. Also gone is Van Helsing's faux Dutch accent. Consequently, an adaptation that was already more regionally restricted than the book becomes even more restricted, as well as more confused due to the settings remaining in England (although the geography of England is a source of confusion in both films).Mostly, this "Dracula" suffers without Lugosi. Some of the acting is better, though. The scenes between Mina and Harker in English, for instance, were placid and sometimes vomit inducing, but there's more emotion and sex appeal in Spanish—in no small part thanks to Lupita Tovar, who nearly falls out of her gown. And Pablo Àlvarez Rubio gives Dwight Frye a run for his money as Renfield. Some loose ends left in the English film are sewn up here, too, including the fate of Lucy and the scene of Renfield crawling towards the fainted nurse. The scene of the sanitarium guard and the maid's talk on the lawn works better here because there's some flirtation between the two. Even better, the scene where Renfield accidentally cuts himself at the Count's castle is enhanced because Renfield does it while eating—which contrasts nicely with the feast that his crucifix denies to Dracula. In the English version, he just cuts himself on a paper clip.Some scenes in both films are photographed and staged better than the other and still others are just different. The early scene inside a stagecoach, for instance, isn't necessarily better in either film. The Spanish one is a single shot and probably has better blocking, whereas the English one is composed of several shots. (The English film, overall, has a quicker average shot length (ASL), which in that respect gives it a better pacing. I counted a 9.6 seconds ASL for English vs. 10.8 seconds for Spanish. My counts trend north of those at the cinemetrics website, but the gaps between the films are similar. Gary D. Rhodes, author of "Tod Browning's Dracula" and who probably swings too far the opposite of Skal in arguing in favor of the English version, has an outlier Spanish count of a 12+ seconds.)The first appearance of Dracula is more stunning for Lugosi, with the dolly movement and the highlighting of his eyes—a technique largely absent for Villarias. But, the second appearance, when Dracula greets Renfield, is better handled in Spanish, with a crane shot and a swooping bat instead of pointless insert shots of armadillos. The Spanish film suffers sometimes from its use of outtakes from the English film, including having two sets of female vampires; its missing scenes of Dracula prowling the streets of London, including the killing of the flower girl; and Van Helsing and Dracula's contest-of-wills scene is, unfortunately, turned into a game of peekaboo. I prefer Renfield's death scene in the Spanish version, though. In the end, the best "Dracula" would've been some alternation between the two films, but, of course, with Lugosi in the titular role.(Mirror Note: There's a virtuoso through-the-mirror shot that dollies out in a scene with Eva and Lucia; in the English version, editing is used more instead of camera-work for this scene, as the mirror shot serves as a reverse angle within a series of shots. It also almost has a good sound-bridge transition from the theatre scene and includes Lucy mocking Dracula's accent. The cigarette-box mirror scenes are more similar.)
Scott LeBrun
This alternate 1931 Spanish language version of the familiar Transylvanians' story was shot throughout the night, using the same Universal sets that the American production utilized during the day. Some buffs consider it superior, at least in a technical sense, but for this viewer, it was at least comparable to the Lugosi classic. Not really scary, per se, but atmospheric, literate, and fun.The Count, played with a rather goofy charm by Carlos Villarias, comes to London to rent Carfax Abbey, and works his spell on local beauties such as Eva (Lupita Tovar) and Lucia (Carmen Guerrero). Those brave souls willing to fight him are asylum administrator Dr. Seward (Jose Soriano Viosca), Evas' handsome suitor "Juan" Harker (Barry Norton), and the determined, knowledgeable vampire hunter Van Helsing (Eduardo Arozamena).Running approximately a half hour longer than the Lugosi / Tod Browning version, this is admittedly rather plodding, and thus not to all horror fans' tastes. For a while, it consists of more talk than action. But the characters, and performances, are entertaining, with Arozamena frequently mugging for the camera, Villarias keeping that silly smile on his face, and the majority of the cast playing it quite straight. Pablo Alvarez Rubio is wonderful as the nutty, bug munching Renfield; Dwight Frye may be more iconic in the role, but Rubios' performance is no less amusing. Some people will appreciate the attire of the ladies in this version, which is decidedly sexier.An effectively roving camera operated by George Robinson is certainly an asset, with credited director George Melford and company making full use out of the existing sets.Two years later, leading lady Tovar (who only recently passed away, at the impressive age of 106) married associate producer Paul Kohner.Seven out of 10.
Smoreni Zmaj
Before I begin I want to distance myself - I did not see whole movie and everything I'll write here is based on around half an hour I did see and information from those who did watch the whole thing. For same reason I will not rate it. That 5 above is only because I want it to appear in my rating list.This is not Spanish movie. This is American movie by Universal studio made in Spanish language. Back then they did not use subtitles, but they made movies for each language separately. Browning's Dracula with Lugosi and Melford's Dracula with Avalos are basically the same movie. They were made by same script, with same scenery, same costumes, same equipment in same studio, literally at the same time, just with different actors and director. They fix studio for particular scenes and then "English" crew shoot during the day and when they are done "Spanish" crew takes over for the night. Some fans claim it to be better than original, because crew had a chance to watch shooting of "English" version, learn on their mistakes and improve own version. Also, "Spanish" version is bit longer with more dialogues and has better directing in few scenes.But, half an hour of extra length, more dialogue and potentially better director do not make movie better by themselves. There are two reasons I gave up on this movie after half an hour and then fast forwarded through the rest with few casual stops. This movie is almost scene by scene and word by word copy of "English" version that I saw just few weeks ago, and in almost every aspect it is worse than original, so I was extremely bored by it. Acting is lousy and sad. They had different nations of actors that spoke different and corrupted dialects of Spanish in same dialogues. On top of that Melford did not speak or even understand Spanish at all. Beside directing camera, directing includes directing of actors and dialogues too, and that is not possible if director does not understand them. All in all, bad acting, bad Spanish and 90% of the movie already seen in much better Browning's version make this movie good only for avoiding. I recommend it only to hard core fans of original movie, only as a curiosity because of additional and few better directed scenes, and to Spanish speakers because of quirky usage of language that could be entertaining to native speakers.
Heather
Carlos Villarias was a better actor than Bela Lugosi, but Villarias was campy at times and had zero sex appeal. He was also less creepy than Lugosi. Instead, Villarias made Dracula more lonely and and relatable. I feel that made Villarias the better Dracula by leaps and bounds. Villarias was the Dracula that Bram Stoker described. To make up for Villarias's lack of sensuality, Lupita Tovar oozed lust. At times, her hair was messy, tousled, and maybe even a little frizzy. Her outfits were tighter, showed more skin, and her body type was curvy and voluptuous. When she dove in to bite Mr. Harker, she looked like a flesh-crazed beast/a sex-crazed nymph and it's the most sexual moment I've seen in any 1930s movie. Dracula's harem girls were also more sensual than those in the American version. As for the camera work, the camera actually moves and there are more camera angles. As a result, you see more of the small details of the set design and more of the disorienting, unnatural shapes that the stairs, archs, etc. make.
