Remakes & Reboots: Dracula (1931) vs. Dracula (1992)

Is there not a more intellectual property that’s been redone, remade, or reinterpreted than Bram Stoker’s nocturnal bloodsucker? Hollywood has produced dozens upon dozens of versions of the classic Dracula tale, with even more vampire-themed films in its wake. It’s no surprise the studios embraced the vampire legend, as it’s inherently sexual with a dash of violence. When done correctly, Dracula is alluring and attractive, even as he sinks those fangs into your neck. Its pain and pleasure wrapped in a gothic package tailor-made for the silver screen.

While the classic 1931 Dracula starring Bela Lugosi is the most well-known, it wasn’t the first screen version. German expressionist filmmaker F.W. Murnau directed a loose adaption of Stoker’s novel in 1922 entitled Nosferatu. The now 100-year-old silent is filled with creepy imagery, particularly actor Max Schreck (who inspired Christopher Walken’s villain in Batman Returns) decked out in grotesque monster makeup. And we shouldn’t overlook the British Hammer series of films in the 1960s with Peter Cushing as a prickly Van Helsing and Christopher Lee playing a feral, predator-style Dracula. Those films brought a heavy dose of Victorian style and gore, separating them from the tamer Hollywood productions.

Even as Murnau’s stylized film inspired many filmmakers, the 1931 Dracula, directed by Tod Browning, became the most influential.  And one of those filmmakers was Francis Ford Coppola, who helmed an ambitious, tonally wild, and star-studded remake in 1992, some 71 years after Browning’s classic original. 

So let’s journey to Transylvania, creep into Count Dracula’s castle, and compare these two landmark versions of the Bram Stoker novel.

DRACULA (1931)

Chad’s Grade: B+

The original Dracula, now 91 (!) years old, is the grandfather of the monster horror film. While Frankenstein also debuted in 1931, followed by The Mummy, The Wolfman, and eventually The Invisible Man, the template and structure started with Dracula. Its influence is undeniable, from Lugosi’s iconic performance of the famed vampire to director Browning’s stylized direction. You can sense the gothic sets and fog-shrouded atmosphere seeping into the imagery of Tim Burton or Guillermo Del Toro.

Universal was considered a “B” movie studio in the 1930s, a scrappy underdog to the big guns of MGM and Warner Bros. They took a gamble on Stoker’s creepy monster, purchasing the rights to the Broadway production in 1927. And the film is essentially a movie version of the stage play with stilted pacing and a boxed-in, set-bound tone. But director Browning spices up the proceedings by drenching the production in a medieval, shadow-induced atmosphere that is still fun, if a bit dated, to watch. 

The 1931 classic deviates from Stoker’s novel but keeps the story’s basic outline intact. Naïve real estate agent Renfield (in the book, it’s John Harker) travels to the eastern European country of Transylvania to finalize the transfer of London’s Carfax Abbey to the mysterious Count Dracula.  Later that night, in the count’s creepy, ancient castle, he is attacked by both Dracula and his three beautiful brides, who are revealed to be vampires. Renfield becomes Dracula’s sniveling, loyal servant and secures passage to London, where Dracula begins his midnight hunting in the great metropolis. Soon, the refined Count meets the beautiful Mina, betrothed to John Harker, and becomes obsessed with claiming the young woman as his new bride. It’s up to both Harker and scientist Dr. Van Helsing to stop the vampire’s reign of terror.

Modern audiences may find it difficult to watch the 1931 take on Dracula with its deliberate pacing and wild swings between its effectively moody atmosphere and goofy, primitive stagecraft. When Dracula transforms into a wolf, it’s mentioned offscreen. The vampire bat scenes are ludicrously executed with wires and rubber puppetry that yanks you out of the narrative. Both Mina and Lucy are so passive and reactive that it makes you realize how far we’ve come in female representation on the screen. And Dracula’s great arch-nemesis, Van Helsing, is played in a dull professorial manner by Edward Van Sloan. Ditto for David Manners as straight arrow John Harker. There’s little heat or tension when these two face off against Dracula.

Thankfully we have the great Bela Lugosi giving a genuinely mesmerizing performance as Count Dracula. Lugosi’s understated and near-silent performance anchors the frightening elements of the story, and he strikes quite a pose in his black cape and unblinking stare. And more importantly, his vampire is refined with an aristocratic tone, giving him an air of respectability. Sadly, Lugosi’s strong presence overshadows Dwight Frye as Renfield. Frye gives a wholly unhinged and crazed take on the insane vampire’s manservant, with exaggerated facial expressions that only Jim Carrey could appreciate. He matches Lugosi stare for stare, and their many scenes bleed with a subtle gay subtext that reportedly made the Universal executives nervous. And the character actor was so effective that he would be typecast for the rest of his career. 

But where Dracula made its mark was the use of the stylized and gargantuan sets that gave a supernatural feel to the otherwise stage-bound narrative. This was the first big Hollywood production with extensive matte paintings, and they are used effectively in the Castle Dracula sequences. The Carfax Abbey design, with its massive arching stone staircase, would make anybody with a fear of heights lightheaded. And Tod Browning filmed the proceedings with a steady hand, unaware he was designing the look of the classic monster universe for the next several decades. It’s hard to believe he was miserable making the movie, nearly quitting the production several times. The following year he would direct the 1932 cult classic Freaks for MGM, a film that almost ended his filmmaking ambitions.

The 1931 Dracula is still a fun experience if just to see the birth of the now creaky clichés, although they were new and groundbreaking at the time. Lugosi’s performance is one for the ages, and it’s great fun to hear him whisper, “Listen to them, Children of the Night, what music they make.” The 91-year-old film hasn’t aged as well as I would’ve liked, but it’s still required viewing to see the origins of the classic monster/horror genre. 

And in 1992, one of the great modern filmmakers of our time decided to take another crack at the classic Transylvania creature with a version that would be closer in spirit to the original text. 

DRACULA (1992)

Chad’s Grade: B-

Acclaimed director Francis Ford Coppola was at a crossroads in the early 1990s. He had just wrapped up his career-defining Godfather series with his middling, poorly received third entry that landed with a thud with audiences. But Coppola was not one to be knocked back on his ass so quickly, as the filmmaker came back and directed one of the wildest, most tonally crazy movies in his career.

Working with screenwriter James V. Hart, who was also smarting from his 1991 Steven Spielberg-directed flop Hook, they crafted a script that was more in line with Stoker’s text. In fact, the movie’s original title was Bram Stoker’s Dracula before being shortened to the simpler Dracula. Coppola’s vision was to do an old-school-style horror film with a heavy dose of sexuality and gore that the original could only hint at. And laced throughout the movie are homages to the 1931 classic and Hammer series while heightening the theatricality and melodrama.

The 1992 version is the same story but more in line with the classic novel. Jonathan Harker, a real estate agent engaged to his love Mina travels to Transylvania to finalize the purchase of London’s Carfax Abbey by Count Dracula. During his stay, the aged Dracula notices Harker’s picture of Mina, who looks identical to the vampire’s lost love during the 15^thcentury. He kidnaps Harker, feeds him to his three vampire wives, and travels to London, romancing Mina and beginning a reign of terror. But Harker manages to escape and teams up with Van Helsing to hunt the nightmarish monster and save Mina from a possible undead fate.

One of the film’s great strengths is the unabashedly R rating that’s full of gushing blood and eroticism. This is refreshing to see in our current age of neutered PG-13 horror fare.  But Coppola smartly doesn’t go overboard, and all the visual effects are kept on camera, adding a classic, theatrical tone to the film. This remake also broadens the romantic nature of the piece, as Dracula is driven by his deep love to reclaim Mina, his reincarnated bride from the 15^th century.

But the problem is that the 1992 take is filled with clashing styles and tones, with every frame full of distracting visuals. It’s a busy film that never finds the time to breathe and settle down. Sometimes all the dangling strands combine and work beautifully, like Harker’s scenes with Dracula in his castle, which are creepy and inspired by the Victorian look of the Hammer movies. But then you have Mina’s final face-off with Dracula, but the romantic nature drains the tension and scares, ending the film with a whimper. It’s like the filmmakers just threw a bunch of elements against a wall and saw what sticks and looks cool.

Sadly, the clashing stylized nature also extends to the star-studded cast, and they all go for big, melodramatic performances in line with the heightened theatricality of the film. Anthony Hopkins was the big name here, following his Oscar-winning turn in Silence of the Lambs with a gonzo, unhinged performance as Van Helsing. Hopkins is much livelier and more action-oriented than the subdued 1931 original, but his Van Helsing slips into goofy Monty Python territory in certain scenes. Keanu Reeves is a flat and dull Jonathan Harker, as this was before his action makeover in Speed and The Matrix. And he does one of the worst British accents since Dick Van Dyke’s cockney desecration in Mary Poppins. Winona Ryder’s affected accent isn’t much better, but you can see her relishing the chance to play her first adult role. And her Mina brings an ingénue beauty that’s a nice counterpoint to the moody, gothic scenery. I can’t leave out Sadie Frost, making her screen debut as the feisty and rebellious Lucy. She’s nicely paired with Ryder’s Mina, and watching her flirt up a storm in a room full of suitors is a joy to watch.

But a Dracula film is only as good as its vampire, and this was Gary Oldman’s first lead performance in the title role. It’s a mixed bag, as he’s fearsome in his early appearances, especially in that creepy aged makeup. Watching him stalk Harker in the castle, floating through the air with a thick Hungarian accent, is some of the film’s best scenes. But when he turns into the Count’s human form and courts Mina in London, the romance lacks heat because Oldman doesn’t have the sex appeal to make it work. Behind the scenes, it was reported that Ryder and Oldman didn’t get along, and the coldness seeps into the finished film. As such, the tragic romance never gets any traction.

Even with all the chaotic styles at play, this Dracula is a visual stunner. The Oscar-winning costumes by Eiko Ishioka fill the screen with bold colors and contrast nicely with production designer Thomas F. Sanders’s detailed and gothic sets. The wonderfully old-school visual effects are all in-house, tangible, and still hold up well, especially when Dracula is in his terrifying wolf-man form. And you can’t beat the lush and shadowy cinematography from the great Michael Ballhaus. You can sit back and be entertained by the wild imagery displayed on the screen.

Bram Stoker’s Dracula was a big hit at the box office and a comeback for director Coppola. It’s still one of his most profitable movies and has become a staple during the Halloween season, if not as influential as the original. The film was intended to launch a “horror masters” series for Columbia Pictures when Kenneth Branagh starred and directed in the equally theatrical Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein in 1994. Sadly, that movie flopped upon release, although it’s quite good and deserves a second look. But it dashed any future “horror masters” series of films.

IN CONCLUSION:

Both the 1931 & 1992 versions of Dracula are different sides of the same coin. The classic original is one of the most iconic horror films, standing alongside Psycho & Halloween as pillars of the genre. And Bela Lugosi’s mesmerizing performance must be seen to be believed. 

But the Coppola remake is big, ambitious, and filled with chaotic imagery and a clash of tone and acting styles. It’s supremely entertaining and a visual stunner but has an underwhelming performance by Gary Oldman in the title role.