"Dracula" Review

During the opening credits of Dracula, a haunting, creepy rendition of the famous music from "Swan Lake" plays as the cast and main crew of the film are revealed. It is the only music played during the entire film, and afterwards, every scene is accompanied only by background sound effects. It's an eerie effect- and Dracula is an eerie film.

In the opening minutes, a man named Renfield has travelled to Transylvania to sell a house in London to Count Dracula. Though Renfield ignores the townspeople's warnings that Dracula is a dangerous vampire, they are all too correct- and Renfield is turned into a deranged servant of the Count. Upon his arrival in London, Dracula begins an assault on its citizens, such as a young woman named Lucy. His next victim is her friend, Mina, and only her husband John and the brilliant scientist Abraham Van Helsing can stop Dracula before it's too late.

The central performance of the film - and the one that everyone remembers - is Bela Lugosi as Count Dracula. Lugosi is utterly spellbinding, an unsettling mix of likable and terrifying. His behavior is always polite and friendly, yet he never loses an eerie air, with a strange, hypnotic gaze (punctuated by lighting on his face). His dialogue is always extremely slow and deliberate: "I am... Dracula!" As a result, he creeps you out no matter what he's saying. And as soon as his sophisticated facade is dropped and he enters full vampire mode, the horror increases. Dracula has always been described as able to hypnotize people with his gaze, but this version of the story is the only film in which we see that firsthand: just as much as he hypnotizes people in-story, so too does Lugosi hypnotize you as you watch the film.

The cast is great all around. Mina (Helen Chandler), our leading lady, acts basically the way you would expect someone dealing with a vampire to act: unknowing, then confused, then afraid, then terrified. She's quite believable, and in the moments when she is put under Dracula's control, her behavior is chilling. Renfield (Dwight Frye), Dracula's crazy assistant, is delightfully unhinged, quite scary but also pretty funny. Van Helsing (Edward Van Sloan), essentially our hero, is quite compelling. He seems to know everything about vampires and how to deal with them, and there's an awesome scene in which Dracula confronts him, and he shows absolutely no fear. Less interesting, unfortunately, is John Harker (David Manners), who was the lead protagonist of the novel (as Jonathan) but has almost nothing to do here, as everything important that happened to him in the book is transferred to other characters in the movie- Renfield for the opening scenes, and Van Helsing for the later ones. He's basically just there, which is disappointing. Also, Dracula's Brides are in the movie, but have no point at all- they awaken with Dracula and show up when he converts Renfield, but never show up or get mentioned ever again.

As I mentioned before, Dracula has no music accompanying it, only sound effects. This isn't always a good idea - Frankenstein, for example, would have benefited quite a bit from actually using music instead of silence - but in Dracula it works spectacularly. In only the second scene, there are several long shots of Dracula and his Brides awakening and exiting their coffins, and the only sounds are the noises made by the coffins. A few other scenes use sound effects almost as if they are used instead of music- when the "White Lady" (Lucy) begins attacking children, all we get is a brief clip of someone walking through a neighborhood as a little girl cries somewhere in the distance. It's far more unsettling than any music could have been.

Dracula earns its reputation completely. It's known as a classic, and it absolutely is. It's got Bela Lugosi- could you even ask for more?

Stars: **** (Out of 5)
Awesome

"The Phantom of the Opera" Review

Gaston Leroux's novel The Phantom of the Opera has been adapted into so many productions that it's a little absurd, with more than 20 adaptations in the medium of film alone. The very first one - before that iconic musical, before the Hammer film, before even the 1943 Claude Rains movie - was released in 1925 by the soon-to-be-legendary Universal, and starring the already-legendary Lon Chaney.

As we all know well, the "phantom" that "haunts" the Paris Opera House in the 1880s is really a deformed man by the name of Erik, who lives in the caverns underneath the Opera. He has fallen in love with a young singer named Christine, and he brings her career to great heights with the help of his tutoring (and a bit of blackmail). But this comes at a price: Erik's one demand is that, when the time comes, Christine must give her love to him. And when he finally comes to collect, she is more than a little unwilling... and the Phantom doesn't like that at all.

Phantom is notable for having an incredibly early instance of Technicolor, during the Masquerade ball scene- apparently there were 17 minutes filmed, but the scene I saw only ran for 4 or 5 minutes. It's amusingly primitive, and looks quite washed out (probably from age), but it's still neat to see, just because of how early it really is.

As for the progression of the plot, it's actually merely acceptable. Christine's relationship with her lover, Raoul, isn't really given enough focus, and he's a little flat and one-dimensional as a result. Carlotta, Christine's rival, doesn't appear enough- basically all scenes related to her character are given to her mother, not Carlotta herself. Other adaptations did well by having her act on her own authority, making her much stronger.A character by the name of Ledoux feels like a deus ex machina: he somehow knows all of the Phantom's secrets, claiming to have "been studying him for months"- but how could he have known all of these things without other characters being aware of him, and why didn't he tell anyone sooner, and most importantly, why did he want to investigate what seemed like a ghost in the first place? (Now, this one actually has an explanation - Ledoux was filmed as The Persian, a character from the novel who was a friend of the Phantom's, but for whatever reason, the intertitles completely changed his character.) You can't fault the many fun sequences - like a genuinely well-done ballet at the beginning (even if you can't hear whatever it is they're dancing to), that famous scene of the chandelier collapsing, or the sheer spectacle of the whole film, with an enormous number of extras - nor some great intertitles ("You dance above the bodies of tortured men!") - but as a whole, the movie could use a bit of work.

Ah, but of course, technical tricks and story aren't what you want to see when you watch this movie. You want to see the Man of A Thousand Faces do his thing! Lon Chaney's Phantom is already renowned, even by the people who haven't seen the film (that is, most average moviegoers), and he's terrifying. His makeup is astounding in its effectiveness, and it's a primally chilling effect. His acting is great too, as he had found the perfect way to be over-the-top without being silly. The famous scene where Christine (played by Mary Philbin) unmasks him is perfectly done- Chaney shouts, stares at the camera for a second (to allow the audience to finish screaming/scream some more?), stands up and turns around to look at Philbin, and points a long, accusing finger at the girl. "Feast your eyes," his intertitle says, "glut your soul on my accursed ugliness!" And then he lets out quite possibly the best evil laugh in cinema history- and it's one you don't even hear.

The originally filmed ending for Phantom of the Opera was much like the ending of the book, and most other adaptations: Erik sadly lets Christine and Raoul go, to be together, and after he watches them go, he dies of a broken heart. This, I think, would be the better ending, since it's a bit more dramatic, fitting, and gives a bit more sympathy to the Phantom. But the studio thought it wasn't exciting enough, and this version makes him quite unsympathetic anyway, so the ending was replaced with an action sequence in which the Phantom spirits Christine away on a carriage, chased by an angry mob. They overturn the carriage, freeing Christine, and the Phantom is chased to the edge of a riverbank. Now, though I said before that I think I'd have liked the original ending better, it's hard for me NOT to love what happens next: as the angry mob closes in, and Erik knows his doom is here, he suddenly appears to pull something out of his coat and hold it up in the air- with a knowing glance, almost like a wink, at the camera. The mob stops, frightened. What is it? A grenade? A knife? The Phantom laughs, and opens his hand to reveal- nothing at all! The mob resumes their attack, and pushes him into the river, where he sinks and drowns, and the film ends. It may not be what I'd prefer, but it's still an awesome ending.

One quick note: To enjoy Phantom much at all, you're going to need to remember a few things. First: You must watch this movie at the speed it was originally projected, 16 frames per second. Yes, it does look a little silly, but if you watch it at the 24 FPS speed that you would normally be accustomed to in a movie, it moves more slowly than a snail travelling underwater! This is the speed at which the YouTube copy plays; it does work fine at some points, but other times, everything takes forever. Second: be sure that there is music playing that fits the film! Again, the YouTube copy botches this, playing pretty harp music or tender string ballads during all the really tense parts.

The Phantom of the Opera is basically made by Lon Chaney's performance. Without him, the film would just be good. But with him, it's incredible.

Stars: **** (Out of 5)
Awesome