{ subscribe_url: '/share/sites/library-of-congress-blogs/navcc.php' }

From the National Film Registry: “Drácula” (1931)

What is the Spanish word for “terror”?  You’ll find out if you watch George Melford’s 1931 US-made but Spanish-language adaptation of Bram Stoker’s classic novel.  Filmed concurrently with the US/Bela Lugosi-version, “Drácula” is considered by many film scholars to be better than the English version.  This version was added to the Library of Congress’ National Film Registry in 2015.  In the essay below, Andras Lenart looks at this unique Hollywood endeavor.

In the 1930s, when dubbing was not a wellestablished method yet and subtitles were far from being popular, Hollywood started to work on multiplelanguage versions and double versions of the same films in order to indulge the foreign countries’ audiences. After experimenting with various languages, they finally reduced the production to four, including French, Spanish, German and Swedish. Methods transformed throughout the years: in the beginning foreignlanguage versions were accurate translations of the Englishlanguage original film but the strictness slackened with
time resulting in foreign directors’ loose adaptations of the originals. Generally, the same sets, sceneries, and wardrobes were used to do the translated version. Among the targeted regions, Latin America turned out to be the most important area.

The quality of the original films and their copies usually differed substantially. For economic reasons, English films were shot during the day, while Spanish versions, mostly at night. The original version was produced in a matter of months, while new versions only in a period of several days. Due to the huge difference in quality, the founder of Universal Studios, Carl Laemmle, decided to have the same producer supervising both the American and the Spanish version of the same film. In terms of film stars, it was not unusual for famous American actors to do the same film several times in various languages; this procedure was quite common in the case of Spanish versions (eg. Buster Keaton, Laurel and Hardy). At the end of the 1920s and at the beginning of the 1930s, various Spanish filmmakers were invited to Hollywood and to Joinville in France; as a result, more than 130 films were produced in Spanish there. Spanish and Latin American (mostly Mexican, Cuban and Argentine) actors traveled to both places to work in this international cinematographic project, but the situation often became close to absurd when the main actors of a film came from different Latin American countries and they had all different accents or talked in various dialects. Subsequently this “war of accents,” among other factors, led to the decline of the doubleversions.

One characteristic case of “Hispanicized Hollywood” was the adaptation of Bram Stoker’s classic novel “Dracula” (1897), one of the few Universal horror films that were converted into Spanish during the 1930s. Although both “Dracula” film versions made use of the same set, decorations and basic screenplay, there were notable differences between Tod Browning’s original “Dracula” (1931) and George Melford’s Hispanic version “Drácula” released the same year. The most remarkable discrepancy is their duration: the Spanish version is almost 30 minutes longer than the original because Melford didn’t delete any of the necessary scenes and dialogues. Moreover, Browning shot his film during the day and when they finished, Melford and his crew occupied the same set and shot almost the same scenes but this time with Spanish (as Carlos Villarías), Mexican (like the female lead Lupita Tovar) or Chilean actors. They even made use of Browning’s alternate takes. Since Melford didn’t speak Spanish, his codirector, Enrique Tovar Ávalos and some interpreters helped his communication with the Hispanic actors. Only a small part of the total budget was assigned to the Spanish version.

The producers of Universal took film shootings under strict control: they obliged Browning to eliminate various scenes and interfered in small details. At the same time, they paid little attention to the Spanish version, so Melford could work without any restrictions following the instructions of the original screenplay. It was obvious that the Spanishlanguage version was not as important to the studio as the English version. While producers were keeping a close watch on the original budget, on the controversial methods of Browning and on the difficulties concerning Béla Lugosi, Melford and his crew, outside the main limelight, worked much faster than the American team, sometimes even overtook them, so the Spanish version was completed days before the original was ready. Due to the studio’s constant interventions, Browning’s “Dracula” turned out to be a movie with a number of ambiguous scenes, while Melford’s film came out as a basically clearcut adaptation of the original screenplay. Occasionally, the director reinterpreted the original scenes in order to achieve more credibility or aesthetic harmony. Melford really cared about the miseenscène, therefore we can experience more sophisticated and artistic camera movements; some film historians and critics even claim that the Hispanic version’s quality is superior to the original’s merits.

The Spanish version included more violence and erotic content than its English counterpart because the distribution in Spain and Latin America was beyond the range of Hollywood’s rising morality codes and developing censorship. For instance, in the Spanish version we can see closeups of the vampire’s bites, while in the original they are always shown from a certain distance; furthermore, Lupita Tovar’s Eva is much bolder and sexier than Helen Chandler’s Mina. In relation to Béla Lugosi’s and Carlos Villarías’ acting skills, it is debated whether the Hungarian or the Spanish actor delivered a better performance, although Lugosi’s mysterious, exotic and legendary persona cannot be dissociated from the count of Transylvania, while Villarías remains almost unknown for the international audience. In Spanishspeaking countries Universal Studios distributed only Melford’s version, and thus the audience didn’t have the chance to compare
Lugosi’s with Villarías’s performance.

Melford directed other memorable Spanish versions too, always assisted by his codirector Tovar Ávalos.  Among these were “La voluntad del muerto” (1930), which was the readaptation of Rupert Julian’s and John Willard’s “The Cat Creeps” (1930), while the romantic comedy “Don Juan diplomático” (1931) reproduced the plot of Malcolm St. Clair’s “The Boudoir Diplomat” (1930).


András Lénárt, PhD., is senior assistant professor of
Hispanic Studies and Film History at the University of Szeged (Hungary), he has been visiting professor at Spanish, British and French universities. His research interests include the relation between film studies and history, Spanish and Latin American cinema and history, as well as InterAmerican studies. His essays and articles have appeared in Spanish, Hungarian, Italian, German, Canadian and Latin American journals and volumes.

Don’t hesitate to contact Ask a Librarian (//ask.loc.gov/) about the availability of materials or any other items in our collections. Before you plan to come in and view any collection items, please get in touch with our reference staff in the Moving Image Research Center (//www.loc.gov/rr/mopic/).

The views expressed in this essay are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Library of Congress.

 

2 Comments

  1. Bob
    October 26, 2022 at 9:03 am

    Thank you for featuring the Spanish version of Dracula. So few people have heard about this, and with just a few extra scenes it really seems like a more well constructed story and overall a better film. Also, it appears thanks are due to Universal for not caring enough to mess with things and allowing the Spanish version to be shot as intended. I hadn’t realized that was why things were better. 🙂

  2. Robert M. Fells
    October 26, 2022 at 12:40 pm

    When a print of the “Spanish Drácula,” as it was nicknamed, surfaced some years ago it was noted that both the image and sound quality were superior to the English-language “Lugosi” version. The US edition had been reissued many times through the decades and the material suffered from being copied and recopied with an obvious decline in quality each time.

    The picture quality was fuzzy and the soundtrack noisy. In recent years, Universal restored the film and today it looks stunning on the big screen as well as on its home video and streaming editions.

    Now a true one-on-one comparison of the two versions can be made revealing the different strengths and weaknesses of both films. The most striking difference is with the performance of the title role. It takes some discipline to “forget” Lugosi as Dracula in order to give Carlos Villarías a fair hearing in the role. He is not Lugosi but that in itself does not hurt his performance. His use of a silly grin that is supposed to be menacing comes off as comical. I saw Drácula with a theater audience once and it goes without saying that viewers should not be laughing at Dracula. Villarías’s repeated grinning ruins his performance.

    On the other hand, Lupita Tovar is so much better than Helen Chandler in the role of Mina. Chandler comes off as an icy character whereas Tovar exudes warmth and sexuality – the negligee-like dresses she wears don’t hurt the impression either. Reportedly, Helen Chandler who was being built up as a major star at the time, felt she was “slumming” by being assigned to this horror film. Apparently, its pedigree as a hit stage play (starring Lugosi) didn’t matter to her. Ironically, this film became the only one she is remembered for.

    Seeing Drácula is like watching an unedited version of the Lugosi film. If the English-language version would have benefitted from a few more minutes to explain some plot points – what exactly is Renfield supposed to do for Dracula? – it’s fair to say that Drácula would have benefitted from some judicious trimming.

    But the greatest difference between the two versions is due to the choice of directors. Tod Browning’s specialty was in moody, macabre films dealing with shady characters and the Count is certainly the quintessential shady character. Drácula’s director, George Melford, had once been an A-list director in the silent era with such hits as Blood and Sand (1922) with Rudolph Valentino. But Melford’s career had gone into decline and by 1930 he was in effect a sort of second-unit director of foreign language Hollywood films.

    In my opinion, many scenes in Drácula go on much too long and lose their dramatic impact. If the editing of the English Dracula is too tight to a fault, the “Spanish Drácula” suggests that more is not necessarily better.

Add a Comment

This blog is governed by the general rules of respectful civil discourse. You are fully responsible for everything that you post. The content of all comments is released into the public domain unless clearly stated otherwise. The Library of Congress does not control the content posted. Nevertheless, the Library of Congress may monitor any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove content for any reason whatever, without consent. Gratuitous links to sites are viewed as spam and may result in removed comments. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on the Library site. Read our Comment and Posting Policy.

Required fields are indicated with an * asterisk.