Lee = scarier Lugosi = classier I'm pretty much with Damage on this one. Lugosi had the air of distinction and sophistication of a well cultured count, whereas Lee portrayed the more sinister Dracula... brooding, fiercely jealous, aggressive, and even perpetually apprehensive - ever paranoid of being destroyed. Lee brought a lot more aspects to the table, a whole new, far ranging dynamic... and amazingly mostly through facial expressions. In Tod Browning's 'Dracula', it is through Dracula's genteel persona (and his powers of hypnotism as well), that he endears himself to Renfield and afterwards wedges his way right into the society set after relocating to London. In comparison, Lee pulled off the self-important regality of a count, but not the affability of a socially mobile one. In Hammer's 'Horror of Dracula', during his first meeting with Harker (now loosely in the Renfield role), Lee is very stiff and is only necessarily hospitable. After this, both in 'Horror of Dracula' and throughout the rest of the Hammer series, even that much gentility takes a backseat to his more negative traits. For example, in their respective debuts, when Lugosi-Drac first meets Seward, Harker, Lucy and Mina, he comes off as charmed and charming; Lee-Drac in the Hammer version never even gets this scene, nor any other scene to explore this trait. Furthermore, Hammer never gave Lee much of a chance to display this trait in the rest of their series - but perhaps the argument could be made that after making his way to London and failing to establish a safe haven there and having to high-tail it out of there to other locales for fear of destruction, ole Drac was less concerned with sneaking his way craftily into desirable living conditions than he was with simply surviving. Maybe had Lugosi the benefit, the legacy of the several films that Lee does, we would have seen more of the sinister, desperate Drac in his performances as well, but I doubt he would have been as dynamic as Lee; as I've commented on before elsewhere, Lugosi was perfect for the role, the introduction of the character at the time - but he had terrible barriers to deal with in his screen acting career, such as that sound films were a new thing and so the direction and production of such was experimental; he was a stage actor, thus making his line delivery and physical acting perhaps overly dramatic (commonplace among actors of this era); and he was no expert of the English language. In contrast, not only is Lee a classically trained actor (Lugosi was self-made, getting his training on the job in repertory theater), but he also has the benefit of several years, decades of film production advancement in general working for him by the time he took up the role. As Watts said, Lugosi and Lee worked in two disctinctly different eras, and because of this, I truly believe that comparing the two, at least in such simple terms as 'which is better', actually does a disservice to them; one has to take many factors into consideration, and define just what criteria the two are to be judged on. Personally, I love Hammer, and I love Christopher Lee as Dracula. Then again, Lugosi is king of the (movie) vampires. I simply can't pick one over the other.
Which is why I also commented later on the other two......... But Max needs his name to be always remembered. :glasses:
Well, if dwatts can vote for Blacula, then I'm voting for Yorga. All this makes me wish that the Yorga Vs. Blacula movie had been made. Otherwise it's Christopher Lee all the way. I love Lugosi, but Lee's Dracula is closer to the source material.
It's all about Lee. Everytime I see Lugosi I hear him say "PULL THE STRINGS! PULL THE STRINGS!". Still, Ed Wood genius not withstanding I give my vote for Lee (although to be honest Kinski's version of Dracula actually makes Dracula creepy in my eyes and on many levels. The guy's a freak).
Not really. "Lugosi was him" is grammatically confusing. By "him" does he mean Lugosi was Dracula, or "Lugosi was himself"? That doesn't sound like much of a compliment of his acting skills to me! Regardless, if you go back to the source, Lugosi's Dracula doesn't much resemble Stoker's. Lee's portrayal recaptures some of the animalistic intensity Dracula had in the novel.
dwatts: Thanks for the breif retrospect of the Lee Hammer Dracs. I've always wondered about these because my only experience with them is Satanic Rites which sucked. However I will now check out Horror of.. Personally I like Gary Oldman
Okay Mok, let's go, two smokes! Satanic Rites might be the lowest point of Lee's Dracula efforts, but when has the Undead One been more groovy? And satanists sure knew how to party. Still a fun movie I think.
I swear by the Satanic Rites. It's like Dracula meets The Avengers, and even if you don't appreciate it, at least give Hammer credit for trying something different. I'm with Damage on this one. Very fun movie.
Vampire whores! I've had this laying around forever, but have also put it off for just as long. Maybe I should check it out... nah!
I have to go with Lugosi. He was Dracula on film and stage. He relished the role. With Lee you could never tell if he was into playing the part or not. He was almost always menacing, but at times it's as though he is making a cameo as Dracula and not playing the evil villain the film was based around.
Both Lee and Lugosi were great in their roles as Vlad, but if I have to pick a favorite, I gotta go with Lugosi. He truly loved the role, and loved the fame it brought him (although, of course, he was often tyopecast as a result, and never quite got back to where he had been, sadly). Besides, he was Hungarian, so he nailed the ethnicity, adding realism to the role. "De cheeldren off de night... vat muusik dey make..."
