Review Detail

9.5 7 10
dracula_silent.jpg
FanMix January 22, 2017 4599
Overall rating
 
9.3
Audio/Video Quality
 
10.0
Visual Editing
 
8.0
Audio Editing
 
9.0
Narrative
 
8.0
Enjoyment
 
10.0
One can never have too many Silent era productions.
Faneditor Paulisdead has not only rendered Coppola’s 1992 Dracula into a silent movie, but he has distilled the running time to 51‘, shorter than Murnau’s Nosferatu, as well as the 1931 Dracula.
I am going to nitpick away on this, but this is really an outstanding edit which I thoroughly enjoyed.

Video - 1280 X 720 AVC. Holy moly, at 4.5 GB, this is fat. The “look” is appropriate. A bit of jerkiness and undercranking, but not excessive. Silents suffered in later years because they were shown at too high a speed. Thank you for not going overboard with the damage (scratches, streaks). I would classify this as a late teens or early 20s Silent as opposed to a later 20s production. Some of the fadeouts were abrupt.

Clips from the ‘31 version were thoughtful and not intrusive. If there were any from the Mexican version I did not catch them. Nice use of tinting. There might have been more blue for night scenes, but I could appreciate the more subtle use of showing blue during lightning flashes.

Audio - 224 kbps AC3. 2 Channel stereo. I never listen to the Glass score when watching the ‘31, yet it was fine here. The themes and motifs matched the activity on the screen. Other editors who attempt Silents could learn from the choices here. The piano version of same score feels different. I enjoy that, as well. Hard to pick a favorite.

This is usually where I write “No Subs.” Not this time. There are intertitles throughout. The font for larger header cards is ornate, for dialogue, less so. The intertitles are too brief and too small. The brevity might have been compensated for with a larger size. This was commented on while the edit was still in progress.

Narrative - The original clocked in at 2‘ 8“. More than 50% has been cut. There is a real lack of cohesion in the story. I know FE members have seen (own) the ‘92 version. For anyone new to Dracula, this is too choppy, with poor characters. Renfield could have been omitted altogether, more time given to Dracula and the hunters. Bumping the running time to 60-75“ might have fleshed out the tale, too. There were a couple stills inserted, one at 30.54, which were barely seen. This edit is breathless. The pace races and it is hard to take in at times.

Enjoyment - Oh, absolutely! This is extremely well done. Consider that this is also a first time edit. I sincerely hope Paulisdead continues editing and tackles other projects. One might think I’m giving him a hard time, but that is not my intention. The flaws and omissions were small in comparison with the resultant film.

For Dracula fans, for Silent era fans, for folks who like variety in their fanedits, this is an excellent choice.

User Review

Do you recommend this edit?
Yes
Format Watched?
Digital
Report this review Was this review helpful? 1 0

Comments

Already have an account? or Create an account