The 1931 release of Dracula by Universal Studios was a huge moment in film history, helping usher in a new era of sound cinema while immortalizing Bela Lugosi as the iconic vampire. But did you know that another Dracula was filmed at the same time, using the same sets— only this one was in Spanish? And would you believe that in many ways, it’s a better film?
Transitioning from Silent Films to “Talkies”
Movies were changing, thanks to the introduction of synchronized sound. Silent movies were giving way to the “talkies.” This proved to be challenging for studios. In addition to the cost of purchasing equipment (and people to operate it), directors and actors accustomed to the fluidity of silent film had to adjust to the limitations of microphones, static camera positions, and the logistics of recording sound. Additionally, studios faced the problem of how to distribute these talkies to non-English speaking audiences. Silent films had been easy—just swap in Spanish or German cards in place of the English ones. And to make matters worse, Universal was in financial trouble. They needed a win.
Subtitles and dubbing were still in their infancy, and weren’t working well, so Universal Studios tried a novel approach: they would shoot foreign-language versions of their films using the same sets, but with different cast and crew.
“They were in a lot of trouble, and they had invested a lot of money in Dracula, for the rights to the book and to build those big sets. They were looking for a way to get some of it back.” - TCM host Ben Mankiewicz
Dracula After Dark: Sharing One Set
To maximize efficiency and reduce costs, Universal made the decision to have the English-language Dracula filmed during the day (directed by Tod Browning), while the Spanish-language crew (directed by George Melford, starring Carlos Villarías as the Count) took over the same sets at night. Browning and his team would wrap up their scenes, and then Melford’s team would move in, working until dawn.
Despite having less time and a fraction of the budget, Melford saw an advantage: He could review the dailies from Browning’s shoot and see what they did. Where Browning’s team focused on efficiency and faithfulness to the source material, the Spanish crew sought innovation, attempting to outdo their daytime counterparts.
Visual and Stylistic Differences
One of the main differences between the two films is the camera work. Browning, hampered by the technical demands of early sound recording, kept his camera static and the scenes straightforward. Melford, on the other hand, embraced a more fluid approach. His Dracula has elaborate tracking shots, sweeping movements, and far more daring compositions. They also made use of dramatic lighting and set design in ways that sometimes outshone the original, crafting a film that feels visually richer and more dynamic.
In one key scene—the entrance of Dracula into the castle—the Spanish version employs more dramatic lighting and camera angles, enhancing the otherworldliness of the moment, whereas the English version presents it in a more straightforward, subdued manner. And I won’t spoil the cigarette case scene.
In most cases, whatever Browning did, Melford would do the opposite. If the English-language crew shot right to left, the Spanish crew would shoot left to right. If Browning cut from long shot to close-up, Melford would use a crane and push in.
The pacing of the two films differs as well. The Spanish version is faster, with tighter editing and a more engaging rhythm. Browning’s Dracula can feel slow, almost plodding in comparison, as the film builds its tension gradually. Melford’s version is more energetic, giving it a greater sense of urgency.
Casting is good overall. Pablo Álvarez Rubio’s Renfield is superior to his English counterpart. Villarías is no Lugosi, and he often seems cheesy and over-the-top.
It’s also important to note the differences in wardrobe for the lead actresses. Lupita Tovar was given sometimes-transparent negligees which was considered quite daring for the time, while Helen Chandler was covered in a more Victorian demure style.
“I think the Spanish version is better — wildly better — in almost every way. The big exception is Carlos Villarías as Dracula. He was the only one in the cast who was allowed to go watch the filming on the English-language set, and it seems like he's trying to do an imitation of Lugosi. It comes across as sort of hammy.”
- Javier Servin, a Paramount Studios film archivist
Final Thoughts
Both versions of Dracula are important to understanding the development of “talkies” and the horror genre. While the English version remains the more famous of the two, Melford’s Dracula stands as a bold, inventive take on the same material, showing what can happen when filmmakers take risks.
I’m also struck by the underdog entrepreneurial spirit of it all. Melford didn’t allow a small budget and shorter hours to prevent him from finding his own competitive advantage. We are still talking about his work nearly 100 years later!
Both films performed well at the box office. The Spanish version received more favorable reviews, but Lugosi’s dominated. Dracula and Frankenstein (also released in 1931) saved Universal Studios, immortalized Lugosi and Boris Karloff, and helped build a lasting legacy in horror filmmaking.
Driven by friendly competition, the Spanish-language version is often technically and artistically superior, embodying more creative camera movements and special effects. In the end we get two flawed, but fascinating films. If you are a fan of film or Universal Monsters, this is a delightful hidden gem.
Unfortunately, it seems this version can only be viewed on physical media. It appears as a bonus feature on most Dracula DVDs, Blu-rays, and Universal Monsters box sets.
I recommend watching them back-to-back. If you are local and want me to host a home screening, let me know. Have you already seen it? I’d love to hear from you.
Super interesting to get the scoop on this interesting way to make two movies at once. I wonder if other productions have done something similar? It'd make sense!!