Boris Karloff : Boris or Bela?

Boris or Bela?

i am taking a poll, who did you like more, Boris Karloff or Bela Lugosi?

Re: Boris or Bela?

Lugosi

"Listen to them, children of the night. What music they make!" -- Dracula (1931)

Re: Boris or Bela?

Bela Lugosi, for sure. Karloff was a marvelous actor, but he would phone it in when he thought the material was beneath him. Lugosi always gave 100%, no matter what.

Re: Boris or Bela?

Karloff of course, he was a real actor, Lugosi merely a mid-european boulevardier...compare "dracula"(1931) with any of karloff's frankenstein films.."dracula " with Lugosi is a relic, slow, antique, boring film...the spanish version of dracula was much better,Lugosi was a Ham from here to Budapest and back!

Re: Boris or Bela?

I like both. I liked Boris better when I was a kid. I think that's because they had a movie featuring him most friday nights.

Re: Boris or Bela?

I liked both too, particularly together. Preferred Karloff when I was younger as his films were on TV here in the UK from time to time, Lugosi's were rare, mainly with Karloff.

Re: Boris or Bela?

KARLOFF! Definitly Karloff. MUCH better actor. Lugosi went WAY over the top and gave terrible per 16d0 formances in The Raven, Murders in the Rue Morgue, White Zombie, and many, many others. Lugosi was good as Ygor, and he could be okay when he didn't wildly overact, but he couldn't hold a candle to Karloff, who was one of the GREAT movie actors.

Re: Boris or Bela?

I don't think Lugosi overacted; I think the biggest problem was that he was too often paired with actors who underacted--sometimes to the point of coma. Let's face it, furniture outacted David Manners and the majority of the other performers he was forced to work with.

I don't see ANY overacting in "White Zombie"; he is one of the more demure actors in fact. Except for Bela, the zombies, and the older professor, everyone else acts like they are on cocaine.

As was noted earlier, Karloff may or may not be the "better" actor, but he was less professional than Lugosi when it came to performing. You can almost always tell when Boris thought the part was good because he either threw himself into it or he just did his standard Karloff readings and got his paycheck. Lugosi NEVER did that, even when forced to play whatever came along.

Re: Boris or Bela?

Cpetr13, I love you. I agree 100%. I nearly fell off my seat when a previous poster said the Bela overacted. Perhaps the only film where he could even be considered over the top is "The Raven". But come on....how else was he supposed to play Dr. Vollin? He was a pretty crazy guy anyhow.

"Listen to them, children of the night. What music they make!" -- Dracula (1931)

Re: Boris or Bela?

Lugosi was not an overactor, he was an actor whose strength was in playing assertive and passionate men. Now, I've never met anyone whose goal in life was to either dominate the world or kill everyone who ever wronged him, but I imagine they're very assertive and passionate people.

A lot of people think Lugosi was a one-note actor, but in the same vein, most of Karloff's characters tended to be sympathetic or tortured people. When he plays more power-crazed characters, like in The Invisible Ray, they rarely convey the strength that Lugosi would show in similair roles. I'm not putting down either actor, I'm just addressing those who claim Karloff was extremely versatile while Lugosi just played the same role again and again.

Re: Boris or Bela?

Well said, fritzfassbender, very well said.

"Listen to them, children of the night. What music they make!" -- Dracula (1931)

Re: Boris or Bela?

Karloff was the best ! How is it possible that he and Bela,and the two Chaney's don't have honorary Oscar's ? Chaney Sr. was way before his time in creating make-up and devices to distort his body.

Re: Boris or Bela?

The policy is that they don't give honary Oscars to actors no longer living.

And sorry folks, but I'm on their side. There are just so many actors who deserve that after a while it'd just become something else to complain about it. At least keeping it for the living means that that person is there to enjoy it.

Perhaps they could create a seperate category, but that'd be a little morbid, no? You could probably give that only to guys like Karloff and Lugosi.

Re: Boris or Bela?

Lugosi's performances in Murders in the Rue Morgue and White Zombie are excellent. He is over the top in The Raven, but it works and is the best thing about the film.

Re: Boris or Bela?

you gotta love Boris Karloff.

Re: Boris or Bela?

Boris Karloff, YEAH! A natural talent who made acting look so easy.

Re: Boris or Bela?

I love Boris, but Bela was (for me) FAR more memorable and, to be honest, a far better actor. Bela was not offered quality roles for much of his career (due partly, it must be said, to his own ill-advised decisions) but he exudes a magnetism, a sense of presence, that transcends the dodgy scripts and lacklustre casts in almost EVERY film he appeared in. The same cannot be said for Boris, unfortunately, at least for me.

Boris was AMAZING in several key roles during his career, and for that I will always love him. But Bela was THE MAN.

Re: Boris or Bela?

Bela was a better actor, only held back by his thick accent, the inane roles he later accepted, and the often-terrible supporting actors that surrounded him. As others have stated, he had magnetism, and always gave 100%, whereas Karloff, who did have m 2000 any good roles, did not.

Re: Boris or Bela?

Tough to chose. Both Karloff and Lugosi are my fave horror actors.

If I have to chose it would be a tough choice, but Karloff.

Re: Boris or Bela?

Karloff is easily the better actor of the two, even though I love Bela also.

Re: Boris or Bela?

Bela, easily, Many good points mentioned above. Don't forget that in Hungary, Bela wasn't typecasted because of a foreign accent and played roles like Romeo, Hamlet, and many other versatile parts.

Bela Lugosi, easily.

Re: Boris or Bela?


Karloff and Lugosi, two very different kinds of actors. I couldn't imagine Boris playing Bela's role in White Zombie or Bela playing the Monster in Frankenstein they both had seminal roles that help define American Horror films of their generation. Both Karloff and Lugosi ended up doing second rate pictures at the end of their careers and never got enough recognition. But they are truly immortal as long as fans like us continue to watch their films and discuss their lives on boards like this.

Klaatu, barada nicto !

Re: Boris or Bela?

Dear PolanskiFanatic88,
This writer feels Boris Karloff was one of the Greatest Actors that ever lived.
To Better Days,
BRAD

Re: Boris or Bela?

bella, i love boris. but nowadays if someone got the role of dracula they would go more to try to repeat bella's performance. boris's performance is great but no one would think of repeating it. it would be interesting though. but no one can beat bella's hand motions in dracula. he had such a sensuality to 1c84 him, and at the same time such an evil. bella was great. to bad he didn't get other roles like that.

Re: Boris or Bela?

I too like both actors,but my vote goes to Karloff,Lugosi was offered the part of the monster in Frankstein,but turned it down because he wouldn't be recognized under all the makeup( ego problem maybe ) Karloff made the role his signature role.Without speaking a single word he conveyed a full range of emotions,That's a great actor.

Re: Boris or Bela?

It´s unuseful to argue because they were the greatest.

Re: Boris or Bela?

Boris...im still kinda mad he changed his name but i don't even know who bela is.

-J. Pratt

Re: Boris or Bela?

I adore them both equally, but still Boris has a little bit of more of my admiration- Bela´s sad decline led to his unflattering appearances in e.g. Plan 9 from Outer space.
Still- Bela had the better way of silent expressions -the twitching of his brow-, still his english sounded rather awkaward; Boris was mar 111c vellous in his silent rolls, but did the speaking parts with the same brilliance.
Don´t make me choose- these are my favorite actors of all time.

Re: Boris or Bela?

Bela Lugosi was the orginal Dracula and probebly one of the best actors of the 30s/40s

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Boris or Bela?

White on white translucent black capes
Back on the rack
Bela Lugosi's dead
The bats have left the bell tower
The victims have been bled
Red velvet lines the black box
Bela Lugosi's dead
Undead undead undead
The virginal brides file past his tomb
Strewn with time's dead flowers
Bereft in deathly bloom
Alone in a darkened room
The count
Bela Logosi's dead
Undead undead undead

Re: Boris or Bela?

As indeed is Boris Karloff.

They will both remain immortal in my mind, though!

Re: Boris or Bela?

I agree:
• Both great, consummate actors in their separate ways.
• Both immortal. — But isn't it ironic that one has to die to be considered immortal?

Re: Boris or Bela?

I love both equally, and so I can't pick. There, I told you (read with the appropriate child-like sarcasm).

Re: Boris or Bela?

Karloff!

Look at FRANKENSTEIN, BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN, BEDLAM, ISLE OF THE DEAD, THE BODY SNATCHER & TARGETS.

Karloff almost always made you feel sympathy for him and when he didn't (like in THE BLACK CAT) he was still great.

Lugosi frequently overacted or seemed out of it.


Sam Tomaino

Re: Boris or Bela?

Karloff, no question. Power, range, emotional intensity - streets ahead of Lugosi, who ended hamming it up in some of the worst movies ever made (Glen or Glenda, Plan 9 from Outer Space.) Not that dear old Boris was immune to playing in poor pictures himself, mind you, as the handful of cheap quickies he made in Mexico just before he died testify.

Some 5b4 people have said they can't imagine Lugosi playing the Monster. Well, he did play it, in Frankenstein v The Wolf Man, and he was rubbish. Plus he actually tested for the role of the Monster in Frankenstein, ahead of Karloff. The result? Rubbish again.

Now I confess I can't really imagine Boris donning Lugosi's cape and fangs, but his performances in Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein are way more demanding technically than anything Lugosi ever did. Boris made the Monster real, tragic; Lugosi's Dracula is very good - sinister, sure, but overly theatrical, I reckon.

No, it's William Henry Pratt every time for me. A true English gent, and a truly wonderful actor.

If they move, kill em!

Re: Boris or Bela?


His performances in Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein are way more demanding technically than anything Lugosi ever did.


I realize we're getting into a subjective argument, but people always act like a sympathetic role is the ultimate in acting, but the role of Dracula required tremendous STRENGTH, which is something very difficult to convey. Lugosi was magnetic, it's a remarkable performance.


Lugosi ended hamming it up in some of the worst movies ever made


I don't believe that's a valid point to compare the two. As you said, Karloff also made some clunkers near the end of his career. The difference between them is that Lugosi, no matter what the material, always gave it his all. Karloff was great, but only when he felt like it, he always looks bored in his lesser films.

I specifically site the two films where it's generally agreed that Lugosi upstaged Karloff: The Raven and Son of Frankenstein. Both were films Karloff did not respect, and he blurs into the background, while Lugosi triumphs.


Lugosi did play The Monster in Frankenstein v The Wolf Man, and he was rubbish.


He did not do as good as Karloff, there's no doubt about that, but he was also the victim of re-editing and script changes. We never saw his performance in the context it was intended, which was a blind Ygor with the power of the Monster.


he actually tested for the role of the Monster in Frankenstein, ahead of Karloff. The result? Rubbish again.


That test hasn't been seen by anybody since 1931, we have no idea how good he was. Plus, the make-up and script at that time were completely different.


Check out my Lugosi Tribute on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZ2ObnoXLpY

Re: Boris or Bela?

Some good points, well made, fritz. I confess that my preference for Karloff over Lugosi is partly subjective, but when you look at the cold, hard facts, Boris has to come out on top: his performances as the Monster in Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein will be admired and revered for as long as people watch movies, whereas Lugosi's Dracula fades from the memory a little more with every passing year - not because it was bad, far from it, he was excellent as you say, but because it just doesn't resonate with a contemporary audience, and that's because it doesn't touch our humanity in the way Karloff's does, and all great art does. I reckon.

I'm prepared to give Bela the benefit of the Doubt over Wolfman, and you're correct, Lugosi's screen test for Robert Florey is seemingly lost forever, but contemporay accounts of it indicate that Lugosi - who was in any case unhappy about playing a non-speaking role - simply stomped around looking foolish (apparently the make-up was pretty rubbish too, which obviously didn't help) - I would surmise because he didn't have the technical skill or emotional depth to imbue the character with the qualities Boris gave him. But then of course I could be completely wrong about that.

If they move, kill em!

Re: Boris or Bela?

The problem with a 'Lugosi vs. Karloff' argument is that really all one can do is give their own opinion. The riddle lies in the fact that while Karloff was probably a better actor than Lugosi, Lugosi was a superior screen personality, so it's almost impossible to cite one as being better than the other.


Lugosi's Dracula doesn't resonate with a contemporary audience


Well, I agree with you on that and I don't. Lugosi is still the guy even kids think of when they think of Dracula ("I vant to suck your bloooood.") so I think he will always be remembered as the definitve Dracula, even if the name of the actor might fade over time.

But I think the reason why he may not appeal to a contemporary audience has to do with Dracula being a better role than Frankenstein. Now, hear me out on this one. Dracula has been played successfully by many different actors, because he can be mysterious (Lugosi), animal-like (Christopher Lee), reptillian (Klaus Kinski), romantic, tragic (Frank Langella, Gary Oldman).

The role of the Monster can only be played sympathetic or brutish, it doesn't have that many avenues for an actor. Thus, no actor has ever matched Karloff, thus his identification in the role.

That's not a slur on anyone, but I think that's why Karloff's naturalistic style is more revered today than Lugosi's more grandstanding approach.

Re: Boris or Bela?

Mmmm, I'm finding it increasingly difficult to refute your arguments, fritz! But I'm going to try anyway - some of them, at least!

I don't agree that "Lugosi is the guy even kids think of when they think of Dracula". I certainly don't, although I'm not a kid (I'm 43). Maybe it's because I'm English, and I grew up with Christopher Lee on the TV, but to me Lee is the definitive Count. I have been lucky enough to meet and interview Mr. Lee, and I can tell you that not only is he a gentleman and a fine actor, but he has a genuine regard for, and understanding of, the Dracula character - which is one reason why he quit Hammer while he was still - just about - ahead in 1973. His big lament was that he had never got to play the role the way Stoker wrote it - and never will, now, I fear.

Now I've read Dracula three times or four times (it's a cracking read, if you haven't read it, although I'm sure you have!), and to me the character is neither Lugosi nor Lee actually, but is closer to Lee generally - as an amalgam of his first 3 or 4 Hammer Draculas (Dracula, Dracula Prince of Darkness, Dracula Has Risen From the Grave and Scars of Dracula, if I remember correctly - been a while since I've watched some of them! - the cycle went into heavy decline after that, and Dracula AD72 and The Satanic Rites of Dracula are both very silly, although admittedly good fun.) I do agree wholeheartedly that the role is much, much richer than that of the Monster (who's little more than a cipher, a vehicle for Mary Shelley's cod-philosophising in what is a very dull novel) and bears multiple interpretations. Of which Lee's is the best, in my opinion. You're right too about Karloff's playing of the Monster as being the most iconic, hence his continued renown, but I still think it goes deeper than that.

Thinking back to Lugosi's Igor in Son of Frankenstein, which I haven't seen for a good 20 years, he really was a capable, nay outstanding, actor - in the right part - and he definitely upstages a chubby and decidedly under-par Karloff.

Good to debate such a fascinating subject with you. Guess we'll never agree entirely, but that's as it should be.

Re: Boris or Bela?

Re Christopher Lee, as a Brit aged 38 I have ALWAYS considered Lugosi to be the consummate Dracula. Lee is an acceptable (at best) substitute. The 1958 film is very good, but the sequels leave a lot to be desired. And surely any kid asked to imitate Dracula would offer a Lugosiesque stance and accent?!?!?

Lee has made some fine films, and the 1958 "Dracula" would rate highly were it not for Lugosi's landmark performance, which has yet to be matched.

Despite an earlier poster slating "The Raven", I would say that Lugosi's performance towers over that of the top-billed Karloff and shows exactly what Bela was capable of.

Boris is still fantastic, though!

Re: Boris or Bela?

God what a question!

It's like comparing apples and pears. Both are excellent but sometimes you would prefer one or the other.

Going by the films I have seen Karloff was the more versatile but Lugosi had an amazing screen presence.

If I were to choose between Dracula and Frankenstein then Karloffs performance in the latter film stands as one of the best EVER screen performances.

time flies like an arrow-fruit flies like a banana

Re: Boris or Bela?

I prefer apples to pears!

But in the case of Karloff and Lugosi, I think they were both superb and wouldnt want to choose, I just wish theyd done loads more films together, both are excellent but when together its unrepeatable magic!

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Boris or Bela?

It has to be Boris. The critisism that Karloff only gave a good performance when he thought he had a good part whereas Lugosi always gave a good performance no matter how bad the part doesn't matter to me. Karloff made a few films that I regard to be excellent. There are a good few Lugosi films that I've enjoyed but nothing to compare with Karloff at his best.

Re: Boris or Bela?

Boris.

Wish these two made more movies together!

Re: Boris or Bela?

I love both. I hate to choose. But here goes. Boris.

Re: Boris or Bela?

BELA!!!!!!!

Re: Boris or Bela?

Bela!

Re: Boris or Bela?

Bela, the one and only.
Top