So it's that time of year where we look back and also look forward to the future. Instead of boring you with personal details, let's look at some of the geeky things I indulged in this year.
10. Star Trek The Original Series
I'm now 2/3 of the way through the original series. I'm enjoying the cast of characters immensely, even if some of the episodes just don't hold up. I'm learning that there are about two really bad episodes for every one really fantastic one. It's sort of amazing the series lasted as long as it did. The feature films are also about 50/50 in terms of quality, but the thing about this series is that when it's good it's really really good.
9. Castle of Cagliostro Dub
After years and years of searching, I was finally able to get my hands on a copy of the original Streamline dub on this movie. I did a comparison of the two dubs and found that they weren't as different as I was expecting them to be. It's still great to be able to hear the original movie I fell so deeply in love with all over again. This was also one of the more "professional" things I did for the site, taking the time to watch both in a row and compare them in what I hope is an informative and interesting fashion.
8. Big Bang Theory
After listening to Wil Wheaton talk about his appearances on the show, I decided to check out this series. The first season was completely hysterical, and so far seasons 2 and 3 are also great. My lack of cable service means I haven't seen season 4 yet. I have some occasional issues with the series and how it caters to stereotypes, but the actors and jokes usually make up for it, particularly Jim Parsons/Sheldon. I think the one joke that irked me the most is when Sheldon and Leonard couldn't answer any of the Trivial Pursuit questions Penny asked them. While geeks don't spend much time perusing gossip magazines, they definitely know their popular culture. Had she asked them sports questions, it might have made more sense.
7. Sherlock Holmes
I was actually a little nervous about this movie before I saw it. We're all so used to that older version of Sherlock Holmes that this looked like it was just another attempt to remake an old hero into something "cool." But in the same way that he managed to make us care about as boring a character as Iron Man, Robert Downey Jr. brought a sexiness to Sherlock Holmes where we had never seen it before. I got the blu-ray of this for Christmas and I really need to sit down and watch it again.
6. Alice in Wonderland
People seem so divided on this movie - either you loved it or you hated it. Some seemed to not realize it was a sequel, and others seem to think the story was lacking. I loved it for what it was: a look into a fantastical world and the story of a young girl finding who she truly is.
5. Batman & Robin: Batman Reborn
Grant Morrison successfully made me want to read comics again. I try to keep up with whatever is going on with both Batman and the X-men, even though I hadn't read a comic from either one in years. A lot of what happens in the X-men storylines these days sounds like bad fan fiction to me, but the moment I heard my beloved Dick Grayson was assuming the mantle of the bat, I knew I had to read this. And it was amazing. I really need to pick up that second trade, now that's it's out.
4. Battlestar Galactica (Season 1, Season 2, Season 3, Season 4)
Oh, Battlestar. I'm so very glad I watched this after it was all over and didn't have to wait ages to find out what happened. I don't know if I could have done it. I wasn't crazy about some of the choices they made, but overall it was a fantastic series and I'm glad I gave it a chance.
3. Getting into horror (First post, Werewolves, Hannibal Lector, Hatchet/Gore, the start of my Dracula marathon)
Speaking of giving things a chance, I opened myself up to horror movies and discovered that I wasn't so much of a fraidy cat as I used to be. I'm having as much fun devouring the old classics as I am the more recent slasher films. The older movies appeal more to the side of me that has always loved fantasy. The slasher films are a new experience, one where more often then not you are actually rooting for the villain rather than the heroes. I suppose it allows us to indulge in our dark sides in a more healthy fashion. I'm looking forward to watching more next year.
2. Scott Pilgrim vs the World (movie, books)
I fell in love with this movie hard, and thoroughly enjoyed the books too. It hits right in that perfect spot of nostalgia and fun, and has lots of layers to it. The soundtrack is also fantastic.
1. Bill & Ted Marathon
I don't mean to toot my own horn, but this is one of the geekiest things I've ever done, and I'm really proud of it. I was proud enough to try to follow it up with my Dracula series, and I've already started work on another one. Bill and Ted were a huge part of my youth growing up, and the movies are just so much fun. I really loved getting the chance to check out and hopefully introduce others to some of the lesser known parts of this series. The comic book series is something I especially love, and I'm really happy that it seems to be the post that gets me the most Google hits these days. It makes me think there are others out there who are just as interested in it. Rest assured that if they do end up making the third film, or even a remake (UGH) I will add them to the marathon.
I did a lot of experimenting with the blog this year, and I think in some ways I'm still trying to find my exact niche. I hope you are enjoying reading it, regardless.
It looks like in 2011 I will be attending at least one real convention, quite possibly two. I'm not entirely enthusiastic about any of the movies coming out. In terms of superheroes both Marvel and DC seem to be covering characters I'm not particularly crazy about. X-men: First Class will be out in June, but after the lukewarm Wolverine movie, I just can't get excited about that right now. Of course there is Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 which should be well done. Am I forgetting anything?
Tell me what made you geek out this year and what you're most looking forward to next year!
Showing posts with label Dracula. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dracula. Show all posts
Friday, December 31, 2010
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)
Happy Halloween everyone!
It's time for me to make a confession. At the time this movie was released, I was still very much in LUV with Keanu Reeves. Of course, there was no way my parents were going to let me go see a movie with blood and boobs in it, so I couldn't see it. Do you remember how in the 90s a television pay station was scrambled so that you couldn't watch it? Lots of curious young boys would spend their time squinting at the scrambled Playboy channel, trying to get a glimpse at a naked lady. Well, ladies and gentleman, I did this for the sake of looking at my precious Keanu. There was a good solid month where this movie was playing on pay per view, and I would frequently turn the channel on, listen to the movie since most of the time the sound would come through, and occasionally I might get to see him, slightly squiggly and tinted an improper color, but there. I am fully able to laugh at myself now for this, so by all means, join me.
For the longest time, given the title of the film, I assumed this was a faithful adaptation. Surely they wouldn't put the author's title in the film unless they meant it to be accurate, right? Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, for instance, actually follows the events of the novel rather than the classic movie we're all familiar with. So is this movie the same? Yes and no. It is the most faithful adaptation I've seen to date, but it also changes some things. The trading narration does a good stand in for the journals, and Mina even uses a typewriter while Seward uses his phonograph. Many of the lines of dialogue are taken directly from the book. It's similar enough that I'm going to focus on what's NOT in the book rather than what is.
The movie starts by telling us all about Vlad the Impaler and how he also was known as Dracula. There are moments in the book where Dracula talks to Jonathan about his "ancestors" and how they kept invading forces at bay, so this is semi-accurate. Vlad was the inspiration for Dracula, so including this moment is not entirely far fetched. The story about his wife throwing herself in to the river is more legend than fact, and is definitely not referenced in the book at all. However it's handled well. Because she committed suicide, she cannot go to heaven. Despite Dracula once working for the church, he now turns his back on it and swears he will not make to to heaven either. This is the start of the movie's biggest discrepancy - the idea that Mina is Dracula's lost love reincarnated.
The movie then gets to Renfield in the asylum, telling his master that all the preparations have been made. In this movie, Jonathan is his replacement in the law firm. Renfield is played by Tom Waits, and he plays it wonderfully. He's a little more understated than most of the previous Renfields, but he brings a good amount of madness to it. It seems to be the kind of character than most of these actors have a lot of fun with.
One book item that we get to see for the first time in the movies is the blue flame Jonathan describes seeing on his way to Dracula's castle. Technology has finally caught up to us that we can see it accurately.
After Jonathan arrives in Transylvania, we once again see the scene that originated with Nosferatu, of Dracula seeing Mina's picture. With the opening scene, we know why he's so fixated on her. When Dracula and Jonathan go over the paperwork, he mentions that Dracula is purchasing ten properties, not just Carfax Abbey. In the book Jonathan doesn't figure out that Dracula has purchased multiple properties until much later. Dracula was wise enough in the books to go about getting different lawyers, shipping services, etc. so that no one would be wise to his plot to set up locations all over London. Seeing as how we never hear mention of these other properties again in the movie, I'm not really sure why they bother.
With my eyes no longer tinted under the rosy colors of infatuation, I'm willing to admit that Keanu's performance is downright wooden here, and his attempt at an English accent is pretty atrocious. He's trying so hard, but he just isn't a strong enough actor to do it.
Fast forward to 2:22 in this clip to see the worst of it. I can't help but laugh at him there. The vest really just makes you associate him with Ted even more, doesn't it?
Also, since I'm showing that clip, Dracula doesn't actually shave Jonathan in the book.
The next discrepancy occurs as Jonathan runs into Dracula's brides in the castle. It starts off very accurate, how they appear originally as mist before materializing, but beyond the fact that they're topless just so we can see some boobies, they also do manage to feed on Jonathan, whereas in the book Dracula stops them before the first bride can so much as come in contact with his neck. The line one of the brides cries to Dracula, "You yourself never loved" is taken directly from the book, though there he has no response for her, and here we get another mention of his love for his lost wife. The baby that he gives to the brides is very accurate. Pretty shocking for something written in the 1800s.
The movie feels the need to stress the class divide between Mina and Lucy. In the book Mina never makes any mention of this. Mina is an orphan and does appear to be a school teacher, though once she marries Jonathan she mostly helps him with his work and does none of her own. Lucy on the other hand does seem be more well off, as she attracts the attention of someone as high in regard as Arthur who eventually becomes a lord in the book once his father passes away. While one might think that a lady who received three marriage proposals would have to be a bit of a flirt to get that way, I think it's also possible to assume that men would want to marry her simply for her higher standing. The movie decides it must be the former, however, and she becomes as much of a slut as was allowed for the time period, speaking in incredibly raunchy language and suggesting that she's playing all three of her suitors for fools. It's really quite sad, as the Lucy of the books comes off as far more innocent, and feels terrible for having to tell Quincey and John no when they propose.
In the movie, Dracula seems to almost always transform into either a werewolf or bat-like creature whenever he feeds. This happens on the ship on the way to London, and again when he begins to feed off Lucy. Technically we only hear about these events once they're finished happening in the novel, so I guess it isn't a full out lie as those who have been bitten never talk about it directly. It also ties him more to the creatures at his command, and seems to be the way to explain how he looks so much younger after he feeds.
We see Seward taking a dose of morphine at one point in order to help him deal with the pain of being rejected by Lucy. It's really quite pointless.
In the book, Mina wakes up to see Lucy sleepwalking out the door and follows her outside where she eventually get a glimpse of an old man, who we of course realize is Dracula. In the movie, she finds Lucy having sex with a werewolf version of Dracula who is also feeding on her. He hypnotizes Mina so that she cannot see him and thinks Lucy is alone and explains away Lucy's description of what just happened to her as a nightmare. It's an interesting concept that we'll see revisited later when Mina throws some pages out of her journal - the idea that this movie is the story of what really happened, and that the book isn't accurate because Mina is not a 100% reliable narrator.
So the movie wanders off from the novel again as Mina and a young looking Dracula meet in town and fall in love. She takes absinthe and through the help of "the green fairy" is able to remember some of her past life. Her best friend is slowly dying and the men are trying to save her, but Mina's too busy being unfaithful to her fiancee to pay any attention. It's only when she receives notice from the convent of Jonathan's condition that she realizes she must be faithful to him and she throws out those pages of the diary. She marries Jonathan but of course she doesn't truly forget her "sweet prince."
As Van Helsing discovers exactly what's going on with Lucy and Dracula, he acts as if he's been hunting and trying to discover and defeat Dracula his whole life. There's no evidence of such a thing in the books, and the only thing I can think of is that since Anthony Hopkins also played a priest/bishop in the opening sequence of the film, we're supposed to believe he's descended from that person and his family plays a part in this as well. Most fiction I've seen seems to suggest that the Van Helsing family's grudge with Dracula and vampires starts here rather being a pre-existing condition, but I guess it works alright.
The moment when they kill Lucy in the crypt is mostly accurate, beyond the fact that Lucy spits blood all over Van Helsing. It's more a modern horror flair than an accurate detail. I really love the emotion Cary Elwes brings to the scene as he stakes Lucy through the heart though. It makes it a very powerful moment.
They are now determined to defeat Dracula, and when Mina expresses pity for him here in the movie, we tie it to the fact that she loves him. In the book she also expresses pity for him, but it's related to that fact that just as Lucy was once pure of heart, she assumes Dracula must have been at one time. Van Helsing first mentions here that it must be Quincey's bowie knife that kills Dracula, though no one attempts to explain why. It does look to be made of silver though, and maybe since we've seen Dracula appear as a werewolf that makes some sense.
While the boys go to sanctify Carfax Abbey, Dracula visits Mina. The romance and dramaticism is really cranked up to 11 here as Mina begs to be with him, both before knowing he's a vampire and even insisting upon it once she finds out. It may surprise you to learn that I actually enjoy the hell out of this, even though it's inaccurate. I blame Winona Ryder, who also activates my often dormant romantic side in Reality Bites.
The boys walk in toward the end of this scene, somewhat similar to what happens in the book even though Mina was not a willing participant there. They eventually race Dracula back to his castle, and the only real difference here is that it doesn't take them as long as it does in the book, and that Jonathan and Arthur went by steamship while Seward and Quincey went on horseback. They still catch up to the gypsies as the sun is setting and poor Quincey gets stabbed before dealing the blow to Dracula with his bowie knife. While in the book Jonathan beheads him, here he says that the job is now Mina's to finish. She drags him into the temple from the opening sequence and the romanticism and blood are laid on thick one final time as she releases him from his eternal life.
The movie's biggest sin is that for the longest time I thought this whole storyline was exactly how it was in the novel and I'm sure I'm not alone in that. Had they left "Bram Stoker" off the title they really could have avoided all that. It's also hyper-sexualized, which at places works and at others just feels a little exploitative, but of course your mileage may vary. I love the large amounts of blood all over the movie without there being gore, and the way colors are used, like when Mina's dress of green makes her stand out from all the others dressed in grays on the London streets. As I said, I really, really enjoy the addition of the romance, though I could understand where a purist may not care for it as much. It's also possible that, given the number of times I watched(well, listened) to this movie I may have more nostalgic and sentimental attachment to it than most. Regardless, it's my favorite adaptation of Dracula.
Saying that, I may as well put the ones I've reviewed in order from best to worst:
1. Bram Stoker's Dracula
2. Nosferatu
3. Dracula
(1931, English)
4. Horror of Dracula
5. Dracula (1931, Spanish)
6. Nosferatu the Vampyre
7. Count Dracula
If you're a fan of vampires, I recommend at least checking out the top 5 if you haven't seen any of them yet. Also realize that the novel is no longer under copyright. You should be able to download it for free to any e-reader, you can get it delivered via email from Daily Lit, or you should be able to even find a few web pages that will allow you to read it online. Of course it's also available as a good old fashioned book if you don't mind spending a couple bucks.
It's time for me to make a confession. At the time this movie was released, I was still very much in LUV with Keanu Reeves. Of course, there was no way my parents were going to let me go see a movie with blood and boobs in it, so I couldn't see it. Do you remember how in the 90s a television pay station was scrambled so that you couldn't watch it? Lots of curious young boys would spend their time squinting at the scrambled Playboy channel, trying to get a glimpse at a naked lady. Well, ladies and gentleman, I did this for the sake of looking at my precious Keanu. There was a good solid month where this movie was playing on pay per view, and I would frequently turn the channel on, listen to the movie since most of the time the sound would come through, and occasionally I might get to see him, slightly squiggly and tinted an improper color, but there. I am fully able to laugh at myself now for this, so by all means, join me.
For the longest time, given the title of the film, I assumed this was a faithful adaptation. Surely they wouldn't put the author's title in the film unless they meant it to be accurate, right? Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, for instance, actually follows the events of the novel rather than the classic movie we're all familiar with. So is this movie the same? Yes and no. It is the most faithful adaptation I've seen to date, but it also changes some things. The trading narration does a good stand in for the journals, and Mina even uses a typewriter while Seward uses his phonograph. Many of the lines of dialogue are taken directly from the book. It's similar enough that I'm going to focus on what's NOT in the book rather than what is.
The movie starts by telling us all about Vlad the Impaler and how he also was known as Dracula. There are moments in the book where Dracula talks to Jonathan about his "ancestors" and how they kept invading forces at bay, so this is semi-accurate. Vlad was the inspiration for Dracula, so including this moment is not entirely far fetched. The story about his wife throwing herself in to the river is more legend than fact, and is definitely not referenced in the book at all. However it's handled well. Because she committed suicide, she cannot go to heaven. Despite Dracula once working for the church, he now turns his back on it and swears he will not make to to heaven either. This is the start of the movie's biggest discrepancy - the idea that Mina is Dracula's lost love reincarnated.
The movie then gets to Renfield in the asylum, telling his master that all the preparations have been made. In this movie, Jonathan is his replacement in the law firm. Renfield is played by Tom Waits, and he plays it wonderfully. He's a little more understated than most of the previous Renfields, but he brings a good amount of madness to it. It seems to be the kind of character than most of these actors have a lot of fun with.
One book item that we get to see for the first time in the movies is the blue flame Jonathan describes seeing on his way to Dracula's castle. Technology has finally caught up to us that we can see it accurately.
After Jonathan arrives in Transylvania, we once again see the scene that originated with Nosferatu, of Dracula seeing Mina's picture. With the opening scene, we know why he's so fixated on her. When Dracula and Jonathan go over the paperwork, he mentions that Dracula is purchasing ten properties, not just Carfax Abbey. In the book Jonathan doesn't figure out that Dracula has purchased multiple properties until much later. Dracula was wise enough in the books to go about getting different lawyers, shipping services, etc. so that no one would be wise to his plot to set up locations all over London. Seeing as how we never hear mention of these other properties again in the movie, I'm not really sure why they bother.
With my eyes no longer tinted under the rosy colors of infatuation, I'm willing to admit that Keanu's performance is downright wooden here, and his attempt at an English accent is pretty atrocious. He's trying so hard, but he just isn't a strong enough actor to do it.
Fast forward to 2:22 in this clip to see the worst of it. I can't help but laugh at him there. The vest really just makes you associate him with Ted even more, doesn't it?
Also, since I'm showing that clip, Dracula doesn't actually shave Jonathan in the book.
The next discrepancy occurs as Jonathan runs into Dracula's brides in the castle. It starts off very accurate, how they appear originally as mist before materializing, but beyond the fact that they're topless just so we can see some boobies, they also do manage to feed on Jonathan, whereas in the book Dracula stops them before the first bride can so much as come in contact with his neck. The line one of the brides cries to Dracula, "You yourself never loved" is taken directly from the book, though there he has no response for her, and here we get another mention of his love for his lost wife. The baby that he gives to the brides is very accurate. Pretty shocking for something written in the 1800s.
The movie feels the need to stress the class divide between Mina and Lucy. In the book Mina never makes any mention of this. Mina is an orphan and does appear to be a school teacher, though once she marries Jonathan she mostly helps him with his work and does none of her own. Lucy on the other hand does seem be more well off, as she attracts the attention of someone as high in regard as Arthur who eventually becomes a lord in the book once his father passes away. While one might think that a lady who received three marriage proposals would have to be a bit of a flirt to get that way, I think it's also possible to assume that men would want to marry her simply for her higher standing. The movie decides it must be the former, however, and she becomes as much of a slut as was allowed for the time period, speaking in incredibly raunchy language and suggesting that she's playing all three of her suitors for fools. It's really quite sad, as the Lucy of the books comes off as far more innocent, and feels terrible for having to tell Quincey and John no when they propose.
In the movie, Dracula seems to almost always transform into either a werewolf or bat-like creature whenever he feeds. This happens on the ship on the way to London, and again when he begins to feed off Lucy. Technically we only hear about these events once they're finished happening in the novel, so I guess it isn't a full out lie as those who have been bitten never talk about it directly. It also ties him more to the creatures at his command, and seems to be the way to explain how he looks so much younger after he feeds.
We see Seward taking a dose of morphine at one point in order to help him deal with the pain of being rejected by Lucy. It's really quite pointless.
In the book, Mina wakes up to see Lucy sleepwalking out the door and follows her outside where she eventually get a glimpse of an old man, who we of course realize is Dracula. In the movie, she finds Lucy having sex with a werewolf version of Dracula who is also feeding on her. He hypnotizes Mina so that she cannot see him and thinks Lucy is alone and explains away Lucy's description of what just happened to her as a nightmare. It's an interesting concept that we'll see revisited later when Mina throws some pages out of her journal - the idea that this movie is the story of what really happened, and that the book isn't accurate because Mina is not a 100% reliable narrator.
So the movie wanders off from the novel again as Mina and a young looking Dracula meet in town and fall in love. She takes absinthe and through the help of "the green fairy" is able to remember some of her past life. Her best friend is slowly dying and the men are trying to save her, but Mina's too busy being unfaithful to her fiancee to pay any attention. It's only when she receives notice from the convent of Jonathan's condition that she realizes she must be faithful to him and she throws out those pages of the diary. She marries Jonathan but of course she doesn't truly forget her "sweet prince."
As Van Helsing discovers exactly what's going on with Lucy and Dracula, he acts as if he's been hunting and trying to discover and defeat Dracula his whole life. There's no evidence of such a thing in the books, and the only thing I can think of is that since Anthony Hopkins also played a priest/bishop in the opening sequence of the film, we're supposed to believe he's descended from that person and his family plays a part in this as well. Most fiction I've seen seems to suggest that the Van Helsing family's grudge with Dracula and vampires starts here rather being a pre-existing condition, but I guess it works alright.
The moment when they kill Lucy in the crypt is mostly accurate, beyond the fact that Lucy spits blood all over Van Helsing. It's more a modern horror flair than an accurate detail. I really love the emotion Cary Elwes brings to the scene as he stakes Lucy through the heart though. It makes it a very powerful moment.
They are now determined to defeat Dracula, and when Mina expresses pity for him here in the movie, we tie it to the fact that she loves him. In the book she also expresses pity for him, but it's related to that fact that just as Lucy was once pure of heart, she assumes Dracula must have been at one time. Van Helsing first mentions here that it must be Quincey's bowie knife that kills Dracula, though no one attempts to explain why. It does look to be made of silver though, and maybe since we've seen Dracula appear as a werewolf that makes some sense.
While the boys go to sanctify Carfax Abbey, Dracula visits Mina. The romance and dramaticism is really cranked up to 11 here as Mina begs to be with him, both before knowing he's a vampire and even insisting upon it once she finds out. It may surprise you to learn that I actually enjoy the hell out of this, even though it's inaccurate. I blame Winona Ryder, who also activates my often dormant romantic side in Reality Bites.
The boys walk in toward the end of this scene, somewhat similar to what happens in the book even though Mina was not a willing participant there. They eventually race Dracula back to his castle, and the only real difference here is that it doesn't take them as long as it does in the book, and that Jonathan and Arthur went by steamship while Seward and Quincey went on horseback. They still catch up to the gypsies as the sun is setting and poor Quincey gets stabbed before dealing the blow to Dracula with his bowie knife. While in the book Jonathan beheads him, here he says that the job is now Mina's to finish. She drags him into the temple from the opening sequence and the romanticism and blood are laid on thick one final time as she releases him from his eternal life.
The movie's biggest sin is that for the longest time I thought this whole storyline was exactly how it was in the novel and I'm sure I'm not alone in that. Had they left "Bram Stoker" off the title they really could have avoided all that. It's also hyper-sexualized, which at places works and at others just feels a little exploitative, but of course your mileage may vary. I love the large amounts of blood all over the movie without there being gore, and the way colors are used, like when Mina's dress of green makes her stand out from all the others dressed in grays on the London streets. As I said, I really, really enjoy the addition of the romance, though I could understand where a purist may not care for it as much. It's also possible that, given the number of times I watched(well, listened) to this movie I may have more nostalgic and sentimental attachment to it than most. Regardless, it's my favorite adaptation of Dracula.
Saying that, I may as well put the ones I've reviewed in order from best to worst:
1. Bram Stoker's Dracula
2. Nosferatu
3. Dracula
(1931, English)4. Horror of Dracula
5. Dracula
(1931, Spanish)6. Nosferatu the Vampyre
7. Count Dracula
If you're a fan of vampires, I recommend at least checking out the top 5 if you haven't seen any of them yet. Also realize that the novel is no longer under copyright. You should be able to download it for free to any e-reader, you can get it delivered via email from Daily Lit, or you should be able to even find a few web pages that will allow you to read it online. Of course it's also available as a good old fashioned book if you don't mind spending a couple bucks.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Nosferatu (1922) and Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979)
Now I get to jump back and talk about one of the very first ever adaptations of Dracula on film, Nosferatu. Since the novel was still copyrighted at the time of the film's creation, a lot of the names and some of the events in the movie were purposefully changed to try to differentiate it from Dracula. Florence Stoker, Bram's wife, still found the result to be too close to her husband's novel and sued them successfully. Many copies of the movie were destroyed and distribution banned. Fortunately, some people held on to their copies and the movie still exists today.
Because there is no longer any copyright on the film today either, the version of Nosferatu that you view is going to differ dramatically depending on where you get it from. Also, as a silent film, the soundtrack can vary greatly. In more recent decades, there have been many efforts to put the movie to a modern soundtrack. Nosferatu the First Vampire (available via the link on a disc with Night of the Living Dead and House on Haunted Hill) sets the film to the music of the group Type O Negative, there is a "gothic industrial remix" you can view through Netflix streaming, and also a Del Ray and the Sun Kings electronica version for rental. The one I viewed last night had music by the Silent Orchestra, which seemed to be largely midi orchestral music. All the versions I've seen are also color coded, with blue/purple shading for night scenes and a golden yellow for the day, along with some scenes tinted in red. I'm fairly certain this was not on the original...
All of the names in the film are changed. Here's a guide for you:
Dracula - Count Orlok
Jonathan Harker - Thomas Hutter
Mina - Ellen
Renfield - Knock
Arthur - Harding
Lucy - Annie
Van Helsing - Professor Bulwer
There's also a doctor who leads the asylum and could be considered to be John Seward, but his role is fairly minimal.
The story starts off with an already slightly crazy looking Knock sending Hutter off to Count Orlok's estate. It's amazing to me how nearly every adaptation, even an unauthorized one like this, always does their best to get these opening scenes as accurate as possible. I guess everyone really loves the idea of this poor guy being sent off to accomplish a task and ending up in great danger in the hands of a demon. In this movie we even get a shot of the breakfast being all laid out and ready for Jonathan/Hutter when he wakes up. For a guy with no servants who can't eat normal food, Dracula/Orlok really goes out of his way to feed his guests. I guess the blood of a starving man doesn't taste as good.
One of the interesting things about this movie is that when Hutter cuts himself, Orlok actually reaches out and sucks the blood off his finger. Dracula is warded away by the rosary Jonathan is wearing in the book. Can you imagine actually arriving somewhere, and when you cut your hand your host reaches out and starts sucking on your thumb? Sounds like the time to leave to me! Hutter however is only slightly freaked by this. Another addition to this scene is that Orlok spies a picture of Ellen in a locket Hutter is carrying. This is where this idea of Dracula having a particular interest in Mina all started, as it simply isn't in the book at all. In the book, Dracula chooses her specifically because he knows the men trying to destroy him are attached to her, and because his turning her also provides him a connection with which to spy on them. It's not the romantic love affair that so many of the movies make it out to be.
There are no brides for Count Orlok, poor lonely guy. Instead he feeds on Hutter for a couple days until all the paperwork is ready and he can head to Winsburg, Germany. When Hutter sees that the count is heading to his home town, he fears for Ellen's safety and knows he must leave. He's been locked inside so he rips apart his bed sheets to make a rope and climb down. Jonathan just scaled the walls parkour style in the novel, so Hutter seems like a bit of chicken by comparison.
We see Orlok travel via raft and then boat in a coffin along with about 8 other coffins worth of dirt and rats. Orlok himself is very rat like in appearance, another attempt to distance him from Count Dracula. The sailors on the ship begin to die off one by one, and the captain and first mate blame the plague at first. Over time though they sense that someone else is on the ship, and the first mate goes below to try to do something about it. On the ship is where we see two of the freakiest parts of the whole movie: Orlok rises ramrod straight from his coffin, and in another point we see him appear standing momentarily in a transparent form around the coffins. This latter one is enough to freak the first mate out so that he commits suicide by jumping off the ship. The captain steels his courage and ties himself to the ship's wheel, determined to go down with his ship and bring it and its goods to harbor. The ship does make it to shore, but sadly the captain is dead. This whole sequence is accurate to the novel.
Once the ship has made it to Winsburg, the townspeople decide that the captain has died of the plague and a pandemic spreads through out the town, with many dying and a lot of people afraid to leave their homes. The movie doesn't really spell out whether it is Orlok preying on all these people or if the rats he brought with him really did carry the plague. However, we are told later that the plague stops after he's defeated, so I think it's fairly safe to assume that he's the one doing it.
The villagers however decide that it must be crazy old Knock's fault, who by this time has been institutionalized and is eating flies and spiders. He escapes and the people chase him about the town throwing rocks at him. They eventually chase him out into a field, but instead of attacking him they destroy a scarecrow. I really don't know what that's all about.
Ellen seems to have psychic powers and had been having horrible dreams about things she just knew were happening to her husband. She's also a sleep walker, like Lucy was in the books. She knows there's something horribly wrong with Count Orlok, who has moved into the large abandoned house across from her own home.
Hutter made his way to a convent where he was taken care of by the nuns there, but quickly returns home to try to keep his wife safe. He's been carrying around a handy little book on vampires that he had previously laughed off. Ellen reads the book and finds out that a woman pure of heart can defeat a vampire by distracting him and forcing him to forget about the sunrise while he's feeding off her blood. With Hutter still too ill to stop her, Ellen sets her trap for Orlok and is successful. He disintegrates as he faces the sun (another first and game changer, as in the novel Dracula was perfectly capable of walking around in the daytime, he just couldn't use his powers). Ellen is weak and Hutter goes to Professor Bulwer for help, but it's too late and she pays for saving them with her life.
This movie has a few really interesting scenes that are barely related to the film but are really neat to see. They mention that a werewolf is prowling Transylvania, and then we get to see some really awesome shots of a hyena or jackal type canine roaming the countryside and bothering horses. Professor Bulger also shows his class a venus fly trap catching a fly and a rather mean looking spider preying on insects.
If you've never seen this movie, drop all reservations you have about a silent film being boring and watch it. This is the scariest version of Dracula ever, and probably always will be. To see him rise from the coffin, his shadow against the wall, the long spindly fingers that come to a point, the fangs of his front teeth, the shadow of his hand reaching up Ellen's body and grabbing her heart, the dark penetrating stare.. it's absolutely chilling and beautifully shot. Watch it in the dark to get the full effect.
Nosferatu the Vampyre
In 1979, a remake of the original Nosferatu was made by Werner Herzog. It is intentionally meant to be more like the film than an adaptation of Dracula, though thanks to the rights no longer being restricted, the characters now have their original names. Perhaps the strangest part of that is that Ellen becomes Lucy and Harding's wife becomes Mina.
It is a fairly faithful remake, and there are even many shots that are almost exact duplicates of the original. Obviously there is now dialogue and the film is in full color. I would definitely consider this movie to be an art film. The opening sequence shows the mummies of Guanajuato who are absolutely horrifying to look at. It's explained as being a part of Lucy's dream. There are also long sweeping shots of countryside, and at one point there is a gypsy boy just hanging out in Dracula's castle playing a violin. At one point Lucy ventures about the town viewing all the coffins of people who have died of the plague, and others who are still suffering are having dinner out in a courtyard and invite her to join them. It's one of those kind of movies where no one tells you what's a dream sequence and what's real.
There are some moments that make it a little more like the novel. A lady gives Jonathan a rosary to wear around his neck for protection. The "children of the night" line is paraphrased while Jonathan eats his dinner in front of Dracula. Jonathan writes a journal, rather than a letter, when he is at the castle. Dracula is shown to have no reflection in the mirror, though this time the scene happens with Lucy rather than Jonathan. The host is used to sanctify his coffins.
The host is also used to keep Jonathan in place by forming a circle around him. On one hand this is like the novel as Van Helsing does the same to keep Mina within and the brides of Dracula out at one point. On the other, yeah.. Jonathan is a vampire in this movie. Van Helsing also starts out as a complete skeptic who follows science and isn't interested in what Lucy has to tell him about what's going on. It's only after Dracula has fed on her (and killed her) that he realizes the problem. The sun also makes Dracula pass out in this version, and Van Helsing stakes him. The police arrest Van Helsing, in a sort of tribute to Dracula's Daughter, I guess. Jonathan then asks a maid to sweep up the host crumbs all around his chair, and then rides off toward the horizon on a horse. End of film.
Really, I don't understand the point of this. I'm totally for movies with dark endings if they're done correctly, but when you start off making such a faithful remake and then you go and change this so dramatically... why?
Your own personal tolerance for art films is going to be what makes you decide if you can watch this and enjoy it or not. I enjoyed pretty much everything but the ending.
Shadow of the Vampire
This won't be a full blown review as I haven't had a chance to sit down and watch the film in years, but I can't talk about Nosferatu without mentioning it. The concept of the movie is that the director hired a real life vampire to play Count Orlok, and he keeps feeding upon the actors and crew as they attempt to shoot the film. It is a dark, dry comedy and in my opinion, absolutely hilarious. I also think it's a brilliant idea - Max Shreck is so wonderfully creepy and brings the role to life so well, you almost do have to wonder. The movie features Willam Defoe as Shreck and John Malkovich as director Murnau, and even includes Eddie Izzard and Cary Elwes in smaller roles. Go watch it!
Tomorrow, I will talk about 1992's Bram Stoker's Dracula.
Because there is no longer any copyright on the film today either, the version of Nosferatu that you view is going to differ dramatically depending on where you get it from. Also, as a silent film, the soundtrack can vary greatly. In more recent decades, there have been many efforts to put the movie to a modern soundtrack. Nosferatu the First Vampire (available via the link on a disc with Night of the Living Dead and House on Haunted Hill) sets the film to the music of the group Type O Negative, there is a "gothic industrial remix" you can view through Netflix streaming, and also a Del Ray and the Sun Kings electronica version for rental. The one I viewed last night had music by the Silent Orchestra, which seemed to be largely midi orchestral music. All the versions I've seen are also color coded, with blue/purple shading for night scenes and a golden yellow for the day, along with some scenes tinted in red. I'm fairly certain this was not on the original...
All of the names in the film are changed. Here's a guide for you:
Dracula - Count Orlok
Jonathan Harker - Thomas Hutter
Mina - Ellen
Renfield - Knock
Arthur - Harding
Lucy - Annie
Van Helsing - Professor Bulwer
There's also a doctor who leads the asylum and could be considered to be John Seward, but his role is fairly minimal.
The story starts off with an already slightly crazy looking Knock sending Hutter off to Count Orlok's estate. It's amazing to me how nearly every adaptation, even an unauthorized one like this, always does their best to get these opening scenes as accurate as possible. I guess everyone really loves the idea of this poor guy being sent off to accomplish a task and ending up in great danger in the hands of a demon. In this movie we even get a shot of the breakfast being all laid out and ready for Jonathan/Hutter when he wakes up. For a guy with no servants who can't eat normal food, Dracula/Orlok really goes out of his way to feed his guests. I guess the blood of a starving man doesn't taste as good.
One of the interesting things about this movie is that when Hutter cuts himself, Orlok actually reaches out and sucks the blood off his finger. Dracula is warded away by the rosary Jonathan is wearing in the book. Can you imagine actually arriving somewhere, and when you cut your hand your host reaches out and starts sucking on your thumb? Sounds like the time to leave to me! Hutter however is only slightly freaked by this. Another addition to this scene is that Orlok spies a picture of Ellen in a locket Hutter is carrying. This is where this idea of Dracula having a particular interest in Mina all started, as it simply isn't in the book at all. In the book, Dracula chooses her specifically because he knows the men trying to destroy him are attached to her, and because his turning her also provides him a connection with which to spy on them. It's not the romantic love affair that so many of the movies make it out to be.
There are no brides for Count Orlok, poor lonely guy. Instead he feeds on Hutter for a couple days until all the paperwork is ready and he can head to Winsburg, Germany. When Hutter sees that the count is heading to his home town, he fears for Ellen's safety and knows he must leave. He's been locked inside so he rips apart his bed sheets to make a rope and climb down. Jonathan just scaled the walls parkour style in the novel, so Hutter seems like a bit of chicken by comparison.
We see Orlok travel via raft and then boat in a coffin along with about 8 other coffins worth of dirt and rats. Orlok himself is very rat like in appearance, another attempt to distance him from Count Dracula. The sailors on the ship begin to die off one by one, and the captain and first mate blame the plague at first. Over time though they sense that someone else is on the ship, and the first mate goes below to try to do something about it. On the ship is where we see two of the freakiest parts of the whole movie: Orlok rises ramrod straight from his coffin, and in another point we see him appear standing momentarily in a transparent form around the coffins. This latter one is enough to freak the first mate out so that he commits suicide by jumping off the ship. The captain steels his courage and ties himself to the ship's wheel, determined to go down with his ship and bring it and its goods to harbor. The ship does make it to shore, but sadly the captain is dead. This whole sequence is accurate to the novel.
Once the ship has made it to Winsburg, the townspeople decide that the captain has died of the plague and a pandemic spreads through out the town, with many dying and a lot of people afraid to leave their homes. The movie doesn't really spell out whether it is Orlok preying on all these people or if the rats he brought with him really did carry the plague. However, we are told later that the plague stops after he's defeated, so I think it's fairly safe to assume that he's the one doing it.
The villagers however decide that it must be crazy old Knock's fault, who by this time has been institutionalized and is eating flies and spiders. He escapes and the people chase him about the town throwing rocks at him. They eventually chase him out into a field, but instead of attacking him they destroy a scarecrow. I really don't know what that's all about.
Ellen seems to have psychic powers and had been having horrible dreams about things she just knew were happening to her husband. She's also a sleep walker, like Lucy was in the books. She knows there's something horribly wrong with Count Orlok, who has moved into the large abandoned house across from her own home.
Hutter made his way to a convent where he was taken care of by the nuns there, but quickly returns home to try to keep his wife safe. He's been carrying around a handy little book on vampires that he had previously laughed off. Ellen reads the book and finds out that a woman pure of heart can defeat a vampire by distracting him and forcing him to forget about the sunrise while he's feeding off her blood. With Hutter still too ill to stop her, Ellen sets her trap for Orlok and is successful. He disintegrates as he faces the sun (another first and game changer, as in the novel Dracula was perfectly capable of walking around in the daytime, he just couldn't use his powers). Ellen is weak and Hutter goes to Professor Bulwer for help, but it's too late and she pays for saving them with her life.
This movie has a few really interesting scenes that are barely related to the film but are really neat to see. They mention that a werewolf is prowling Transylvania, and then we get to see some really awesome shots of a hyena or jackal type canine roaming the countryside and bothering horses. Professor Bulger also shows his class a venus fly trap catching a fly and a rather mean looking spider preying on insects.
If you've never seen this movie, drop all reservations you have about a silent film being boring and watch it. This is the scariest version of Dracula ever, and probably always will be. To see him rise from the coffin, his shadow against the wall, the long spindly fingers that come to a point, the fangs of his front teeth, the shadow of his hand reaching up Ellen's body and grabbing her heart, the dark penetrating stare.. it's absolutely chilling and beautifully shot. Watch it in the dark to get the full effect.
Nosferatu the Vampyre
In 1979, a remake of the original Nosferatu was made by Werner Herzog. It is intentionally meant to be more like the film than an adaptation of Dracula, though thanks to the rights no longer being restricted, the characters now have their original names. Perhaps the strangest part of that is that Ellen becomes Lucy and Harding's wife becomes Mina.
It is a fairly faithful remake, and there are even many shots that are almost exact duplicates of the original. Obviously there is now dialogue and the film is in full color. I would definitely consider this movie to be an art film. The opening sequence shows the mummies of Guanajuato who are absolutely horrifying to look at. It's explained as being a part of Lucy's dream. There are also long sweeping shots of countryside, and at one point there is a gypsy boy just hanging out in Dracula's castle playing a violin. At one point Lucy ventures about the town viewing all the coffins of people who have died of the plague, and others who are still suffering are having dinner out in a courtyard and invite her to join them. It's one of those kind of movies where no one tells you what's a dream sequence and what's real.
There are some moments that make it a little more like the novel. A lady gives Jonathan a rosary to wear around his neck for protection. The "children of the night" line is paraphrased while Jonathan eats his dinner in front of Dracula. Jonathan writes a journal, rather than a letter, when he is at the castle. Dracula is shown to have no reflection in the mirror, though this time the scene happens with Lucy rather than Jonathan. The host is used to sanctify his coffins.
The host is also used to keep Jonathan in place by forming a circle around him. On one hand this is like the novel as Van Helsing does the same to keep Mina within and the brides of Dracula out at one point. On the other, yeah.. Jonathan is a vampire in this movie. Van Helsing also starts out as a complete skeptic who follows science and isn't interested in what Lucy has to tell him about what's going on. It's only after Dracula has fed on her (and killed her) that he realizes the problem. The sun also makes Dracula pass out in this version, and Van Helsing stakes him. The police arrest Van Helsing, in a sort of tribute to Dracula's Daughter, I guess. Jonathan then asks a maid to sweep up the host crumbs all around his chair, and then rides off toward the horizon on a horse. End of film.
Really, I don't understand the point of this. I'm totally for movies with dark endings if they're done correctly, but when you start off making such a faithful remake and then you go and change this so dramatically... why?
Your own personal tolerance for art films is going to be what makes you decide if you can watch this and enjoy it or not. I enjoyed pretty much everything but the ending.
Shadow of the Vampire
This won't be a full blown review as I haven't had a chance to sit down and watch the film in years, but I can't talk about Nosferatu without mentioning it. The concept of the movie is that the director hired a real life vampire to play Count Orlok, and he keeps feeding upon the actors and crew as they attempt to shoot the film. It is a dark, dry comedy and in my opinion, absolutely hilarious. I also think it's a brilliant idea - Max Shreck is so wonderfully creepy and brings the role to life so well, you almost do have to wonder. The movie features Willam Defoe as Shreck and John Malkovich as director Murnau, and even includes Eddie Izzard and Cary Elwes in smaller roles. Go watch it!
Tomorrow, I will talk about 1992's Bram Stoker's Dracula.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Horror of Dracula (1958) and Count Dracula (1970)
These days, we all know Christopher Lee as Count Dooku or Saruman, depending on whether you prefer your epics to occur in space or fantasy realms. But once upon a time, his name was known mostly among horror fans for his portrayal of Dracula.
Horror of Dracula
Technically titled just Dracula, the title was modified in the U.S. to prevent confusion between this and the 1931 film. These days of course, we just remake things and don't bother to rename them. Given that this stars a completely different cast, has a different storyline, and is in color I'm not sure how anyone could confuse this with the other, but I guess Universal wanted to protect their property.
The story of this one differs wildly from the book. It starts with narration of Jonathan's journal entry, even on the proper date as it began in the book, May 3rd. Jonathan has arrived at Castle Dracula offering to be a librarian and catalogue the Count's books. He's fully aware of exactly what Dracula is and is actually there to try to kill him. There is only one bride in the castle and she at first presents herself as someone in need of help, but of course she really just wants to drain him. Dracula does stop her from doing so.
Jonathan's fiancee this time around is Lucy. As he's locked in his room (which happens many times in the novel) he writes in his journal. He uses an old pen that requires him to dip in the ink to write. The narration pauses every time he does this. It started to drive me crazy and I was so thankful they only used it for two scenes.
Jonathan kills the bride, who turns old and ugly as he does so. This is something you see a lot in the movies, but was never shown in the books. The decay that should have occurred to the body does seem to catch up to them all at once, which is why we see so many vampires turn to dust, but I don't think that means they would automatically age. About the only way that could happen is if Dracula had turned his bride when she was an old woman, and it was only that feeding upon blood made her look youthful.
Dracula isn't too happy about the death of his bride so he decides to take matters into his own hands. He turns Jonathan into a vampire, then sets about finding Lucy to make her his new bride. Van Helsing, who was Jonathan's friend and apparently in on the whole "let's kill Dracula" plot, comes to the castle looking for him. He stakes Jonathan and then comes back to tell the bad news to Lucy and her brother Arthur (played by Michael Gough, better known these days as Batman's butler Alfred) and sister in law Mina.
I don't really understand why so many of these adaptations fowl up the relationships. I realize that there are similarities between what happens to Lucy and Mina, but wouldn't it make more sense to combine them into one character, rather than having one absorb all the duties and have the other just be a side line character? And why must the other characters be relatives? Is it that hard to just have friends around? The changes all fit within the frame of the story, but why are they necessary? The only thing I can think of is that this is an attempt by the adapters to get around that "everyone loves each other within five minutes of meeting them" oddity that happens in the books.
Van Helsing is played by Peter Cushing here and is just absolutely great. He's definitely the best character in the film. Lucy is ill and it doesn't take Van Helsing long to figure out from the signs why. While pondering over it all we see him record his thoughts into a phonograph, which is what John Seward often does in the novel. He compares being preyed upon by a vampire to drug addiction. Something you know is horrible for you, but you can't resist.
All of Van Helsing's efforts to save Lucy are ruined by a stupid maid, and she dies. In the book, Lucy's mother is alive but has a weak heart. Because they're all so scared of frightening her and giving her a heart attack, they leave her in the dark to what's happening. So one night Lucy's mother hears Lucy complaining about the stink of the garlic all around her and takes it all away and opens up the windows to let in some fresh air. For whatever reason, Lucy's mother has yet to appear in any adaptation I've ever seen, and so instead we usually get these ignorant maids/nurses instead.
Lucy, of course, does become a vampire and starts preying on small children. This is true to the novel, where there are news reports of children going out to play with "the bloofer lady" at night and returning weak with the bite marks on their neck. I wish I knew what "bloofer" meant, but it sounds pretty funny regardless. Van Helsing and Arthur manage to save a child and follow Lucy. Van Helsing wants to use her to follow Dracula, but Arthur refuses so they just stake her instead.
Arthur's refusal indirectly leads to Mina becoming Dracula's next victim. I wonder if this is an attempt to be like in the books, where they leave Mina out and she ends up getting bitten? We see Dracula and Mina together, and the effect is a much more sensual Dracula than the 1930s allowed us to see. Christopher Lee lacks Bela Lugosi's charm, but we see him kiss and caress Mina before biting her which adds much more sexual tension to the scene. Arthur attempts to save Mina by giving her a blood transfusion, mirroring the efforts to save Lucy in the books. Van Helsing tries to give her a cross necklace for her protection, but the cross burns a scar into her hand. This is inspired by the scene in the book where Van Helsing places a host to Mina's forehead and it leaves a scar. All their efforts to save Mina are in vain and she ends up captured by Dracula to bring back to his castle.
By the way, the entire movie seems to be set in Germany. So any ship scenes are completely taken out here. They do film at a real castle though, and the sets for the homes are also really gorgeous and Victorian looking.
Van Helsing and Arthur go talk to an undertaker to try to find out about Dracula's whereabouts. The guy has a very small part but it's absolutely hilarious. Meanwhile, Dracula reaches the castle and starts to bury Mina alive. He literally dumps her in a hole in the ground and starts putting dirt over her. Can she not become a vampire unless she's buried? We don't know because he gets interrupted by Van Helsing and Arthur's arrival. As far as the defeat of Dracula, I think my note describes it best: Van Helsing with the candlestick in the library. Dracula slowly turns to dust in an effect that is creepy if not a bit dated. The scar on Mina's hand disappears, just as the one on her forehead disappeared in the book.
As a movie, I would say this is a good one and the actors make it worth watching. As an adaptation, it's a bit too much of a jumble of facts, most of which I just find unnecessary.
Count Dracula
This film was made in 1970, and while it stars Christopher Lee it is not a Hammer film. It was an attempt to be a more accurate adaptation of the novel. Does it succeed?
The beginning is extremely faithful. There are only tiny details changed, such as no one in the villages hands Jonathan a cross, though they are all afraid for him. There's a mirror in Jonathan's room at the castle, though in the book he says there are no mirrors anywhere and he's forced to use his travel mirror which Dracula ends up breaking. They use many lines of dialogue from the book, and Dracula is an old man here with a mustache and will de-age as the movie goes on and he drinks more blood. The scenes with Jonathan and Dracula at the castle pass almost exactly as they do in the book, just shortened for time.
When Jonathan escapes however, he ends up in Van Helsing's asylum near Carfax Abbey, where Seward is only an assistant. Beyond that detail being all wrong, I also don't understand how a mad man leaves Transylvania and ends up in London almost overnight. Lucy and Mina come to visit Jonathan in the asylum, and Lucy is already sick when they arrive. Dracula calls to Lucy in the middle of the night, and he keeps repeating her name over and over again in a whisper. Like ten times before she even gets out of bed, and ten more as she slowly walks across the room to the window. It is so annoying. Lucy is engaged to Quincey rather than Arthur for some reason.
At the point that Van Helsing started explaining the whole vampire thing to everyone, I kind of started losing interest. The director, Jess Franco, apparently was in love with extreme close ups, because every character gets zoomed in on at a big emotional moment and it's bad. It was also just very dry overall. I ended up looking around on Facebook, which I don't even like doing, and when I reminded myself I was watching a movie, I found Lucy had been decapitated.
Renfield here is a much more understated madman. His origin story is explained that he used to have a daughter and one day she was found completely drained of blood and he had gone mad. He eats flies and spiders and does have a connection to Dracula. Mina asks to see him and at one point he tries to choke her for no good reason. Later, they find him dead. He's just sitting in his corner staring dead ahead, whereas in the novel he's severely beaten and bloodied by Dracula after he stands up to him in an attempt to save Mina's life.
Jonathan and Quincey go to Carfax Abbey alone to try to defeat Dracula. There are taxidermied animals all about the place. I couldn't figure if I was supposed to treat these like live animals that were attempting to attack them via a bad effect, or if it was just supposed to look creepy. Dracula preys on Mina and returns back to his castle, being taken there by gypsies. Jonathan and Quincey managed to intercept them and pry open the lid of Dracula's coffin, but they set him on fire rather than the dual decapitation stabbing. The death effect is similar to Horror of Dracula, where we see a time lapse as he decays more and more before crumbling to dust.
While Christopher Lee does a really great performance in this movie, even better than in Horror of Dracula, I just can't recommend the film. I'm perplexed by its strict adherence to some of the novel and complete deviation at other points. Either you're going to be faithful or not. Beyond that, it's just a very slow moving, very dry film that is poorly shot.
Tomorrow I'll be talking about Nosferatu and Werner Herzog's remake.
Horror of Dracula
Technically titled just Dracula, the title was modified in the U.S. to prevent confusion between this and the 1931 film. These days of course, we just remake things and don't bother to rename them. Given that this stars a completely different cast, has a different storyline, and is in color I'm not sure how anyone could confuse this with the other, but I guess Universal wanted to protect their property.
The story of this one differs wildly from the book. It starts with narration of Jonathan's journal entry, even on the proper date as it began in the book, May 3rd. Jonathan has arrived at Castle Dracula offering to be a librarian and catalogue the Count's books. He's fully aware of exactly what Dracula is and is actually there to try to kill him. There is only one bride in the castle and she at first presents herself as someone in need of help, but of course she really just wants to drain him. Dracula does stop her from doing so.
Jonathan's fiancee this time around is Lucy. As he's locked in his room (which happens many times in the novel) he writes in his journal. He uses an old pen that requires him to dip in the ink to write. The narration pauses every time he does this. It started to drive me crazy and I was so thankful they only used it for two scenes.
Jonathan kills the bride, who turns old and ugly as he does so. This is something you see a lot in the movies, but was never shown in the books. The decay that should have occurred to the body does seem to catch up to them all at once, which is why we see so many vampires turn to dust, but I don't think that means they would automatically age. About the only way that could happen is if Dracula had turned his bride when she was an old woman, and it was only that feeding upon blood made her look youthful.
Dracula isn't too happy about the death of his bride so he decides to take matters into his own hands. He turns Jonathan into a vampire, then sets about finding Lucy to make her his new bride. Van Helsing, who was Jonathan's friend and apparently in on the whole "let's kill Dracula" plot, comes to the castle looking for him. He stakes Jonathan and then comes back to tell the bad news to Lucy and her brother Arthur (played by Michael Gough, better known these days as Batman's butler Alfred) and sister in law Mina.
I don't really understand why so many of these adaptations fowl up the relationships. I realize that there are similarities between what happens to Lucy and Mina, but wouldn't it make more sense to combine them into one character, rather than having one absorb all the duties and have the other just be a side line character? And why must the other characters be relatives? Is it that hard to just have friends around? The changes all fit within the frame of the story, but why are they necessary? The only thing I can think of is that this is an attempt by the adapters to get around that "everyone loves each other within five minutes of meeting them" oddity that happens in the books.
Van Helsing is played by Peter Cushing here and is just absolutely great. He's definitely the best character in the film. Lucy is ill and it doesn't take Van Helsing long to figure out from the signs why. While pondering over it all we see him record his thoughts into a phonograph, which is what John Seward often does in the novel. He compares being preyed upon by a vampire to drug addiction. Something you know is horrible for you, but you can't resist.
All of Van Helsing's efforts to save Lucy are ruined by a stupid maid, and she dies. In the book, Lucy's mother is alive but has a weak heart. Because they're all so scared of frightening her and giving her a heart attack, they leave her in the dark to what's happening. So one night Lucy's mother hears Lucy complaining about the stink of the garlic all around her and takes it all away and opens up the windows to let in some fresh air. For whatever reason, Lucy's mother has yet to appear in any adaptation I've ever seen, and so instead we usually get these ignorant maids/nurses instead.
Lucy, of course, does become a vampire and starts preying on small children. This is true to the novel, where there are news reports of children going out to play with "the bloofer lady" at night and returning weak with the bite marks on their neck. I wish I knew what "bloofer" meant, but it sounds pretty funny regardless. Van Helsing and Arthur manage to save a child and follow Lucy. Van Helsing wants to use her to follow Dracula, but Arthur refuses so they just stake her instead.
Arthur's refusal indirectly leads to Mina becoming Dracula's next victim. I wonder if this is an attempt to be like in the books, where they leave Mina out and she ends up getting bitten? We see Dracula and Mina together, and the effect is a much more sensual Dracula than the 1930s allowed us to see. Christopher Lee lacks Bela Lugosi's charm, but we see him kiss and caress Mina before biting her which adds much more sexual tension to the scene. Arthur attempts to save Mina by giving her a blood transfusion, mirroring the efforts to save Lucy in the books. Van Helsing tries to give her a cross necklace for her protection, but the cross burns a scar into her hand. This is inspired by the scene in the book where Van Helsing places a host to Mina's forehead and it leaves a scar. All their efforts to save Mina are in vain and she ends up captured by Dracula to bring back to his castle.
By the way, the entire movie seems to be set in Germany. So any ship scenes are completely taken out here. They do film at a real castle though, and the sets for the homes are also really gorgeous and Victorian looking.
Van Helsing and Arthur go talk to an undertaker to try to find out about Dracula's whereabouts. The guy has a very small part but it's absolutely hilarious. Meanwhile, Dracula reaches the castle and starts to bury Mina alive. He literally dumps her in a hole in the ground and starts putting dirt over her. Can she not become a vampire unless she's buried? We don't know because he gets interrupted by Van Helsing and Arthur's arrival. As far as the defeat of Dracula, I think my note describes it best: Van Helsing with the candlestick in the library. Dracula slowly turns to dust in an effect that is creepy if not a bit dated. The scar on Mina's hand disappears, just as the one on her forehead disappeared in the book.
As a movie, I would say this is a good one and the actors make it worth watching. As an adaptation, it's a bit too much of a jumble of facts, most of which I just find unnecessary.
Count Dracula
This film was made in 1970, and while it stars Christopher Lee it is not a Hammer film. It was an attempt to be a more accurate adaptation of the novel. Does it succeed?
The beginning is extremely faithful. There are only tiny details changed, such as no one in the villages hands Jonathan a cross, though they are all afraid for him. There's a mirror in Jonathan's room at the castle, though in the book he says there are no mirrors anywhere and he's forced to use his travel mirror which Dracula ends up breaking. They use many lines of dialogue from the book, and Dracula is an old man here with a mustache and will de-age as the movie goes on and he drinks more blood. The scenes with Jonathan and Dracula at the castle pass almost exactly as they do in the book, just shortened for time.
When Jonathan escapes however, he ends up in Van Helsing's asylum near Carfax Abbey, where Seward is only an assistant. Beyond that detail being all wrong, I also don't understand how a mad man leaves Transylvania and ends up in London almost overnight. Lucy and Mina come to visit Jonathan in the asylum, and Lucy is already sick when they arrive. Dracula calls to Lucy in the middle of the night, and he keeps repeating her name over and over again in a whisper. Like ten times before she even gets out of bed, and ten more as she slowly walks across the room to the window. It is so annoying. Lucy is engaged to Quincey rather than Arthur for some reason.
At the point that Van Helsing started explaining the whole vampire thing to everyone, I kind of started losing interest. The director, Jess Franco, apparently was in love with extreme close ups, because every character gets zoomed in on at a big emotional moment and it's bad. It was also just very dry overall. I ended up looking around on Facebook, which I don't even like doing, and when I reminded myself I was watching a movie, I found Lucy had been decapitated.
Renfield here is a much more understated madman. His origin story is explained that he used to have a daughter and one day she was found completely drained of blood and he had gone mad. He eats flies and spiders and does have a connection to Dracula. Mina asks to see him and at one point he tries to choke her for no good reason. Later, they find him dead. He's just sitting in his corner staring dead ahead, whereas in the novel he's severely beaten and bloodied by Dracula after he stands up to him in an attempt to save Mina's life.
Jonathan and Quincey go to Carfax Abbey alone to try to defeat Dracula. There are taxidermied animals all about the place. I couldn't figure if I was supposed to treat these like live animals that were attempting to attack them via a bad effect, or if it was just supposed to look creepy. Dracula preys on Mina and returns back to his castle, being taken there by gypsies. Jonathan and Quincey managed to intercept them and pry open the lid of Dracula's coffin, but they set him on fire rather than the dual decapitation stabbing. The death effect is similar to Horror of Dracula, where we see a time lapse as he decays more and more before crumbling to dust.
While Christopher Lee does a really great performance in this movie, even better than in Horror of Dracula, I just can't recommend the film. I'm perplexed by its strict adherence to some of the novel and complete deviation at other points. Either you're going to be faithful or not. Beyond that, it's just a very slow moving, very dry film that is poorly shot.
Tomorrow I'll be talking about Nosferatu and Werner Herzog's remake.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Dracula (1931), the Spanish version, and Dracula's Daughter
There's a pretty good chance that when someone says the word "Dracula" you get an image in your head of Bela Lugosi, whether you've seen the original film or not. There's good reason for that. His performance in the film is simply amazing. If you're not used to watching older films, the lack of a soundtrack and the slow pacing may be frustrating for you, but if you can put that aside it's a great film and a classic for a reason. If you've never watched it, you really need to do so.
Bela is everything Dracula should be: warm, inviting, and charming. You want to follow him anywhere, even though he sometimes gives you the willies. Bela's accent and inflection really loan themselves to the character and just feel right. Dwight Frye as Renfield is also a must see. He plays madness excellently and really draws you in and keeps you entertained. He would have made a great Joker. Their performances alone really make the film great. But how does it stack up as an adaptation of the novel?
From the very opening scene, we have a change. It's not Jonathan Harker on his way to see Dracula, it's Renfield. I found it interesting in the novel to discover that there is actually zero explanation within it of how Renfield and Dracula ever met. There are no details at all of who Renfield was before he came to the asylum. It's a detail that Bram Stoker is really remiss in not mentioning and most of the movies which contain Renfield do their best to come up with an explanation. Since he's replacing Jonathan, it's fairly safe to assume he is a lawyer here. Personally I'm ok with this change, as it does a good job of explaining how Renfield became a lunatic. The only issue is that it really doesn't make Jonathan out to be as much of a hero. He becomes just your cookie-cutter hero out to save his lady.
The scenes with Renfield and Dracula are actually pretty accurate beyond the character change. The main difference being that what happens in a few days in the novel gets squeezed into one night. The line Dracula says after hearing the wolves howling, "Listen to them. Children of the night. What music they make." is actually pulled straight from the novel. Bela's inflection really makes it all the more chilling.
Once we arrive in London, the film takes quite a few more liberties. Relationships have changed as now Mina is Seward's daughter. Arthur and Quincey Morris are no where to be found, and Lucy's role is cut very short. She does die and come back as a vampire, but it's only described quickly by a minor character via a newspaper article and then Van Helsing promises Mina they will save Lucy's soul. What happens to Mina in the movie is actually a bit closer to what happens to Lucy in the book, with all their efforts to attempt to save her from Dracula. We also see wolfsbane used here to ward off vampires, which is never mentioned in the book. Mostly garlic was used instead.
Dracula is shown to have only brought a few boxes to London, when in the book he actually brought fifty. It was actually a really cunning plan that none of the movies ever seem to follow. He brought so many so that he could scatter them all about the large city, preying on as many people as possible and still having a place to return at sun up.
Pretty much all of the changes made here seem to be related to time constraints and what they could or couldn't show you, whether due to censorship or lack of technology. I think they did a great job of getting the main essence of the story while just leaving out some minor details.
Dracula (1931), Spanish version
When they filmed Dracula, they actually filmed two movies at once. The English version was filmed during the day, and a Spanish language version was filmed at night. It featured an all Spanish speaking cast, though interestingly enough an English speaking director who would guide them via a translator. There are a lot of people who are of the opinion that this version is the better one, so I knew I had to watch it to find out.
The biggest problem I had with this version is that I found Carlos Villarías in his portrayal of Dracula to be laughable at times. Whereas Lugosi's stare is full on menacing, Villarías just looks silly. Lupita Tovar, as Eva (Mina), and Pablo Álvarez Rubio as Renfield, however, are excellent. Another great surprise is Manuel Arbó as Martin, a worker at the asylum. The character is there for comic relief purposes, and whereas in the English version he was just ok, I really loved him in this film.
There are a lot of differences that having two separate directors would automatically provide, such as the way scenes are shot. I'm apparently not enough of a film geek for this to really effect me though. I found them to be largely identical in that respect. Citizen Kane was still ten years away from being made, so I found most of the camera angles to be fairly standard. The main difference that most of us would notice is content.
The large differences in content are those that were probably considered too provocative for American audiences at the time. We get to see the teeth marks on Lucy and Eva's necks, and Eva wears a much more low cut dress. We see the brides actually descend onto Renfield and Eva going to and embracing Dracula one evening.
There are two scenes that I find preferable to the English version, and interestingly they both include Dracula and Van Helsing. The first is the scene where Van Helsing discovers Dracula has no reflection. As Dracula knocks the mirror out of Van Helsing's hands, it's much more dramatic and powerfully done. Later, the two of them are alone and Dracula makes an attempt to overpower Van Helsing. Once again, the scene is much more dramatic and powerful here. Overall though I still think the English version is better.
Dracula's Daughter
When I rented the disc containing the Spanish version, Dracula's Daughter was also included. This is an attempt by Universal to make a direct sequel and it picks up directly where Dracula left off. Two police officers find Van Helsing with two dead bodies - Dracula and Renfield. Van Helsing (who is listed as Von Helsing in the credits) has to attempt to explain that killing Dracula was necessary because he was a vampire. He gets his psychiatrist friend to help him.
At the same time, Dracula's daughter comes to claim her father's body. She burns it in a ritual, hoping to clear herself of the vampiric curse that also strikes her. It doesn't work and she ends up turning to the same psychiatrist for help, thinking that it is perhaps a mental addiction she can conquer.
If you try to apply logic to this movie, your brain is going to hurt. She's supposed to be his actual daughter, yet Van Helsing says at the beginning of the film that Dracula died 500 years ago, and then at the end of the film that his daughter died 100 years ago. So he could impregnate a women even though he was dead, and then he eventually killed his daughter and turned her just because? Really, I have no idea.
While this movie isn't as much of a classic as any of the original monster movies, I think it stands well in its own right. It's also interesting for a movie made in 1936 to see a female vampire who preys on more women than men. I think the weakest part of the film is the relationship between the psychiatrist, Jeffrey, and his secretary, Janet. They proceed to hate each other for most of the film, but when Dracula's daughter kidnaps Janet to get Jeffrey to follow her, suddenly they are in love. I've always hated this device in movies and is why I normally keep a wide berth from most romantic comedies.
Next up, I'll be discussing two films that star the other most well known Dracula - Christopher Lee.
Bela is everything Dracula should be: warm, inviting, and charming. You want to follow him anywhere, even though he sometimes gives you the willies. Bela's accent and inflection really loan themselves to the character and just feel right. Dwight Frye as Renfield is also a must see. He plays madness excellently and really draws you in and keeps you entertained. He would have made a great Joker. Their performances alone really make the film great. But how does it stack up as an adaptation of the novel?
From the very opening scene, we have a change. It's not Jonathan Harker on his way to see Dracula, it's Renfield. I found it interesting in the novel to discover that there is actually zero explanation within it of how Renfield and Dracula ever met. There are no details at all of who Renfield was before he came to the asylum. It's a detail that Bram Stoker is really remiss in not mentioning and most of the movies which contain Renfield do their best to come up with an explanation. Since he's replacing Jonathan, it's fairly safe to assume he is a lawyer here. Personally I'm ok with this change, as it does a good job of explaining how Renfield became a lunatic. The only issue is that it really doesn't make Jonathan out to be as much of a hero. He becomes just your cookie-cutter hero out to save his lady.
The scenes with Renfield and Dracula are actually pretty accurate beyond the character change. The main difference being that what happens in a few days in the novel gets squeezed into one night. The line Dracula says after hearing the wolves howling, "Listen to them. Children of the night. What music they make." is actually pulled straight from the novel. Bela's inflection really makes it all the more chilling.
Once we arrive in London, the film takes quite a few more liberties. Relationships have changed as now Mina is Seward's daughter. Arthur and Quincey Morris are no where to be found, and Lucy's role is cut very short. She does die and come back as a vampire, but it's only described quickly by a minor character via a newspaper article and then Van Helsing promises Mina they will save Lucy's soul. What happens to Mina in the movie is actually a bit closer to what happens to Lucy in the book, with all their efforts to attempt to save her from Dracula. We also see wolfsbane used here to ward off vampires, which is never mentioned in the book. Mostly garlic was used instead.
Dracula is shown to have only brought a few boxes to London, when in the book he actually brought fifty. It was actually a really cunning plan that none of the movies ever seem to follow. He brought so many so that he could scatter them all about the large city, preying on as many people as possible and still having a place to return at sun up.
Pretty much all of the changes made here seem to be related to time constraints and what they could or couldn't show you, whether due to censorship or lack of technology. I think they did a great job of getting the main essence of the story while just leaving out some minor details.
Dracula (1931), Spanish version
When they filmed Dracula, they actually filmed two movies at once. The English version was filmed during the day, and a Spanish language version was filmed at night. It featured an all Spanish speaking cast, though interestingly enough an English speaking director who would guide them via a translator. There are a lot of people who are of the opinion that this version is the better one, so I knew I had to watch it to find out.
The biggest problem I had with this version is that I found Carlos Villarías in his portrayal of Dracula to be laughable at times. Whereas Lugosi's stare is full on menacing, Villarías just looks silly. Lupita Tovar, as Eva (Mina), and Pablo Álvarez Rubio as Renfield, however, are excellent. Another great surprise is Manuel Arbó as Martin, a worker at the asylum. The character is there for comic relief purposes, and whereas in the English version he was just ok, I really loved him in this film.
There are a lot of differences that having two separate directors would automatically provide, such as the way scenes are shot. I'm apparently not enough of a film geek for this to really effect me though. I found them to be largely identical in that respect. Citizen Kane was still ten years away from being made, so I found most of the camera angles to be fairly standard. The main difference that most of us would notice is content.
The large differences in content are those that were probably considered too provocative for American audiences at the time. We get to see the teeth marks on Lucy and Eva's necks, and Eva wears a much more low cut dress. We see the brides actually descend onto Renfield and Eva going to and embracing Dracula one evening.
There are two scenes that I find preferable to the English version, and interestingly they both include Dracula and Van Helsing. The first is the scene where Van Helsing discovers Dracula has no reflection. As Dracula knocks the mirror out of Van Helsing's hands, it's much more dramatic and powerfully done. Later, the two of them are alone and Dracula makes an attempt to overpower Van Helsing. Once again, the scene is much more dramatic and powerful here. Overall though I still think the English version is better.
Dracula's Daughter
When I rented the disc containing the Spanish version, Dracula's Daughter was also included. This is an attempt by Universal to make a direct sequel and it picks up directly where Dracula left off. Two police officers find Van Helsing with two dead bodies - Dracula and Renfield. Van Helsing (who is listed as Von Helsing in the credits) has to attempt to explain that killing Dracula was necessary because he was a vampire. He gets his psychiatrist friend to help him.
At the same time, Dracula's daughter comes to claim her father's body. She burns it in a ritual, hoping to clear herself of the vampiric curse that also strikes her. It doesn't work and she ends up turning to the same psychiatrist for help, thinking that it is perhaps a mental addiction she can conquer.
If you try to apply logic to this movie, your brain is going to hurt. She's supposed to be his actual daughter, yet Van Helsing says at the beginning of the film that Dracula died 500 years ago, and then at the end of the film that his daughter died 100 years ago. So he could impregnate a women even though he was dead, and then he eventually killed his daughter and turned her just because? Really, I have no idea.
While this movie isn't as much of a classic as any of the original monster movies, I think it stands well in its own right. It's also interesting for a movie made in 1936 to see a female vampire who preys on more women than men. I think the weakest part of the film is the relationship between the psychiatrist, Jeffrey, and his secretary, Janet. They proceed to hate each other for most of the film, but when Dracula's daughter kidnaps Janet to get Jeffrey to follow her, suddenly they are in love. I've always hated this device in movies and is why I normally keep a wide berth from most romantic comedies.
Next up, I'll be discussing two films that star the other most well known Dracula - Christopher Lee.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Dracula: the novel
I wish I could tell you exactly why and when my love of vampires began. I'm sure that I must have seen something on television but I can't remember what it was. I just know that I loved the idea of these creatures so much that I immediately wrote into the crackfic Mary Sue fan fiction in my head that I was a special type of vampire that wasn't actually dead yet. So I could still go out in the sun and go inside church, have all the cool powers that vampires have, and drink blood if I felt like it. Before you go judging me, realize that I was about 6 at the time. Also, Ralph Macchio is the one that turned me, but I have absolutely no idea why I chose him as a vampire either. I'm suddenly realizing that this version of vampires is eerily similar to the Twilight vamps. I guess we all know when Stephanie Myer came up with those stories now...
But no, this post isn't about Twilight or about how vampires aren't as badass as they used to be. This post is about the grand-daddy of all vampires, Dracula. Somehow I had managed to go this long without ever actually reading the novel and this was a horrible crime that needed to be corrected. I'm willing to bet that I'm not the only vampire fan who has also committed this sin. I think the greatest problem with this is that because so many of us know Dracula through his various movie appearances, we don't even know what really happens in the original work, at least not completely. So every day from now until Halloween, I will be touching on various movie adaptations of Dracula and how they stack up to the original novel. For today, I'm just going to talk about the book itself.
There will be spoilers here. You've had over 113 years to have a chance to read it, so don't you dare come crying to me about it.
Perhaps the most notable thing about the novel is that it is written entirely in the first person perspective via journal entries, letters, telegrams, and newspaper articles. Pretty much every character in the book, except Dracula himself, takes a turn telling us the events from their own perspective. It is occasionally redundant, but for the most part when an event is revisited, it is to give us a character's unique perspective on it. Quite amazingly, each character has his or her own unique voice. There were occasional moments toward the end of the book where I wasn't sure if it was John Seward or Jonathan Harker talking and I had to go back and look, but for the most part it's very easy to tell who is speaking. You do in fact feel like you are reading journal entries rather than just a narrative. The one part I didn't think this worked so well in were the newspaper articles. Maybe things were different in the 1800s, but when I see "newspaper article," I expect a straight presentation of facts and not the candid experience of the reporter.
The first few journal entries of Jonathan Harker largely focused on the scenery and the food he was eating, and I internally panicked. I became afraid that this was going to be like The Lord of the Rings geography textbook or The Hunchback of Notre Dame's architecture lessons. Fortunately, this faded quickly. I could be wrong, but I think the idea here was simply that these were the simple kind of things a man would write about in his journal on a trip before he gets clues that something may be horribly wrong.
I sense that Bram Stoker was a fan of dialects as some of the commoners they speak to communicate in rather broken English which can be difficult to follow at times. Van Helsing is also not a native English speaker and he frequently gets his verb tense wrong. I found that moderately annoying, but his long winded rants were actually the worst of it. Whenever Van Helsing stumbles upon a conclusion, he spends a good long paragraph using metaphors and logic puzzles that are supposed to help you understand what he's thinking, but in fact generally just confused me more. This isn't Sherlock Holmes where everything he says leads to a point. It's just a maddening jumble of words.
Another slightly odd thing is that all of these characters love each other very quickly. I'm talking about brotherly/fatherly love as much as romantic love. It doesn't take very long at all for nearly every character to tell another that they think the world of them, love them dearly, and would do anything for them. I'm not kidding when I say this happens to every single character. Not only do Arthur, Quincey, and Seward all propose to Lucy, but Mina loves her like a sister and Van Helsing soon loves her as well. Jonathan doesn't simply because he's stuck in Transylvania at the time. Van Helsing decides that Quincey and Arthur remind him of his deceased son and therefore loves them both, and considers Seward his most trusted colleague. He quickly falls for Mina's charm and pledges his life for her and says that Jonathan is one of the most noble men he has ever met. Apparently the Victorian times were a real love fest. I wonder if people wrote slash fiction even then.
I would say that the pacing of the novel feels slow but I'm not entirely sure that's fair. Given that the story of Dracula, at least in part, is entirely known in our collective subconscious by now, my impatience may have just been that I knew pretty much what was going to happen and wished for them to just get on with it. I think it is still somewhat slow though, perhaps because of the way it is written in daily entries. Lucy's death takes weeks with large breaks between the four male characters each giving their blood to try to save her. Van Helsing only leaks little tiny details at a time rather than flat out telling Seward that he's figured out she's a vampire. They go so far as to go to Lucy's grave and stare at her, then decide that they must bring Arthur and Quincey there too to actually kill her. Then he must explain it all to Arthur, etc. etc. The pacing of the whole book goes like this. If you have the patience though, I do think it's an enjoyable read. The first person perspective creates a wonderfully personal account for you as the reader and never feels whiny like the worst first person perspective can (*coughTWILIGHTcough*).
As a female, I found myself particularly struck by Mina's portrayal in the book. I found myself unable to decide if it was progressive for its time or right in line. I figure the easiest way is to provide you with an example.
"Ah, that wonderful Madam Mina! She has man's brain, a brain that a man should have were he much gifted, and a woman's heart. The good God fashioned her for a purpose, believe me, when He made that so good combination. Friend John, up to now fortune has made that woman of help to us, after tonight she must not have to do with this so terrible affair. It is not good that she run a risk so great. We men are determined, nay, are we not pledged, to destroy this monster? But it is no part for a woman. Even if she be not harmed, her heart may fail her in so much and so many horrors and hereafter she may suffer, both in waking, from her nerves, and in sleep, from her dreams. And, besides, she is young woman and not so long married, there may be other things to think of some time, if not now. You tell me she has wrote all, then she must consult with us, but tomorrow she say goodbye to this work, and we go alone." - Van Helsing
She's so smart, she must have a MAN'S brain! And we don't want to upset those women folk, what with their weak constitutions!
"They all agreed that it was best that I should not be drawn further into this awful work, and I acquiesced. But to think that he keeps anything from me! And now I am crying like a silly fool, when I know it comes from my husband's great love and from the good, good wishes of those other strong men." - Mina Harker
If the men say so, I guess it must be right!
On the other hand there's also a lot of talk about how Jonathan and Mina are always very open and honest with each other, to the point that you see that he truly regards her as an equal. Also, the simple fact that they choose to leave her out of everything at this point in the book is how she ends up getting attacked by Dracula. I would hope this is Bram Stoker trying to teach a bit of a moral lesson, but who knows. Regardless, I would say that Mina is, in fact, the strongest character in the book, and I can see easily why Alan Moore chose her to be a leader for The League of Extraordinary Gentleman.
There's a lot of things in the book that you never see in the movies, or that often happen in the movies but are simply not here. However, I'm going to save talking about those differences until I get to the movies themselves. I will, however, share with you how Dracula dies, because personally I spent the whole book waiting anxiously to see how it would happen and I figure some of you would also want to know.
On the path leading to Dracula's castle, the main characters surround a band of gypsies returning Dracula in a sealed box. They overtake the gypsies and then Jonathan and Quincey get the lid off the box.
"As I looked, the eyes saw the sinking sun, and the look of hate in them turned to triumph.
But, on the instant, came the sweep and flash of Jonathan's great knife. I shrieked as I saw it shear through the throat. Whilst at the same moment Mr. Morris's bowie knife plunged into the heart.
It was like a miracle, but before our very eyes, and almost in the drawing of a breath, the whole body crumbled into dust and passed from our sight." - Mina
Pretty interesting that they don't actually use a stake, right?
The epilogue gives everyone a loving happy ending, except for Quincey, who gets to be the one to die. Jonathan and Mina have a child that they name after him though, so that makes it alright. Arthur and Seward end up happily married (to each other?) and Van Helsing is apparently in good enough health seven years later to bounce their little boy on his knee.
In the next entry I will be looking at both 1931 versions of the film Dracula. I have every intention of also covering Nosferatu, but I'm saving it to be paired with another movie later in the chronological order.
But no, this post isn't about Twilight or about how vampires aren't as badass as they used to be. This post is about the grand-daddy of all vampires, Dracula. Somehow I had managed to go this long without ever actually reading the novel and this was a horrible crime that needed to be corrected. I'm willing to bet that I'm not the only vampire fan who has also committed this sin. I think the greatest problem with this is that because so many of us know Dracula through his various movie appearances, we don't even know what really happens in the original work, at least not completely. So every day from now until Halloween, I will be touching on various movie adaptations of Dracula and how they stack up to the original novel. For today, I'm just going to talk about the book itself.
There will be spoilers here. You've had over 113 years to have a chance to read it, so don't you dare come crying to me about it.
Perhaps the most notable thing about the novel is that it is written entirely in the first person perspective via journal entries, letters, telegrams, and newspaper articles. Pretty much every character in the book, except Dracula himself, takes a turn telling us the events from their own perspective. It is occasionally redundant, but for the most part when an event is revisited, it is to give us a character's unique perspective on it. Quite amazingly, each character has his or her own unique voice. There were occasional moments toward the end of the book where I wasn't sure if it was John Seward or Jonathan Harker talking and I had to go back and look, but for the most part it's very easy to tell who is speaking. You do in fact feel like you are reading journal entries rather than just a narrative. The one part I didn't think this worked so well in were the newspaper articles. Maybe things were different in the 1800s, but when I see "newspaper article," I expect a straight presentation of facts and not the candid experience of the reporter.
The first few journal entries of Jonathan Harker largely focused on the scenery and the food he was eating, and I internally panicked. I became afraid that this was going to be like The Lord of the Rings geography textbook or The Hunchback of Notre Dame's architecture lessons. Fortunately, this faded quickly. I could be wrong, but I think the idea here was simply that these were the simple kind of things a man would write about in his journal on a trip before he gets clues that something may be horribly wrong.
I sense that Bram Stoker was a fan of dialects as some of the commoners they speak to communicate in rather broken English which can be difficult to follow at times. Van Helsing is also not a native English speaker and he frequently gets his verb tense wrong. I found that moderately annoying, but his long winded rants were actually the worst of it. Whenever Van Helsing stumbles upon a conclusion, he spends a good long paragraph using metaphors and logic puzzles that are supposed to help you understand what he's thinking, but in fact generally just confused me more. This isn't Sherlock Holmes where everything he says leads to a point. It's just a maddening jumble of words.
Another slightly odd thing is that all of these characters love each other very quickly. I'm talking about brotherly/fatherly love as much as romantic love. It doesn't take very long at all for nearly every character to tell another that they think the world of them, love them dearly, and would do anything for them. I'm not kidding when I say this happens to every single character. Not only do Arthur, Quincey, and Seward all propose to Lucy, but Mina loves her like a sister and Van Helsing soon loves her as well. Jonathan doesn't simply because he's stuck in Transylvania at the time. Van Helsing decides that Quincey and Arthur remind him of his deceased son and therefore loves them both, and considers Seward his most trusted colleague. He quickly falls for Mina's charm and pledges his life for her and says that Jonathan is one of the most noble men he has ever met. Apparently the Victorian times were a real love fest. I wonder if people wrote slash fiction even then.
I would say that the pacing of the novel feels slow but I'm not entirely sure that's fair. Given that the story of Dracula, at least in part, is entirely known in our collective subconscious by now, my impatience may have just been that I knew pretty much what was going to happen and wished for them to just get on with it. I think it is still somewhat slow though, perhaps because of the way it is written in daily entries. Lucy's death takes weeks with large breaks between the four male characters each giving their blood to try to save her. Van Helsing only leaks little tiny details at a time rather than flat out telling Seward that he's figured out she's a vampire. They go so far as to go to Lucy's grave and stare at her, then decide that they must bring Arthur and Quincey there too to actually kill her. Then he must explain it all to Arthur, etc. etc. The pacing of the whole book goes like this. If you have the patience though, I do think it's an enjoyable read. The first person perspective creates a wonderfully personal account for you as the reader and never feels whiny like the worst first person perspective can (*coughTWILIGHTcough*).
As a female, I found myself particularly struck by Mina's portrayal in the book. I found myself unable to decide if it was progressive for its time or right in line. I figure the easiest way is to provide you with an example.
"Ah, that wonderful Madam Mina! She has man's brain, a brain that a man should have were he much gifted, and a woman's heart. The good God fashioned her for a purpose, believe me, when He made that so good combination. Friend John, up to now fortune has made that woman of help to us, after tonight she must not have to do with this so terrible affair. It is not good that she run a risk so great. We men are determined, nay, are we not pledged, to destroy this monster? But it is no part for a woman. Even if she be not harmed, her heart may fail her in so much and so many horrors and hereafter she may suffer, both in waking, from her nerves, and in sleep, from her dreams. And, besides, she is young woman and not so long married, there may be other things to think of some time, if not now. You tell me she has wrote all, then she must consult with us, but tomorrow she say goodbye to this work, and we go alone." - Van Helsing
She's so smart, she must have a MAN'S brain! And we don't want to upset those women folk, what with their weak constitutions!
"They all agreed that it was best that I should not be drawn further into this awful work, and I acquiesced. But to think that he keeps anything from me! And now I am crying like a silly fool, when I know it comes from my husband's great love and from the good, good wishes of those other strong men." - Mina Harker
If the men say so, I guess it must be right!
On the other hand there's also a lot of talk about how Jonathan and Mina are always very open and honest with each other, to the point that you see that he truly regards her as an equal. Also, the simple fact that they choose to leave her out of everything at this point in the book is how she ends up getting attacked by Dracula. I would hope this is Bram Stoker trying to teach a bit of a moral lesson, but who knows. Regardless, I would say that Mina is, in fact, the strongest character in the book, and I can see easily why Alan Moore chose her to be a leader for The League of Extraordinary Gentleman.
There's a lot of things in the book that you never see in the movies, or that often happen in the movies but are simply not here. However, I'm going to save talking about those differences until I get to the movies themselves. I will, however, share with you how Dracula dies, because personally I spent the whole book waiting anxiously to see how it would happen and I figure some of you would also want to know.
On the path leading to Dracula's castle, the main characters surround a band of gypsies returning Dracula in a sealed box. They overtake the gypsies and then Jonathan and Quincey get the lid off the box.
"As I looked, the eyes saw the sinking sun, and the look of hate in them turned to triumph.
But, on the instant, came the sweep and flash of Jonathan's great knife. I shrieked as I saw it shear through the throat. Whilst at the same moment Mr. Morris's bowie knife plunged into the heart.
It was like a miracle, but before our very eyes, and almost in the drawing of a breath, the whole body crumbled into dust and passed from our sight." - Mina
Pretty interesting that they don't actually use a stake, right?
The epilogue gives everyone a loving happy ending, except for Quincey, who gets to be the one to die. Jonathan and Mina have a child that they name after him though, so that makes it alright. Arthur and Seward end up happily married (to each other?) and Van Helsing is apparently in good enough health seven years later to bounce their little boy on his knee.
In the next entry I will be looking at both 1931 versions of the film Dracula. I have every intention of also covering Nosferatu, but I'm saving it to be paired with another movie later in the chronological order.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
