Book to Film:
Dracula
Dracula is one of the most well known and influential characters in all of literature. In fact, he is so well known he is probably the most recognizable literary ever, arguably more so than say Robin Hood, or Sherlock Holmes. He was the titular character of the original, and some say definitive vampire tale, and without him we wouldn't have any stories of blood sucking creatures of the night, from Buffy the Vampire Slayer to Twilight. He has appeared in hundreds of films, and has been used and interpreted to the point of parody. He has become so buried in countless adaptations and retellings that he has become somewhat a joke. Where the character has fallen the idea has prevailed: one of a ageless undying creature that feeds off the blood of the innocent in the night.
After reading Bram Stoker's Dracula, I watched six adaptations of adaptations of the story. They are F.W. Murnau's 1922 silent classic Nosferatu, the 1931 Dracula starring Bela Lugosi (with added score), Hammer Horrors 1958 Horror of Dracula, both 1979 versions, being a remake of the original Nosferatu directed by Werner Herzog and a new adaptation starring Frank Langela, and finally Francis Ford Coppola's Bram Stokers Dracula from 1992. In this essay I will exam these versions of the story and find the best of different aspects of the book, as well as what each added to the Dracula mythology.
Faithfulness to the Book
The version that most faithfully follows the book is probably the 1992 film Bram Stokers Dracula. Its the only version with pretty much every character intact, doing what they did in the novel. There are a few changes, like the entire opening explaining the vampires origins, and the relationship between Mina and Dracula is completely overblown. Overall though the plot is the most similar to the novel. After that the silent film, the Bella Lugosi version, and Herzog's are sort of accurate, changing mostly characters and endings, aside from the Nosferatu's which change location and add more plague. The Langela and Hammer versions change the book so much it seems like they heard the story second hand, decided to add, take away, and change whatever they wanted, and were given a list of character names that doesn't explain there relationships at all.
The Vampire
There are six actors in these films that all managed to create their own unique takes on the character. Every version has its own thing about it that was either great or added to the characters identity as it went through its many film adaptations. Bela Lugosi's Dracula is probably the most popular. Its the performance that made the character famous outside of literature, but it seems a little stilted today (can't really blame Lugosi, English wasn't his first language). There is still much to admire about him though, he has great moments, like his "children of the night" line that would be used in all adaptations going forward, and he definitely looks the part. The later performance most reminiscent of Bela's is Frank Langela, playing a more sexed up and suckier Lugosi (no pun intended).
The most like the Dracula in the book is probably Mac Schreck's Count Orlock. He earns this spot purely for being nothing but a monster, as he was in the book. If its not him it might be Christopher Lee's portrayal, as in that one, Dracula is seen to be a pure evil, not like the romantic figure he is often shown as. Another thing these two have in common is that they are probably the most frightening. Schreck just looks extremely creepy, being closest to what an actual vampire would look like, save maybe Klaus Kinski. Lee at first doesn't seem like he will be all that scary, he does have a presence and authority about him, but he is also calm and relaxed. Then there is a point where he loses it and his eyes go all blood shot, and you cant help but be slightly terrified. He's the one you least want to piss off. Where the others are scary (or not scary) in a slow, creeping way like a spider, Lee goes vicious like a wolf.
Klaus Kinski is probably the most interesting take on the character. Instead of going the romantic suave route, or the completely evil monster, he plays this weird scary looking outcast, who seems to be genuinely looking for some sort of connection. The problem for him being instead of being a handsome brooding Langela, he's a bat-like, freakish Max Schreck. It's an interesting move, making him be out looking for love and also be the monster. At the sight of blood he acts like a drug addict who can't resist the temptation. He's like the Nosferatu in the silent film, only with slight shades of humanity underneath the pale, alien exterior. As for the actual performance, it usually works, but every now and again he comes off as sometimes hilariously whiney, like his swatting away of Renfield, or his rather pathetic reaction to Mina warding him off with a cross. Along with Schreck he's definitely the most vampire looking Dracula, and the most animal like.
All of these are takes on a character that can be interpreted many different ways, but I feel every variation comes together to form what I imagine should be the definitive count: Gary Oldman in Bram Stokers Dracula. Now this isn't necessarily my favorite performance, or the best, but it is the one that brings all traits of everything that came before it into a single whole. He has the monster like look of Schreck matched with unwanted outcast of society Kinski brought in the scenes at the castle. He has the ferociousness of Lee in his battle scenes at the beginning, he has the suave nature of Lugosi, and the sexuality Langela brought to the roll. He also does bring his own brand of terror to his performance as in scenes where he becomes the Wolfman somehow, or when he's threatening Harker as an old man protecting family pride.
Supporting Characters
There are a few supporting characters of any real consequence: Dr. Van Helsing, Mina Murray, Jonathan Harker, John Seward, Lucy Westenra, and Renfield. In the book there are also the likes of Quincy Morris and Arthur Holmwood, but in most of the films they either don't even appear or are minor inconsequential elements of the story. Jonathan Harker is the first character we meet in the novel and most of the films. He is Mina's fiance and travels to castle Dracula to sell the count housing in London. There isn't necessarily a stand out Harker among the films (except for Dwight Frye who sort of plays him at the beginning, but he will be talked more of), but the best out of these rather unnoticeable performances is probably John Van Eyssen for being very just ok. Dr. Seward is usually a bit more interesting, but not all that much. The best of these is probably Richard E. Grant, playing bumbling, clumsy Richard E. Grant well.
One of the most confusing parts of the movies are keeping Mina and Lucy straight. For some odd reason the writers love to switch there names around. Usually if this hasn't happened then there characters have been combined. The performances that stand out best among them is the two from Bram Stoker's Dracula. Both Winona Ryder and Sadie Frost carve out distinct characters and give reasonably memorable performances. Isabelle Adjani is also pretty good as Lucy (but really Mina) in the Nosferatu remake.
The second most iconic character in the story after Dracula is his arch-nemesis of sorts, Dr. Abraham Van Helsing. There are many different takes on this character throughout the film, from the old and wise Anthony Hopkins in the Coppola film, to the old and senile Walter Ladengast in the Herzog film. Over all of these my favorite though is Peter Cushing in the hammer horror version. He has a presence and performance style thats captivating. There is also the nostalgic factor which might have somewhat played in. If there is a third iconic character it would probably be Renfield, played on different wavelengths of crazy in nearly all the films. The best of these, as mentioned before, is Dwight Frye in the 1931 movie. He is truly unsettling after he's been driven into madness and worship of count Dracula. He probably gives the best performance in that version.
Mood and Imagery
When it comes to mood and imagery, surprisingly, every one of the films has something unique to the table. Firstly, there is Nosferatu, deemed one of the silent eras masterpieces. The image of Max Schreck looking down into the hold of a ship sticks with you, as does all the creepy shadow play. It gives of more of a quiet dread, or it tries to, often not quite due to unintentional humor. Next is the Bela Lugosi version, which is probably the most surprising here. It hold a very atmospheric mood throughout the entire film, and has some very impressive imagery. The massive interiors of the castle and the high level of detail definitely make an impression. The Horror of Dracula also has a unique sort of visual style that can only truly be described as Hammer. The mood in the version isn't as strong or atmospheric, but there are plenty of moments to give little jolts of terror, most all of which delivered by Christopher Lee. Next is the Langela version which is a failure in my mind. It all feels very fake and overly theatrical, and none of it really worked for me. The Herzog film has the most interesting blend of feeling and images. From the scenes of Harker going up the mountain to the rat infested plague scenes there is an erie, otherworldly feeling to the film. A feeling of discovering something cold and evil in the unknown of distant mountains. The plague party scene in the courtyard of the town is a highlight. Finally there is the Coppola version, which is arguably the best when it comes down to these things. It has a very doom-ridden feeling, with impressive visuals, like the battle in the beginning, or the chase through the mountains.
Verdict and Ranking
There is no doubt that Dracula is a classic tale that created the vampire mythos, spawning all sorts of other narratives and ideas. When it comes down to the actual book I don't really think it should be given the classic status. Its legacy much outweighs the original novel, which is pretty much dull to be honest (although I'm sure it downright terrified the more innocent Victorian readers of the times). Its films are almost collectively better than the book, some of which are just nearly great.
The Book: 6/10
The Films:
- Bram Stokers Dracula: 8.5/10
- Nosferatu the Vampyre: 8/10
- Dracula (1931): 8/10
- The Horror of Dracula: 7/10
- Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror: 6/10
- Dracula (1979): 4/10
Supporting Characters
There are a few supporting characters of any real consequence: Dr. Van Helsing, Mina Murray, Jonathan Harker, John Seward, Lucy Westenra, and Renfield. In the book there are also the likes of Quincy Morris and Arthur Holmwood, but in most of the films they either don't even appear or are minor inconsequential elements of the story. Jonathan Harker is the first character we meet in the novel and most of the films. He is Mina's fiance and travels to castle Dracula to sell the count housing in London. There isn't necessarily a stand out Harker among the films (except for Dwight Frye who sort of plays him at the beginning, but he will be talked more of), but the best out of these rather unnoticeable performances is probably John Van Eyssen for being very just ok. Dr. Seward is usually a bit more interesting, but not all that much. The best of these is probably Richard E. Grant, playing bumbling, clumsy Richard E. Grant well.
One of the most confusing parts of the movies are keeping Mina and Lucy straight. For some odd reason the writers love to switch there names around. Usually if this hasn't happened then there characters have been combined. The performances that stand out best among them is the two from Bram Stoker's Dracula. Both Winona Ryder and Sadie Frost carve out distinct characters and give reasonably memorable performances. Isabelle Adjani is also pretty good as Lucy (but really Mina) in the Nosferatu remake.
The second most iconic character in the story after Dracula is his arch-nemesis of sorts, Dr. Abraham Van Helsing. There are many different takes on this character throughout the film, from the old and wise Anthony Hopkins in the Coppola film, to the old and senile Walter Ladengast in the Herzog film. Over all of these my favorite though is Peter Cushing in the hammer horror version. He has a presence and performance style thats captivating. There is also the nostalgic factor which might have somewhat played in. If there is a third iconic character it would probably be Renfield, played on different wavelengths of crazy in nearly all the films. The best of these, as mentioned before, is Dwight Frye in the 1931 movie. He is truly unsettling after he's been driven into madness and worship of count Dracula. He probably gives the best performance in that version.
Mood and Imagery
When it comes to mood and imagery, surprisingly, every one of the films has something unique to the table. Firstly, there is Nosferatu, deemed one of the silent eras masterpieces. The image of Max Schreck looking down into the hold of a ship sticks with you, as does all the creepy shadow play. It gives of more of a quiet dread, or it tries to, often not quite due to unintentional humor. Next is the Bela Lugosi version, which is probably the most surprising here. It hold a very atmospheric mood throughout the entire film, and has some very impressive imagery. The massive interiors of the castle and the high level of detail definitely make an impression. The Horror of Dracula also has a unique sort of visual style that can only truly be described as Hammer. The mood in the version isn't as strong or atmospheric, but there are plenty of moments to give little jolts of terror, most all of which delivered by Christopher Lee. Next is the Langela version which is a failure in my mind. It all feels very fake and overly theatrical, and none of it really worked for me. The Herzog film has the most interesting blend of feeling and images. From the scenes of Harker going up the mountain to the rat infested plague scenes there is an erie, otherworldly feeling to the film. A feeling of discovering something cold and evil in the unknown of distant mountains. The plague party scene in the courtyard of the town is a highlight. Finally there is the Coppola version, which is arguably the best when it comes down to these things. It has a very doom-ridden feeling, with impressive visuals, like the battle in the beginning, or the chase through the mountains.
Verdict and Ranking
There is no doubt that Dracula is a classic tale that created the vampire mythos, spawning all sorts of other narratives and ideas. When it comes down to the actual book I don't really think it should be given the classic status. Its legacy much outweighs the original novel, which is pretty much dull to be honest (although I'm sure it downright terrified the more innocent Victorian readers of the times). Its films are almost collectively better than the book, some of which are just nearly great.
The Book: 6/10
The Films:
- Bram Stokers Dracula: 8.5/10
- Nosferatu the Vampyre: 8/10
- Dracula (1931): 8/10
- The Horror of Dracula: 7/10
- Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror: 6/10
- Dracula (1979): 4/10
