|
|
Post by politicidal on Jun 10, 2020 15:44:56 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jun 10, 2020 16:01:14 GMT
Another Dracula? Heaven help us.
If they have to do it, they should do a faithful adaptation of the book. Not just “fairly faithful.” In other words:
Mina/Lucy is not Dracula’s lost love. Dracula is an old man with horrible breath and a long mustache who progressively becomes younger. Harker gradually releases he is becoming a prisoner. Dracula’s wives eat a baby, and when the young mother comes looking for her child she’s eaten by wolves (one of the scariest scenes in the book, and not in any of the adaptations, as far as I remember). Dracula crawls down the walls of his castle like a lizard. Dracula is not romantic, or (anti)heroic, in the slightest; he’s an out and out baddy. Mina and Lucy drink Dracula’s blood in a perverse parody of the Christian Eucharist. Dracula attacks Lucy among the graves in Whitby. The climax is an exciting chase back to Transylvania, with Mina gradually becoming a vampire. Lucy had three suitors—Seward, Holmwood, Morris—and Quincey Morris plunges the knife into Dracula and dies.
Now, the Coppola version had many of these things, but it also had that inexplicable and hilarious romance subplot, and Keanu Reeves ruined every scene he was in.
While I’m usually far from an adaptation stickler, it’s remarkable that we’ve never had a faithful cinematic adaptation of the book. The closest is the 1970s BBC miniseries, which is probably the best Dracula adaptation we have, but that wasn’t a movie. And the book is excellent—intelligent, exciting, scary, well-written, and (making the infidelity to source material even more mysterious) cinematic.
So at this point “different” really would mean being faithful to the original book. Hoping that’s what Kusama means—but at this point I can’t get my hopes up.
|
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Jun 10, 2020 16:01:40 GMT
Sounds good. I like the idea of a new faithful approach to the novel. The story and character are so well trodden, but really trying to approach the adaptation faithfully is something that hasn't been attempted all that much. The letters and journals presented as voiceovers in the Coppola version came close but there are some definite liberties taken with the character and the story.
Also this quote from the article bothered me:
"The most well-known adaptation of Bram Stoker's Dracula is the 1992 movie of the same name, directed by Francis Ford Coppola."
Really? It's certainly among them, but you can definitively say that it's better known than the original Todd Browning film? I don’t but that.
Sebastian Stan would not be my choice. For one he may not be old enough, but they'd play around with aging him to be sure. But I also don't know that he has the presence or charisma to pull off the allure that is necessary.
We'll see. I look forward to what Kusama has in store. Don't know about the writers, but I like her recent directorial output.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Jun 10, 2020 17:06:23 GMT
It doesn't take a crystal ball to know that they will make Dracula a misunderstood stranger again or some other subversive element for political reasons.
The basic Dracula story is a sinister foreigner causing trouble in another land--attacking women etc. So a group of men take him out.
This theme just won't work with executives. A scary mean Dracula is rare as it is.
Other than Hammer and some indie productions like Blacula or the Monster Squad or Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein where the protagonists are not your standard white heroes (in the case of The Monster Squad it begins with the text that Van Helsing and company "blew it").
|
|
DarkManX
Junior Member
@shadowrun
Posts: 2,266
Likes: 1,100
|
Post by DarkManX on Jun 10, 2020 18:44:55 GMT
They've tried to be faithful to the book before. Francis Ford Coppola did that (kind of) and there was a was mini-series that also did it.
I'd skip the formalities and just have him meet Frankenstein or the Wolfman.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jun 10, 2020 18:54:15 GMT
They've tried to be faithful to the book before. Francis Ford Coppola did that (kind of) and there was a was mini-series that also did it. I'd skip the formalities and just have him meet Frankenstein or the Wolfman. Well, none of them has really been faithful… Coppola added the ridiculous romance subplot that ruined the character and messed up the plot (and made a few other changes). The 1970s miniseries was obviously not a movie—and, while far more faithful than Coppola, changed character relationships and Dracula’s appearance and excised certain key scenes. Now, as I mentioned, I’m not usually a faithful-to-source absolutist—but in this case doing a faithful adaptation, after so many versions that just used elements, would be the real surprise, and it would work (I think) because the book is so cinematic. |
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Jun 10, 2020 19:27:37 GMT
They've tried to be faithful to the book before. Francis Ford Coppola did that (kind of) and there was a was mini-series that also did it. I'd skip the formalities and just have him meet Frankenstein or the Wolfman. Well, none of them has really been faithful… Coppola added the ridiculous romance subplot that ruined the character and messed up the plot (and made a few other changes). The 1970s miniseries was obviously not a movie—and, while far more faithful than Coppola, changed character relationships and Dracula’s appearance and excised certain key scenes. Now, as I mentioned, I’m not usually a faithful-to-source absolutist—but in this case doing a faithful adaptation, after so many versions that just used elements, would be the real surprise, and it would work (I think) because the book is so cinematic. The book is, and is not, cinematic. There's a lot of adaptating to do, largely because of the 'epistolary' approach the novel takes. The Coppola film presenting many of the documents as voice over does actually sort of get at the structure of the novel, but as you noted, deviates in a lot of ways. As I understood it, the novel was not a very big success, but then Stoker adapted it as a play himself and found it lucrative. So Nosferatu was obviously influential, and the Universal film was a direct adaptation of the play. So ever since then we've mostly gotten versions of the film/play. Anyway... If you look at her quote in the article it inspires some confidence that Kusama has an understanding of the novel and the ways other adaptations haven't really grasped the book. |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jun 10, 2020 19:39:49 GMT
The book is, and is not, cinematic. There's a lot of adaptating to do, largely because of the approach of 'epistolary' approach the novel takes. The Coppola film approach of presenting many of the documents as voice over does actually sort of get at the structure of the novel, but as you noted, deviates in a lot of ways. As I understood it, the novel was not a very big success, but then Stoker adapted it as a play himself and found it lucrative. So Nosferatu was obviously influential, and the Universal film was a direct adaptation of the play. So ever since then we've mostly gotten versions of the film/play. Anyway... If you look at her quote in the article it inspires some confidence that Kusama has an understanding of the novel and the ways other adaptations haven't really grasped the book. Well, let’s say the events in the book are cinematic, rather than the style—and they should be kept. (It’s remarkable that, as far as I remember, no one’s adapted the woman-eaten-by-wolves scene.) I like the Coppola method of presenting that style too. The weird thing about the ’30s Universal version is that it feels like an adaptation of the Deane/Balderston play (Stoker’s earlier play is, if I’m remembering correctly, more a reading than an adaptation) and is usually considered one—but it really isn’t. Some of the dialogue is kept, and both turn Dracula into an English drawing room mystery, but for the most part the movie’s stagey material is original. (The play, by the way, is pretty awful.) Yes, the quotation inspires some confidence. As much as I’m against another version of Dracula just because it’s been done so often, I do hope this one works. |
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Jun 11, 2020 2:03:54 GMT
Oooooohkay? Won't hold my breath.
|
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Jun 11, 2020 14:09:09 GMT
The book is, and is not, cinematic. There's a lot of adaptating to do, largely because of the approach of 'epistolary' approach the novel takes. The Coppola film approach of presenting many of the documents as voice over does actually sort of get at the structure of the novel, but as you noted, deviates in a lot of ways. As I understood it, the novel was not a very big success, but then Stoker adapted it as a play himself and found it lucrative. So Nosferatu was obviously influential, and the Universal film was a direct adaptation of the play. So ever since then we've mostly gotten versions of the film/play. Anyway... If you look at her quote in the article it inspires some confidence that Kusama has an understanding of the novel and the ways other adaptations haven't really grasped the book. Well, let’s say the events in the book are cinematic, rather than the style—and they should be kept. (It’s remarkable that, as far as I remember, no one’s adapted the woman-eaten-by-wolves scene.) I like the Coppola method of presenting that style too. The weird thing about the ’30s Universal version is that it feels like an adaptation of the Deane/Balderston play (Stoker’s earlier play is, if I’m remembering correctly, more a reading than an adaptation) and is usually considered one—but it really isn’t. Some of the dialogue is kept, and both turn Dracula into an English drawing room mystery, but for the most part the movie’s stagey material is original. (The play, by the way, is pretty awful.) Yes, the quotation inspires some confidence. As much as I’m against another version of Dracula just because it’s been done so often, I do hope this one works. Yeah, I think that's a good way of putting it. The events rather than the style of the book are cinematic. But the Coppola film attempts to adapt that aspect, which is kind of cool, and it seems that Kusama might be trying to do something similar, if not exactly the same. One of the thing she said that I think is right on the money is that she notes that we get all of these character perspectives but never Dracula's perspective. So if the voice over approach is taken that's a clear delineation, if not it just suggests that no scene will be filmed from his perspective and/or we will never get scenes with him alone. I think this is an important distinction and a good way of keeping the character sinister, mysterious, and unrelatable, which is something most adaptations fail to achieve, including the Coppola version where there is some attempt to make him slightly sympathetic. That's the whole 'explaining-the-monster' thing that some people take issue with in horror in general. That's interesting about the play/'30s Universal film. I had always heard that the success of the play directly lead to the film, which I suppose is still true, but also that it was a direct adaptation of the play, so the film is really my only understanding of the play. I didn't realize it was considered bad. I also sort of attribute the staginess of the movie to just being such an early 'talkie' and therefore being bound by the inexperience of sound design and also being bound to artificial sets, which I still think are pretty spectacular. Anyway... Yeah I sort of agree that it's been done to death, but what the hell? We were always going to get another adaptation of Dracula every few years, so I might as well see one from Universal and from a director I like who is trying to faithfully adapt the novel, which as you have noted, is a surprisingly different approach. Any idea if that miniseries you mentioned as the most faithful adaptation is available to watch anywhere? |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jun 11, 2020 15:12:28 GMT
Yeah, I think that's a good way of putting it. The events rather than the style of the book are cinematic. But the Coppola film attempts to adapt that aspect, which is kind of cool, and it seems that Kusama might be trying to do something similar, if not exactly the same. One of the thing she said that I think is right on the money is that she notes that we get all of these character perspectives but never Dracula's perspective. So if the voice over approach is taken that's a clear delineation, if not it just suggests that no scene will be filmed from his perspective and/or we will never get scenes with him alone. I think this is an important distinction and a good way of keeping the character sinister, mysterious, and unrelatable, which is something most adaptations fail to achieve, including the Coppola version where there is some attempt to make him slightly sympathetic. That's the whole 'explaining-the-monster' thing that some people take issue with in horror in general. Completely agreed. Yes, the play’s success almost definitely did lead to the film—certainly to Lugosi and Van Sloan’s casting—but Universal originally wanted to adapt the original book. (I’m getting most of my information from David J. Skal’s first-class Hollywood Gothic.) I think Browning was originally chosen as director because he was going to do a huge-scale production of the novel with Lon Chaney as Dracula—and then the Depression hit and Chaney died, and the Laemmles scaled back. That said, yeah, the final script still wasn’t really based on the play. Now, to be fair, both put Dracula in a drawing room (and in a tuxedo), so I suppose in generalities the movie found inspiration from the play—but nearly all the drawing room material (except for Drac and VH’s confrontation) is original. Which is…odd, as the play was such a success and they had the play’s two actors. Maybe because Carl Jr. had originally wanted to adapt book, not play? By the way, I like the movie; I find its admitted slowness and staginess spooky and mysterious, and I think Tod Browning deserves much more credit for it than he usually gets. (Some of the shots—even after the Transylvania sequences—are beautifully composed. I’m particularly thinking of the one where Lugosi wraps Helen Chandler up in his pitch-black cape on a pitch-black lawn.) Agreed that the sets are spectacular; I only wish we’d gotten to see more of them! (I’m not as fond of the simultaneously filmed Spanish version as Skal is, but that version’s director showed more of the sets. On the other hand, Universal did truncate Browning’s version before release… Gah, what a mare’s nest the 1931 Dracula is!) As for the play, I don’t know if other people consider it bad, but I’ve read it (I was, um, actually planning to do my own version once) and thought it was pretty terrible. Most of the dialogue is not only purple but also clunky, the ostensibly comic relief scenes are the least funny parts, and nowadays folks would crack up at what would seem like double entendres. (There’s a scene in it where Van Helsing says things like “Thrust! Thrust! Deeper! Deeper! Harder! Harder!” The stake, of course.) Fair point—agreed. Just checked, the whole thing’s still on YouTube… With Portuguese subtitles and not that great a print, but it’s watchable. Definitely feels like a ’70s British miniseries and has weak special effects, but it’s mostly faithful, mostly well-paced, and has my favorite Van Helsing (Frank Finlay) and one of my favorite Draculas (Louis Jourdan, wisely underplaying it). By the way, thanks for this discussion; it’s a lot of fun!  |
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Jun 16, 2020 14:09:37 GMT
Yeah, I think that's a good way of putting it. The events rather than the style of the book are cinematic. But the Coppola film attempts to adapt that aspect, which is kind of cool, and it seems that Kusama might be trying to do something similar, if not exactly the same. One of the thing she said that I think is right on the money is that she notes that we get all of these character perspectives but never Dracula's perspective. So if the voice over approach is taken that's a clear delineation, if not it just suggests that no scene will be filmed from his perspective and/or we will never get scenes with him alone. I think this is an important distinction and a good way of keeping the character sinister, mysterious, and unrelatable, which is something most adaptations fail to achieve, including the Coppola version where there is some attempt to make him slightly sympathetic. That's the whole 'explaining-the-monster' thing that some people take issue with in horror in general. Completely agreed. Yes, the play’s success almost definitely did lead to the film—certainly to Lugosi and Van Sloan’s casting—but Universal originally wanted to adapt the original book. (I’m getting most of my information from David J. Skal’s first-class Hollywood Gothic.) I think Browning was originally chosen as director because he was going to do a huge-scale production of the novel with Lon Chaney as Dracula—and then the Depression hit and Chaney died, and the Laemmles scaled back. That said, yeah, the final script still wasn’t really based on the play. Now, to be fair, both put Dracula in a drawing room (and in a tuxedo), so I suppose in generalities the movie found inspiration from the play—but nearly all the drawing room material (except for Drac and VH’s confrontation) is original. Which is…odd, as the play was such a success and they had the play’s two actors. Maybe because Carl Jr. had originally wanted to adapt book, not play? By the way, I like the movie; I find its admitted slowness and staginess spooky and mysterious, and I think Tod Browning deserves much more credit for it than he usually gets. (Some of the shots—even after the Transylvania sequences—are beautifully composed. I’m particularly thinking of the one where Lugosi wraps Helen Chandler up in his pitch-black cape on a pitch-black lawn.) Agreed that the sets are spectacular; I only wish we’d gotten to see more of them! (I’m not as fond of the simultaneously filmed Spanish version as Skal is, but that version’s director showed more of the sets. On the other hand, Universal did truncate Browning’s version before release… Gah, what a mare’s nest the 1931 Dracula is!) As for the play, I don’t know if other people consider it bad, but I’ve read it (I was, um, actually planning to do my own version once) and thought it was pretty terrible. Most of the dialogue is not only purple but also clunky, the ostensibly comic relief scenes are the least funny parts, and nowadays folks would crack up at what would seem like double entendres. (There’s a scene in it where Van Helsing says things like “Thrust! Thrust! Deeper! Deeper! Harder! Harder!” The stake, of course.) Fair point—agreed. Just checked, the whole thing’s still on YouTube… With Portuguese subtitles and not that great a print, but it’s watchable. Definitely feels like a ’70s British miniseries and has weak special effects, but it’s mostly faithful, mostly well-paced, and has my favorite Van Helsing (Frank Finlay) and one of my favorite Draculas (Louis Jourdan, wisely underplaying it). By the way, thanks for this discussion; it’s a lot of fun! Thanks to you too. I'm a fairly casual fan compared to you it seems, so thanks for the info and the link to the miniseries. I'll be checking that out soon. I actually heard the interview with Karyn Kusama that the quote came from, and one thing she said that I don't think the article mentioned was that Dracula would not be the romantic hero that other adaptations have made him out to be. The little bit that I've heard from her makes me more hopeful that she's up to the task of getting to an accurate depiction of the novel that we haven't seen before. So, I gotta ask also, what happened with you mounting a production of the play? |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jun 16, 2020 15:03:13 GMT
Heh, I’m not really that big a fan, masterofallgoons…though I did get into the monster stuff as a kid and still remember a fair amount of it. Amen to her for not making the Count a romantic hero. As for the play… This may be a bit embarrassing, but I wasn’t really trying to mount a play-production: I was actually writing my own Dracula script for a high school filmmaking class. In that class I wanted to make real movie-movies, as close as I could get with one camera in the backyard and my friends as actors, rather than short videos, and I tried making movies in tons of genres. Two westerns, one ghost story, one noir-mystery, etc. So I wanted to make a monster movie too, and for a while I really wanted to adapt Dracula as best I could on no budget, and I read the play for background. Ironically, I ended up adapting Frankenstein instead—just for the camera to poop out on me after I’d shot all the footage, goddamnit. Will always regret not filming on a better camera. (My parents gave me one for Christmas that year. ) |
|
|
|
Post by jonesjxd on Aug 4, 2020 10:36:49 GMT
I'm always up for a new Dracula movie, I just really want them to get away from the romance stuff and go back to Dracula's motivation in the novel. He's a relic of the past that is immortal but still terrified of his mortality, he's terrified of human innovation so he moves to London to try to set off a vampire pandemic. He gets found out really quick, chased back to where he came from and slaughtered. There is a great character study in the barebones of that plot that really haven't been explored in any of the movies.
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Aug 4, 2020 13:38:43 GMT
I have my doubts there'll ever be a 'faithful' adaptation of Dracula, any more than there's ever been a 'faithful' adaptation of Frankenstein. Both novels do not lend themselves readily to the type of cinematic treatment Hollywood demands in order to draw audiences, if filmed in a manner that's as close to the source material as all that. We may get a film that is closer to the spirit of the novel than some have been, as we have with Frankenstein, but a truly literalist screen treatment of the work? No way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Morgana on Aug 11, 2020 11:19:19 GMT
Another Dracula? Heaven help us. If they have to do it, they should do a faithful adaptation of the book. Not just “fairly faithful.” In other words: Mina/Lucy is not Dracula’s lost love. Dracula is an old man with horrible breath and a long mustache who progressively becomes younger. Harker gradually releases he is becoming a prisoner. Dracula’s wives eat a baby, and when the young mother comes looking for her child she’s eaten by wolves (one of the scariest scenes in the book, and not in any of the adaptations, as far as I remember). Dracula crawls down the walls of his castle like a lizard. Dracula is not romantic, or (anti)heroic, in the slightest; he’s an out and out baddy. Mina and Lucy drink Dracula’s blood in a perverse parody of the Christian Eucharist. Dracula attacks Lucy among the graves in Whitby. The climax is an exciting chase back to Transylvania, with Mina gradually becoming a vampire. Lucy had three suitors—Seward, Holmwood, Morris—and Quincey Morris plunges the knife into Dracula and dies. Now, the Coppola version had many of these things, but it also had that inexplicable and hilarious romance subplot, and Keanu Reeves ruined every scene he was in. While I’m usually far from an adaptation stickler, it’s remarkable that we’ve never had a faithful cinematic adaptation of the book. The closest is the 1970s BBC miniseries, which is probably the best Dracula adaptation we have, but that wasn’t a movie. And the book is excellent—intelligent, exciting, scary, well-written, and (making the infidelity to source material even more mysterious) cinematic. So at this point “different” really would mean being faithful to the original book. Hoping that’s what Kusama means—but at this point I can’t get my hopes up. I agree with everything you have written, and Keanu was beyond bad in the role. It would be wonderful if they did follow the book more faithfully, rather than a based-on version.
|
|
|
|
Post by Morgana on Aug 11, 2020 11:24:49 GMT
'Faithful yet different'....okay....this means that Dracula will be either black, brown or Asian; 'He' will be genderfluid, and will want to be called 'them'; Van Helsing will be a black,brown, Asian, lesbian, woman
|
|
