Dracula reboot described as faithful yet different.

Dracula reboot described as faithful yet different. Jun 10, 2020 19:39:49 GMT masterofallgoons likes this

Quote

Post by Salzmank on Jun 10, 2020 19:39:49 GMT

Jun 10, 2020 19:27:37 GMT masterofallgoons said:

Jun 10, 2020 18:54:15 GMT Salzmank said:

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.