Dracula reboot described as faithful yet different.

Dracula reboot described as faithful yet different. Jun 11, 2020 14:09:09 GMT Salzmank likes this

Quote

Post by masterofallgoons on Jun 11, 2020 14:09:09 GMT

Jun 10, 2020 19:39:49 GMT Salzmank said:

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

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?