Dracula reboot described as faithful yet different.

Dracula reboot described as faithful yet different. Jun 11, 2020 15:12:28 GMT masterofallgoons likes this

Quote

Post by Salzmank on Jun 11, 2020 15:12:28 GMT

Jun 11, 2020 14:09:09 GMT masterofallgoons said:

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

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.

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.

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.)

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.

Fair point—agreed.

Any idea if that miniseries you mentioned as the most faithful adaptation is available to watch anywhere?

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!