The Cinematic Adaptations of Dracula: The Book, the Characters and the Films

The Cinematic Adaptations of Dracula: The Book, the Characters and the Films

         

     

     Bram Stoker’s book, Dracula, has achieved a status that very few books can claim. After over 120 years, it has never been out of print. It has the rare quality of being a respected classic that is taught in school while also being a book that many people read for pleasure. It has also entered into our popular subconscious to the degree that people who have never read it, know what it is about. Almost as long as there have been movies there have been adaptations of Dracula, the oldest surviving one being 1922’s Nosferatu.  It has attracted some of the most respected actors of each era and also turned relatively unknown actors into lifelong celebrities. It has been adapted by low budget exploitation directors and big budget Oscar winners. It has had a longer and more diverse effect on cinema than any other book (except probably the Bible). But how well has it been adapted? Which movies have been the most faithful to the source material? Which ones are the most entertaining?

            

      Before answering these questions, it would be beneficial to take a brief look back at the source itself, Bram Stoker’s novel. Published in 1897, on the verge of the 20^th century, it was not the first vampire novel but it has definitely overshadowed any of its predecessors. It was well received and a best seller from the beginning. Victorian audiences would have enjoyed it as a dark adventure story, being published when such stories were very popular.

            

    The book is told first person, primarily through the journals of three of its characters. Jonathan Harker’s story begins the book and it is through him that the reader first encounters Dracula and gets some idea of the Count’s horrific nature. It is also through Jonathan’s encounters with Dracula’s Brides that the book introduces its erotic elements. Most of the rest of the book is told from the point of Dr.John Seward. Seward runs an asylum but is also one of the suitors of Lucy Westerna, a 19 year old member of the aristocracy and the primary victim of Dracula. Interspersed throughout is the dairy of Mina, Jonathan’s fiancé and later wife, and the target of Dracula’s spite when his designs on Lucy are thwarted.

            

   The book has an epic scope, beginning in Transylvania as a gothic horror story, transitioning to England as a detective story, and then finally ending in Transylvania as a true adventure story complete with horseback shootouts.

Themes

The book is filled with themes that may not have been immediately evident to its first readers, though the themes would have had an effect subconsciously. To modern audiences, that have benefitted from a century of Freudian influenced psychology, its themes have been brought from the subconscious to the conscious.

Invasion and Corruption

             All good horror plays (or preys perhaps) on people’s anxieties. At the turn of the century, with Europe grinding inevitably toward war, the World must have seemed an ever shrinking place. Fear of invasion was a popular theme in literature of the day (War of the Worlds was published a year later). Dracula comes from the East, from across the ocean. In the novel he bears racial characteristics of someone from Eastern Europe, setting him (in people’s minds at least) alongside Jews and gypsies and other non-Anglos.

            

     Dracula also carries with him the anxiety of disease and infection. Interaction with the Count infects the person. They are changed, at first imperceptibly, but irrevocably.  The doctors in the book, Seward and Van Helsing try, unsuccessfully, to treat vampirism medically.

Insanity

   

           To a Victorian audience, mental illness might result in hellish confinement in an asylum and there is an anxiety about this that permeates the novel. Harker, at the beginning of the novel seems to be on the verge of losing his mind as he is confronted with one fresh horror after another.

            

     Much of the book takes place in or near, Dr. Sewards’s asylum. The primary resident of this asylum is Renfield, a man who seems to be both a willing servant and an unwilling thrall of Dracula. Renfield practices his own form of vampirism, eating insects to consume their lives.

Sex and Death

            

     That the book has an erotic element, there is no doubt. Of course, for a Victorian audience, this couldn’t be articulated in blatant, pornographic ways. If you accept that that a blood exchange accompanying a penetration of the vampires fangs into its victim is symbolic of a more obvious, phallic penetration, the book is rife with all sorts of perversions.

            

    Harker, unwillingly but not unpleasurably, is fed upon by Dracula’s Brides resulting in effect, an orgy with three women. Lucy, after becoming a vampire, drinks the blood of children, symbolizing a much more taboo sexual act. Dracula’s Brides in fact, feast upon an infant after the Count forbids them from draining Harker.

            

    Though eroticism is present in the book, romance is not. This element of the Dracula mythos was introduced by the movies, not the book. Dracula, in the book, is repulsive. When he feeds upon Lucy and Mina, it is not willingly. In fact, the women have only a hazy recollection, akin to someone that has been given a date rape drug.

            

     The real triumph of Stoker was so thoroughly combining sex and death, the two great Freudian urges of Eros and Thanatos. The penetration is sexual, but it leads to death, or at least a kind of death, which leads the victim to be the one that penetrates the next victim and so forth. This combination is seen best in Lucy, who is found in a cemetery after feeding on a child. She is surrounded by men who symbolically penetrate her as what might be seen as a gang rape, by driving a stake through her breast.

The Cast of Characters

            

 

  The book has a rather large cast, This has resulted in most of the movies either cutting characters out, combining characters, swapping characters, and sometimes all three. Only one version, that I know of, includes all of the characters.

The Brides

   Dracula’s Brides do not appear in every movie, especially the ones like the 1979 version that begin after the Count leaves Transylvania. In the book, they only appear at the beginning and the end of the book, always in or near the Count’s castle, suggesting perhaps that they are tied to it somehow. They are mysterious figures, and anything pertaining to their identity must be inferred. Their mystery is a large part of their allure.

           

    The best rendition of The Brides is in Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992), played by Florina Kendrick, Michaela Bercu, and Monica Bellucci. No other version has given the Brides so much attention or been played so erotically.

Lord Arthur Holmwood

            

   

       Of all of the character’s Arthur seems to be left out most from the movie adaptations, perhaps because he is a bit redundant. He is one of three suitors (perhaps a symbolic balance against Dracula’s three Brides), vying for the love of Lucy. He is a part of the upper crust of society, but so are her other suitors. Seward has the advantage of being an integral part of the story. Quincy has the advantage of being an American cowboy, and thus thematically unique in the novel. Poor Arthur, lacking these, tends to get cut. Though. Michael Gough in Hammer’s Dracula had a fine performance as Arthur, he really wasn’t playing Arthur. He was playing a version of Jonathan Harker with a name swapped fiancé. The best version in the movies was played by Cary Elwes, in Bram Stoker’s Dracula, the only time that Arthur has been depicted in a matter faithful to the book.

Quincy Morris

           

     As stated above, Quincy is a cowboy and a suitor of Lucy. He is also good friends with Dr. Seward and Arthur. Quincey lends the book it’s sense of adventure with his foreign, cowboy persona. In many film versions he is portrayed as the man who wins Lucy’s heart. Though Bill Campbell’s portrayal in Bram Stoker’s Dracula was closest to the book, the best performance was by Richard Barnes in the 1977 BBC version, Count Dracula.

Dr. John Seward

      

     John Seward is a very important character in the book. At least half of the story is narrated by him. Except for the beginning, in Dracula’s castle, Seward is present for every other part of the story. He is there with Lucy as she wastes away; there when she is finally “put to rest” with a stake in her heart, present with Renfield in the asylum; there as the group finally hunts down and kills the Count. Despite all of this, he doesn’t have a lot of development. But it’s because everyone else is a character in HIS story, that we don’t know that much about him. He doesn’t talk about himself much.

           

     In the movies, Seward is generally portrayed as rather older, a  professional peer of Van Helsing. This ignores the fact that, as Lucy’s suitor, he would have had to have been within a socially acceptable age range, perhaps in his late 20s, early 30s tops. The most high profile Seward was Donald Pleasance in the 1979 Dracula, but again, this removes him from his role as Lucy’s want-to-be boyfriend. The best performance, and most faithful, was Richard E. Grant in Bram Stoker’s Dracula.

Lucy Westerna

           

     Lucy is the object of affection of Arthur, Quincy, and Seward. She is also Mina’s closest friend. More important than all of that, she is Dracula’s victim. He visits her regularly, draining a little bit of her life at a time. The protagonists search in vain for a cause, and only too late realize what they are up against. She dies an unnatural death and then rises from the dead as a vampire. Her sweethearts, along with Van Helsing, must band together to hunt her down and end her unnatural existence. Her final death is one of the most dramatic parts of the book and provides one of the more sensational elements of any Dracula adaptation.

            

     In the movies she is sometimes (and pointlessly) swapped with Mina. Occasionally she and Mina are portrayed as sisters rather than friends. Many times she is a two dimensional character whose main function is to die, twice. Two performances stand out. Susan Penhaligon, in the BBC version of Count Dracula, gave us the most faithful performance and was able to explore the character as much as could be done. The stand out performance, though, is Sadie Frost in Bram Stoker’s Dracula. Her portrayal was much more sexual than what Stoker would have intended, but it is very memorable. The vision of her as a vampire is one of the standout scenes of not only that film but of all vampire cinema.

Renfield

            

    Renfield is maybe the most complex character in the book. He is Dracula’s servant and slave. Though not contaminated with the curse of vampirism, he seems to have a connection to the Count telepathically. Renfield is hoping that he will be made a vampire and to prove his sincerity he engages in his own form of vampirism, eating insects.

            

     As a literary device, Renfield gives the reader a psychological perspective into the supernatural phenomenon of vampirism. We see not only his cravings and mania, but occasionally his ambivalence as he gets small flashes of insight into himself and when he has a crisis of conscience.  

           

    In the movies, Renfield’s performance is often a standout. After all, in cast of reserved, Victorian characters, he gets to be wild and unbridled. A lot of time in the movies is spent trying to explain his connection to the Count. Most often he is tied to Harker, either as his boss or predecessor, or taking his place entirely in Dracula’s castle.

         

      There are 3 performances that stand out above the others. Jack Shepard in the BBC version is the most realistic. Tom Wait’s in Bram Stoker’s Dracula is the most faithful. But the award has to go to Dwight Frye in the 1931 version. It’s very manic and memorable and is often channeled by actors playing this character.

Jonathan Harker

     

    Harker is the reader’s surrogate in the beginning of the story. Through him, and his isolation in Castle Dracula, we learn the true nature of the Count. Harker’s portion of the story is the most memorable. He is a type of “every man”, probably especially so in the Victorian era.

           

    His character often gets chopped up or edited out in the movies. In the 1931 version, his stay in Castle Dracula is replaced with Renfield. In the Hammer version, he dies in the Castle and doesn’t appear in the rest of the film. In the Frank Langella version he is a jerk so we can root for the heroine to hook up with the Count. Two versions have portrayed the character fully. Keanu Reeve’s version was pretty much spot on as far as the script, but he had some trouble convincing the audience.  Bosco Hogan, in the 1977 BBC version was allowed to explore the character fully and is convincing.

Abraham Van Helsing

            

     Van Helsing is Seward’s mentor and the man Seward calls for help when he can’t figure out what is wrong with Lucy. He is a Dutch doctor with a wide range of knowledge.  Though in the movies he is portrayed as a vampire hunter, in the book, vampirism is just one of the many areas that he is knowledgeable of.

            

    Van Helsing’s place in the Dracula mythos has changed due to the movies.  In the book he is neither the protagonist nor Dracula’s arch rival. His role is more akin to that of Obi-wan Kenobi in the original Star Wars; a wise old man who knows more than he lets on, and guides the protagonists in their journey. The portrayal that is most faithful to the book is Frank Finlay in the BBC version. Anthony Hopkins in Bram Stoker’s is pretty good being very charismatic and entertaining. However, the best has to be Peter Cushing in the Hammer Dracula. He stole the movie, and it was his portrayal that created our idea as Van Helsing as the eternal vampire hunter.

Mina Harker

           

    Along with being Jonathan’s wife and Lucy’s friend, Mina is one of the three voices that guide our story. She is virtuous, practical, loyal and very brave.  In the films, Mina is the object of Dracula’s attention, but in the book Dracula bites her only after he is thwarted with Lucy. Dracula bites Mina out of spite and revenge, not desire.

            

    Most versions of Mina have her as either a beautiful but helpless victim or a wanton participate.  Mina is rarely portrayed as the strong woman who, towards the end of the novel, must face the reality that she is turning into a vampire. Mina, by the end of the novel is the protagonist, more than anyone else, because it is her soul at stake.

            

     Winona Ryder’s performance was captivating in Bram Stoker’s Dracula but the most faithful, and I think best, was Judi Bowker in the BBC version. We get to see Mina transition through her full character development.

Dracula

            

    I often wish I could travel back in time and read the novel without knowing anything about Dracula, to see if I was shocked or horrified when his true nature is revealed. As it was, I had probably seen Dracula in 10 different movies before ever reading the book.

            

    There is a huge difference between the Count of the book and the movies and that difference is due mainly to the effect of one man, Bela Lugosi. He created the idea of the count as a suave, sophisticated seducer. Christopher Lee played the count much more energetically, but was still sporting the look of Lugosi. In fact, every vampire in the movies would look like some version of Lugosi up until the 1980s when they began to take on a more modern  appearance. Only Gary Oldman’s portrayal was able to distinguish itself as unique, and even he was using a version of the accent that we all think Dracula should have (because of Lugosi).

            

    So, almost 90 years later, I have to say that Lugosi’s is still the definitive portrayal, if we are going just off of adaptations of the book. Christopher Lee , in his numerous Hammer appearances, certainly created an exciting, entertaining villain, but if we are comparing the 1931 Universal Dracula to the 1958 Hammer Dracula, Lugosi wins.

The Adaptations

           

    Below are the best known or most successful adaptations of the book. This excludes movies where Dracula is a character but not within the context of the book like Monster Squad or House of Dracula. In order to have an objective measure of which is best, they are graded on 3 scales. Entertainment grades how enjoyable the movie is. Above all else, the movie has to be entertaining or what’s the point. Faithfulness grades how well it did on adapting the book to film. Importance judges its impact both on cinema and future Dracula adaptations. Each element is graded on a 10 point scale. They are listed in chronological order. Click on each title for a link to a full review of each film.

Nosferatu (1922)

           

The oldest surviving adaptation of the book to screen, it has iconic imagery, all of which involves its super realistic vampire played by Max Schreck. Shchreck was closer to Stoker’s description of the Count than most other versions, but the rest of the film is average in it’s faithfulness to the book. It is important for its impact on the vampire mythos throughout fiction.

Entertainment- 5     

Faithfulness-6

Importance- 8

Total- 19

Dracula (1931)

  Still the most famous version of the book. Excluding Lugosi, the film is only average. It has some interesting scenes but otherwise would not be that memorable without it’s main star. Lugosi elevates the film creating a charismatic, frightening figure. He is the reason the film is so good.  It’s above average in faithfulness but still takes liberties. It is the most important Dracula adaptation ever, and probably always will be.

Entertainment-8

Faithfulness- 7

Importance-10

Total- 25

Dracula, Spanish version (1931)

    

Shot at the same time, with the same sets, and some of the same costumes as the Universal movie, what the movie doesn’t have is Bela Lugosi. In most ways the movie is better than the Universal film but is not nearly as entertaining and that just shows the influence of Lugosi. Since it had the same script, its faithfulness is the same. Its importance lies in the fact that it gives an interesting comparison to the Universal film.

Entertainment-6

Faithfulness-7

Importance- 5
Total- 18

Dracula, AKA Horror of Dracula (1958)

           

    After the Lugosi version, this is the most important version of Dracula. It strays wildly from the book. It is very entertaining however. It is fast paced, wastes no time and has two iconic performances from Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing.

Entertainment-10

Faithfulness-5

Importance-9

Total-24

Dracula, Jess Franco version (1970)

    

   Known primarily because this is the only version that depicts the Count pretty much as he appeared in the book. Faithful to the book  for most of the film, it is surprisingly not as fun as you would expect given that it has Christopher Lee teamed up with exploitation master Jess Franco. A favorite amongst hardcore Dracula fans, it has been forgotten by most horror fans.

Entertainment-5

Faithfulness-7

Importance- 4

Total-16

Dracula (1973)

           

A TV movie starring Jack Palance as the Count, directed by the man that brought us Dark Shadows. A fun, creepy film, it has largely been forgotten although it has had an effect on the Dracula mythos, being the first film to identify the Count as the historical Dracula and the first to feature a story where Dracula’s love was reincarnated.

Entertainment-6

Faithfulness-5

Importance- 6

Total- 17

Count Dracula, BBC version (1977)

           

  The high water mark for faithfulness to the book, no other versions even come close in that regard. It’s also very entertaining with many great performances. However, it’s not flashy or sexy so has been forgotten by many though it is still sought out by those seeking a true adaptation of the book.

Entertainment-9

Faithfulness-10

Importance-6

Total- 25

Dracula (1979)

           

    A very sexy, romantic version of Dracula it strays very far from the book. It’s entertaining because of its cast, creepy visuals and John Williams score. It helped to further the idea of Dracula as a sex symbol.

Entertainment-7

Faithfulness-4

Importance-5

Total- 16

Nosferatu the Vampyre

           

   Less an adaptation of Dracula and more of a remake of the 1922 film, Nosferatu, it is known mainly for being a remake and starring Klaus Kinski. It is not very faithful. It is important to Kinski fans but otherwise I don’t think it is very influential. Its gothic imagery provides  some entertainment value.
Entertainment-5

Faithfulness-3

Importance-3

Total-11

Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)

     

    Francis Ford Coppola’s artistic version with a stellar cast. By far the most important Dracula since the 1958 Hammer version. A divisive film amongst hardcore Dracula fans, some who applaud its fresh take, others who don’t like how far removed it is from the previous incarnations. Faithful in most respects. It is highly entertaining.

Entertainment-9

Faithfulness-8

Importance-7

Total-24

And the winner is…

           

    Hammer fans will probably be upset by this, but the winner is a 2 way tie between the 1931 Lugosi version and the 1977 BBC version. Lugosi shines in the Universal film but the BBC version has great performances all around and gets so many extra points for faithfulness to the book. The Hammer 1958 version is the most entertaining and very important but is not very faithful.

           

     Well, I’m sure this result will please some and irritate others. Who knows, if I were to watch all of these films a year from now and rate them again, I might give a different score.