Dracula

There's also the 1979 Langella and Olivier version... but that was based on a Broadway stage version IIRC, and also deviates from the book.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dracula_(1979_film)

And I saw this one back when I was 10 and have never seen it again, but I remember it as being a good 'un

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dracula_(1968)

williemeikle said:

And I saw this one back when I was 10 and have never seen it again, but I remember it as being a good 'un

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dracula_(1968)

Click to expand...

That's one of the few I haven't seen.

The '73 televersion with Jack Palance foreshadows some of the themes of the Coppolla version, particularly the emphasis on Dracula as warrior.

I recommend the '77 Count Dracula with Louis Jourdan as the Count. Probably as faithful an adaptation as you'll find.

It's called "translating for the medium".

What makes a damned good book doesn't always translate into what makes a damned good movie.

IIRC, Dracula, being an epistolary formatted book, has tons of introspection, musing, etc. that helps establish characters, mood, etc and that simply doesn't translate into a live action/film medium focused on audio/visual. Having characters voice-over those thoughts and feeling constantly drones and is quickly boring. The live action/film is geared toward interesting visuals, sounds, and action.

So when someone interested in presenting a novel as a live action medium looks at the story, they have to pick and choose what they can translate via the strictures of screenplay (which are markedly different from the strictures of fiction) to get across whatever mood, emotions, etc they can. It's not that easy and the vast majority of fiction isn't written with that translation in mind. Not that I think it should.

Unless, of course, the author is William Goldman (he of The Princess Bride writerly fame), who is both a novelist and a screenwriter and knows how to incorporate the right bits into both for translation.

FWIW, I thought the Coppola one did a reasonable job. At least he got the ending "right".

Interesting! I saw Dracula on the stage way back in 1978 - Shaftesbury Theatre, London with Terence Stamp as the Bloody Count. I think the stage play was the one the Lugosi version was based on. IIRC the stage play was approved by Stoker's widow. Todays useless fact: I read somewhere that Lugosi did not speak English when the film was made and that he just learnt the words parrot fashion.

The nearest thing to a rigidly faithful adaptation was the 1977 BBC version.

Not surprisingly, it is also probably the longest. Recall that Dracula is a good-sized novel and has plenty of characters that can be seen as superfluous. Exactly why Lucy has to have three men interested in her is something of a puzzle from a purely plot standpoint. As far as I know, only two or maybe three film versions have ever retained all three. They are usually paired down to one or at most two. Lucy's mother is something of an enigma, among other things penning a bizarre will (she left all her estate not to her daughter but to her daughter's fiancee--I looked it up, that was not typical even in Victorian times). Dracula himself is hardly ever "on stage" and in general most of the characters remain secondary. Harker, Lucy, Mina, Renfield, Seward and Van Helsing get most of the "action" so it is hardly surprising these and the title character usually end up in each version.

Mind you, I also tend to think of Dracula as the kind of story ancient Greek playwrights used to compete to tell in new ways. Each year different playwrights would submit new versions of Oedipus, Antigone, Agamemnon, etc. Likewise in the Elizabethan theatre it was common to see plays about Richard III, Hamlet, King John, etc. Most, naturally, turn out forgettable.

And yes, I have plans to write my own Dracula. Why not? Fred Saberhagen re-wrote the novel from the Count's POV. Jeanne Kalogridis wrote a trilogy giving the entire tale a new spin. Methinks at least two different versions managed to work Sherlock Holmes into the narrative! Then there was Kim Newman's Anno Dracula, taking place in a London a few years after Dracula "won."

DavidZahir said:

The nearest thing to a rigidly faithful adaptation was the 1977 BBC version.

Click to expand...

Netflix has it. Highly recommended.

DavidZahir said:

The nearest thing to a rigidly faithful adaptation was the 1977 BBC version.

Click to expand...

Clicking the link gave me pause... now we know how Lost is going to end

• Jack Shepherd as Renfield

Shadow_Ferret said:

Hmm. Netflix. I just put the 1977 Count Dracula miniseries in que, and I found a 1970 Count Dracula with Christopher Lee that they say is a fairly faithful adaptation, too.

Click to expand...

It isn't.

Shadow_Ferret said:

Hmm. Netflix. I just put the 1977 Count Dracula miniseries in que, and I found a 1970 Count Dracula with Christopher Lee that they say is a fairly faithful adaptation, too.

Click to expand...

Don't get your hopes up. It was intended to be the ultimate dead-on accurate adaptation, but the production company didn't have the money it would have taken and it turned out to be considerably less than advertised. It's worth seeing only for completists.

Shadow_Ferret said:

Completists? Or Christopher Lee fans?

Click to expand...

It redounds not to Mr. Lee's credit. For Dracula completists only.

Don't forget the ubercrappy Dracula 2000. Or maybe we
should all forget that one

regdog said:

Don't forget the ubercrappy Dracula 2000. Or maybe we should all forget that one

Click to expand...

But that one had the uber sexy Gerard Butler as Dracula--with the surprise twist explanation for how he became a vampire! How can you forget that?

Coppola's version is as close as you're going to get so far. I just saw a new Masterpiece Theatre Dracula from a few years ago via Netflix and it was horrendous! Half the cast was rearrange and syphilis or something was involved. Totally ridiculous!

I suppose if you make a hobby of watching Dracula films, you have to go with your mood and the flow of what's available. The stylized early films based on the Broadway plays are short and quick substitutes to be appreciated for themselves. Then you can take some of the avante garde splatter versions or enjoy the homage 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' provides.

Then again, I enjoy the spoof Dracula Dead and Loving It from time to time, too!