Ever since it's publication in 1897, Bram Stoker's iconic Gothic Vampire novel Dracula has been retold and repurposed hundreds of times. From classic- although unlicensed- horrors such as Nosferatu, to cartoon comedies like Hotel Transylvania, despite being staked through the heart, the aristocratic Count will live on forever in popular culture. Today, I will be comparing the 1992 Francis Ford Coppola directed film Bram Stoker's Dracula (original title, I know) to the 2020 BBC three-part adaptation Dracula (yet another ground-breaking title) and deciding which one I prefer. I can give you a hint now: it's the BBC version. Sorry to all the film bros out there, who would probably consider that as blasphemy. I will be exploring the reasons for this preference via three main areas: the storylines/aesthetics of the whole thing put together, the women (mainly Mina and Agatha, respectively), and the formidable Count himself. So, let's take a journey back through time, to the fin de siècle. PS, there's probably spoilers in this. Not sure what actually constitutes a spoiler.
In terms of Bram Stoker's original novel, both films stick very closely to the Gothic atmosphere. In Ford Coppola's version, the colour red is used repeatedly- a motif that follows the motif of blood that runs (see what I did there) all the way through the book's 27 chapters. Setting also creates this Stokerish atmosphere: with gothic buildings, and night time scenes. This atmosphere is probably best portrayed through Lucy. Her transformation into the monstrous feminine is symbolised in the blood staining her pure white gown. In the 2020 edition, Lucy's transformation is much more physical. And slightly more grotesque. She is burnt beyond recognition, which is a far more fitting punishment for a femme fatale of the Gothic era. Body horror is used to create the atmosphere far more in the BBC's adaptation: with the slow rotting of Jonathan being another example of this. Dracula is also much less of a romantic hero in the newer version, although he becomes the antihero of the series: it is far more based on him. Although many of the plot points are used more liberally within this- I am staring you dead in the face, episode 3, ones that were less focused on in the book (due to lack of a narrator) such as the ship and the nunnery were very well explored in my opinion. Insight into the Count's character in a way made it far scarier, as he was humanised, yet still heinously evil. And I have to admit, I much prefer Van Helsing as a kooky nun than an old man. Bram Stoker's Dracula is, aside from a very out of place and not particularly enjoyable romantic subplot involving Mina, a lot closer to the original storyline, and it is entirely cast of the original characters. However, this loyalty to its Gothic origins are definitely somewhat ruined by that aforementioned subplot.
And that leads me very nicely onto my next point: the women. Now, women in Gothic novels are often a bit of a taboo subject. Those Victorians did not like them very much! But somehow, Francis Ford Coppola has managed to make Mina a complete wet wipe. And she was a bit of a wet wipe anyway, but at least she had something about her. In his film, she's been almost entirely robbed of it. Which doesn't massively surprise me given that whole marriage plot in the Godfather. I mean, why get married if she was just going to blow up in the next ten minutes? Yes, Francis Ford Coppola managed to transform Mina from a key part of the narrative to nothing much more than a love interest. For the 'villain', no less! She was entirely stripped of her autonomy and characterisation- her values are gone and she's just sort of a victim. In fairness, the Mina in the newest version isn't much better. But at least she doesn't make a pretence of being a main character. She's just there to move things along. And strangely enough, Dracula even lets this one go. Weird. But Agatha (or Zoe) Van Helsing more than makes up for the lack of a functioning Mina. Whilst she might just be a replacement of the character Bram Stoker very clearly named after himself, and still does sort of function as Dracula's doppelganger, she takes Mina's role of leading the narrative. It is Agatha who draws the story out of Jonathan, and then Dracula, and who acts as Dracula's adversary right up until the end. In short, I love her. Even if she does very much get in the way of sticking to the source material. But I suppose that went entirely out of the window with the third episode.
Now for the most important part. The Count himself. As the eponymous character, villain or romantic lead or just plain misunderstood depending on who you ask, neither of these films would be anything without him. In Bram Stoker's Dracula, he probably more fits the Gothic mould. At the start he is old and frankly hideous, although he does follow Stoker's pattern of eventually aging backwards. Despite this, he never becomes particularly debonair. Mostly due to that God-awful ponytail. True to the story, he is persecuted despite his portrayal as a romantic lead, and he very much monstrously preys on Lucy. It's confusing. And yes, I will in fact admit that I prefer the newer Dracula purely because I find him attractive. So, let's discuss him. He is suave and charming, similarly following the old to young pattern but sans ponytail, and very much embodies the eerie charmer of the earlier parts of the novel. Same as Gary Oldman's version, he is persecuted throughout and once again targets Lucy. Although it seems to be a much less creepy arrangement, all very much happening at Lucy's own volition. Which in my books makes him less horrendous (as he's not so much a predator) even if he remains a villain.
My final thoughts? First of all, modern adaptions should not be a thing. The '80s are the last acceptable decade to set things in. The characters are what make and break these stories: as in, the Crew of Light are very dull and Agatha Van Helsing is exciting and fresh. Whilst sticking to the exact plot is in one sense 'good', it doesn't always make for the best film. Especially as the story has been told hundreds of times. And, even if it needs a fresh take, Dracula is not a romance. At all. To try and present it as such takes away from the power of both its Gothicness and its female characters who were originally, quite ahead of their time. So to finish off: I absolutely prefer the BBC's edition of Dracula. It manages to add a fresh spin without destroying what made the original story so great.
Comments
Post a Comment