The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

This topic is about
Dracula
All Other Previous Group Reads
>
Dracula - Week 6 (Chapters 24 - Note)
date
newest »


I would like to recommend 2 versions that I feel are the best: the original 1931 with Bela Lugosi, the 1979 with Frank Langella, with more realistic acting and lots of sexual implications. I fell in love with Langella in that film, having also seen him in the Broadway play.
Ebert's review:
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/dr...

I would like to recommend 2 versions that I feel are the best: the original 1931 with Bela Lugosi, the 1979 with ..."
"having also seen him in the Broadway play."
Curiously, Bela Lugosi first came to prominence in a stage version of "Dracula," which was adapted for the movie. So, if looks too much like a stage play, that is probably why, beyond the limited use of camera angles in the early days of sound.
(The new sound-proofed cameras -- so that they didn't record their noise -- were difficult to move, and a lot of silent-era practices were abandoned until better camera-handling practices, and equipment, could be developed.)
Lugosi reportedly had a famous bit of "stage business," in which he *leaped* onto the stage from a higher level, in place of special effects. The play had a fairly long run, and he did this so often that he injured his back, and was in almost constant pain thereafter -- or so I've read.
There was a Spanish-language version of the 1931 "Dracula," filmed on the same sets at night, using a translation of its script (which seems to have been not uncommon in Hollywood at the time). I've only seen stills from it (I think that is where they came from), but those who have viewed it report that, in the women's costumes, and some of the acting, it was distinctly "sexier" than the English-language production.

Dracula cannot cross water, but only by himself, if someone carry him (like in a ship or a boat, or even in the coffin) he is able to do that. At least was what I could grab from the text. I am wrong?

I'm not sure I agree with you. The men were pretty torn up over Lucy. They don't want to see the same thing happen to Mina. I'm sure it was pretty gruesome to have to cut off her head.
Then again, maybe there's an inconsistency here? I don't recall anyone being worried about Lucy's soul. If I recall correctly, the belief was that they were freeing Lucy, not eternally damning her. Maybe I'm misreading that part though. Maybe Mina's case is more dire because instead of only having her blood sucked, she also consumed Dracula's blood.

Curiously, Bela Lugosi first came to prominence in a stage version of "Dracula," which was adapted for the movie. So, if looks too much like a stage play, that is probably why, beyond the limited use of camera angles in the early days of sound....
"
Have you seen the silent "Nosferatu," the first Dracula film?
There was also an issue with microphones in early films. They had to be hidden near the speaker.
By now Mina is tainted by the vampire. Given her role in the story up to
now, why is this a real crisis for the men? Why do you think Mina’s presumed defilement is so much more important to these men than what happened to Lucy?
We have seen the “modern” versus “ancient” theme implicit throughout the book. Railroads across Europe were one sign of “progress” in the late 19th century. They represent the “rational” (technology, organization, etc.) versus the “irrational.” The crew are making use of then-modern technology to kill, once and for all, a creature centuries old. Do you think that only in the then-modern times that Dracula could have been killed verses in times past?
In the end Stoker’s Dracula may be dead, but Dracula – the character – lived on in loads of plays, novels, and films. So the parting question is this: Why do you think a figure from folklore continues to exert such an enormous influence?