Which movie to watch?

[BubblesTheMonkey]

I have the options of the original "Dracula" from 1931 and one from I believe 1992 directed by Francis Ford Coppola. Has anyone seen either of them and are they like the book?

[Sam]

Neither of them are anything like the book at all. Dracula is one of those great classics that only inspire terrible movies.

Both are super campy. Go for the 1931 if you prefer old, black and white, cheesy movies. Go for the Coppola version if you like hyper-sexual, cheesy 90's movies or if you think Winona Ryder is really attractive (like me).

There's pretty much nothing out there that I have ever found that is anything like the book. :(

[[deleted user]]

I don't know as they've ever made one that was true to the book. Louis Jourdan, who only just died, did a wonderful Dracula for the BBC, and I've never heard it mentioned.

[Mike]

When Jourdan died, his Dracula was the first thing I thought of. I think it's the most faithful adaptation of Stoker.

[[deleted user]]

Mike wrote: "When Jourdan died, his Dracula was the first thing I thought of. I think it's the most faithful adaptation of Stoker."

Mike, you're the first person in my entire life who's been familiar with that production.

I think Louis was the most sensual, sexual Count. Moreso than Oldham, who was simply menacing, aloof, very much the Victorian gentleman on the make amongst the virgins. Re Jourdan, remember the scene where he's climbing up the wall of the castle, into the camera? I think it's Harker's first night in the castle, and he looks out the window and down, and there's Louis coming up the wall... Amazing.

[[deleted user]]

But let me ask a question. Don't you think Dracula (I have no idea how to make underlining or italics here, and I refuse to put a book title in quotes) is a mirror of a book? All books are, to some degree, I suppose, but does anyone think it's the sort of book that calls up things from our deepest parts and reveals things about ourselves? I think of it as a Rorschach book. So completely open to imagination and interpretation. Oh, it just crossed my aging mind that we're experiencing a rebirth (loaded word in this context) of the vampire legend, aren't we? That Twilight? One more focal point for all our floating anxiety...

[Mike]

Ellen, I remember seeing it as a kid, and I watched it again on DVD a couple years ago. The DVD restored the horrifying scene where Dracula tosses a baby to his brides, who then devour it. Yikes.
One thing a movie or TV version cannot do is mimic Stoker's use of multiple narrators to tell the story. Maybe that's one of the reasons you think of it as a Rohrshach text - there are so many ways into the story (Van Helsing, Mina, Jonathan, etc.).

[[deleted user]]

Excellent point, Mike. Yes. Excellent.

I've completely forgotten any Yikes factor. Sounds like I'm lucky.

[R.a.]

The two versions most true to the novel are:

—the BBC production w/ Louis Jourdan, (as the Count); and yes,

—Coppola's version from 1994, despite the sometimes unfair criticisms.

A viewer should know, though, that the Coppola version adds historical background, a romantic thread for dramatic impetus, and other small touches.

Of course, any reader of the novel will see the adaptation's "shifts" and/or changes.

Although the Coppola version has added per the above, it nevertheless captures the spirit of the novel; and frankly, I liked that it threaded the Count's renunciation of God and his ensuing descent to hell.

Likewise, the BBC version is GREAT; however, I have to say that the actor playing Van Helsing seemed an odd choice—somehow, he doesn't "fit." Was it Frank Findley? Unfortunately, I can't remember. I do, though, still remember the also GREAT performance of the actor who played Renfield.

Good viewing; and, good reading.

—R

[[deleted user]]

R.a. wrote: "The two versions most true to the novel are:

—the BBC production w/ Louis Jourdan, (as the Count); and yes,

—Coppola's version from 1994, despite the sometimes unfair criticisms.

A viewer should..."

I have no memory of the rest of the cast in the BBC production, I have to say.

I have no criticisms of the Coppola film; I loved it. But I loved Louis Jourdan long before the Coppola film came out. I think the entire cast in Coppola's film is astounding, I would watch it again anytime (no TV for past 12 years, though). That's a good comment about the historical background. Costuming, photography, all splendid. I very much appreciate how Coppola portrayed (for me) how, hmm, content, accepting of themselves, what they were, Coppola's undead were. I think Ann Rice has muddied the pond with her portrayal of her vampires (except whatever Tom C's character's name was -- was he Lestat?) as self-judgmental and aware of their being evil. Coppola's undead certainly seem aware of being "other," but not necessarily evil, do you think? Just some thoughts. As I said earlier, I think the novel is such a mirror of the reader.

[R.a.]

I agree; I enjoyed both—each for slightly different reasons. I understand that when PBS tried to re-air the BBC / Jourdan version, viewers called in to complain, (the gore). Yes, that version, too, showed the FULL "release" of Lucy.

Anne Rice does some interesting things in her novels, (see reviews, if you'd like). She does show "an evolution" of consciousness within the "creature that is a vampire" when Louis and Claudia arrive in Europe.

The "search" that Rice has Louis, (then Lestat) make is an existential one. Stoker's vampires, while not having a choice, sit squarely within the Christian frame of "damnation."

[[deleted user]]

R.a. wrote: "I agree; I enjoyed both—each for slightly different reasons. I understand that when PBS tried to re-air the BBC / Jourdan version, viewers called in to complain, (the gore). Yes, that version, too,..."

They don't seem to mind being damned, though. They're quite cheerful about it, it seems. I like that.