Dracula Movies

So I read Bram Stoker's Dracula (1897) and then watched a bunch of movies based on the book.

Most of the movies drop or minimize the literary elements, which leaves just the plot. The characters and geography are often remixed a bit, which takes some getting used to. The best movies are the ones with the best visual and musical effects, a progressive suspense level, and at least some reference, no matter how slight, to something literary.

There are way more movies than I'll ever be able to watch, but here's my comparison so far, in order of release date (all available from Netflix):

Dracula (1931)

IMDB Rating: 7.6. Starring Bela Lugosi, this one is quite good, with the iconic Dracula and many memorable lines, especially "I am ... dah-RAC-ulah". It has a few drawbacks though: The actors are performing in silent movie style with exaggerated expressions and gestures. Renfield is over the top crazy, and Jonathan Harker is annoyingly stupid. Otherwise the lighting is interesting and it's well made, suspenseful, and compact. You don't need to read the book first.

Dracula's Daughter (1936)

IMDB Rating: 6.4. This one has an interesting twist. It picks up with Van Helsing staking Dracula, getting caught by the police, and charged with murder! None of the plot comes from the book, but they do discuss the science vs. superstition theme quite a bit. There are a few unrealistic sequences, but, given the premise, the story is mostly logical, well acted and produced, mixes in some light comedy, and ends with a big rescue scene.

Son of Dracula (1943)

IMDB Rating: 6.1. A scheming heiress tries to gain immortality. The plot has nothing to do with the book except for a page from Harker's diary and ample use of lore--with the addition of destruction by fire and sunlight. The script was given some forethought. Of crosses it says, "It would take too long to explain why they fear it, but they do." Overall it's mysterious but slow until the final 20 minutes, which are suspenseful and exciting.

Horror of Dracula (1958)

IMDB Rating: 7.5. This is the first of several Hammer productions starring Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing. It starts out really good, but gets a bit slow at times. It could be more suspenseful, too, but the music's good and the ending is exciting. The geography is remixed. I think they're in Germany or Austria. The characters are mostly appealing. And you can recognize tidbits from the book, though you don't need to read it first to follow the plot.

The Return of Dracula (1958)

IMDB Rating: 5.3. This is a surprisingly good B&W horror movie where Dracula impersonates a distant relative visiting a trusting family in 1950's America. It has almost nothing to do with the book, but it's quite scary, in an eerily familiar setting, with an excellent score, and very good acting. The suspense builds progressively to a climax and I noticed a few anti-McCarthy remarks as the authorities were investigating the mysterious guest. (The IMDB rating looks too low to me, but it has few votes, probably because it's back & white)

Dracula Has Risen from the Grave (1968)

IMDB Rating: 6.3. Starring Christopher Lee...The sets, costumes, and cast are well done and good looking, but Lee's acting is oddly hokey and the plot is weak and confusing. If Dracula were a TV series, this could be an average episode. At least Lee's appearance and costume, including red eyes, are pretty good. He's tall, thin, and menacing. And there are lots of really neat scenes on rooftops, in the wilderness, stone pubs, and several nightmarish views of Dracula driving a horse-drawn hearse, whip in hand, cape in the wind.

Taste the Blood of Dracula (1970)

IMDB Rating: 6.2. I think this Hammer production, yet again starring Christopher Lee, is one of the best Dracula movies. It doesn't have much to do with the book, but it mostly sticks to the lore, the sets and scenery are visually rich, the colors are bright and clear, the picture quality is excellent, the cast is good looking, and the music is perfect. The story is kind of predictable, though, but the atmosphere remains suspenseful. The only drawback, really, is the final scene where things suddenly turn random and illogical (even given the premise), but it's still an enjoyable movie overall.

Count Dracula (1970)

IMDB Rating: 5.7. This Spanish production stars Chistopher Lee and Klaus Kinsky, but it's one of the stupidest movies I've ever seen. The camera zooms in and out annoyingly. There are long sequences of people just staring. (That's common in some movies. Does anybody ever get anything from that?) Scenes jump around randomly and Van Helsing has a contemptuous demeanor that is ridiculous and pointless. This movie couldn't possibly make any sense without reading the book. It's got its fans, though. IMDB is full of positive comments--I don't know why.

Dracula vs. Frankenstein (1971)

IMDB Rating: 2.8. It should be obvious from the title that this has nothing to do with the book. While it has its moments, it's pretty cheesy, somewhat gory, and has the worse, cartoonish Dracula you can image. Dr. Frankenstein is pretty creepy in a wheelchair and Lon Chaney is pretty good as his brutish, simple-minded assistant.

Dracula A.D. 1972 (1972)

IMDB Rating: 5.5. This is another Hammer production starring Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing. It's very good, suspenseful, and logical (given the premise), though only faintly based on the book. It takes place in modern London and involves Dracula's reincarnation by a band of thrill-seeking teenagers, one of whom is Van Helsing's great-great-granddaughter.

Blood for Dracula (1974)

IMDB Rating: 6.0. AKA Andy Warhol's Dracula...The music, scenery, and locations are very nice, and the acting is interesting because it's so weird. If vampires were real, this is probably how they'd be--without supernatural powers, vulnerable yet deadly, trying to live their lives, kind of like carnivorous animals that need to kill to survive. It has nothing to do with Bram Stoker's Dracula, but it's unusual and worth watching.

Dracula (1979)

IMDB Rating: 6.1. Starring Frank Langella, this one was boring when I saw it years ago and it's still boring today. The music and scenery, however, are quite good. Unfortunately they spend too much time in a weird zoo-like lunatic asylum, it's slow with no suspense, and the ending is ridiculous. You can understand it better if you read the book first, but it's still boring.

Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)

IMDB Rating: 7.3. This is both the best and the worst Dracula movie. It's the best because it's well acted and produced, suspenseful, and mostly true to the characters, places, and plot. It's also the worst, though, because of 2 disastrous departures they take from Stoker's classic: In Dracula's backstory, he turns himself into a vampire and then there's an absurd love affair between him and Mina! It's more fun if you read the book first because you'll recognize quotes and scenes directly from the book. By the way, this Dracula's appearance realistically resembles Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia (1431-1476), the real Dracula from history.

Dracula: The Vampire & the Voivode (2008)

This is an interesting but kind of dull biographical documentary on Bram Stoker and Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia. Voivode is, roughly, Romanian for Count. If you're American, you may have trouble understanding some of the Irish and British accents, but it's full of information and trivia. All serious fans of Bram Stoker and Dracula should see this.

Reference:
Bram Stoker. Dracula [Kindle Edition]. 1897.

Dracula (1897) and Religion

Bram Stoker's Dracula (1897) begins with religion having a noticeable but minor role. The role, however, grows significantly as the story progresses and becomes the concluding theme of the book.

Jonathan Harker, fresh from England, while observing the people of Transylvania, their dress and customs, notes their frequent use of religious gestures and objects and recalls his upbringing against idolatry. He notes it but merely accepts it as their way of life.

Back in civilized England, however, religion is present but as more of a background activity than a central feature of people's lives.

Eventually Mina Harker is bitten and begins transforming into a vampire. When she and Van Helsing's band travel to the wilderness, they have to rely on God's will to survive and succeed in their mission. They're outside the realm of known science, so all they have is their faith. They have learned what the local people have learned, that garlic and religious objects repel vampires. Now they, too, must practice what they once thought was superstition.

They accept that Mina can only be saved by God's will. Civilization and scientific knowledge will not help. Fortunately Van Helsing with his open mind and logical thinking is able to devise a plan that, God willing, will save her. They must find and destroy Dracula and the 3 sister vampires.

In the end, God's will prevails, good wins over evil, and Mina is saved. She even notices Dracula himself finds peace at last--just a brief look on his face as he dies. Unfortunately Quincey dies in the struggle but future generations are now safe from the menace of Dracula and the three sister vampires.

Reference:
Bram Stoker. Dracula [Kindle Edition]. 1897.

Dracula (1897) Knowledge & Beliefs

I believe there are 3 major themes in Bram Stoker's Dracula (1897):

1. Exploitation
   
2. Knowledge & Beliefs
   
3. God's will be done

I already said something about #1, and while it is the most obvious theme, Stoker devoted more pages to #2. It's not as exciting, of course. For the first half or 2/3 of the book, most of the action and suspense comes from #1. Number 2 mostly comes from Van Helsing's rather long lectures. He wants to tell his friends they're up against a vampire, but he's sure they won't believe him--and he's right.

Van Helsing extensively discusses the "open mind" and the "closed mind", preparing to convince his friends of something they won't believe. Basically people believe what they've been taught to believe and can't or won't accept anything else. Even when they see the unbelievable in plain sight, they make up explanations like it's a trick or an illusion. Even after they accept it, they're tempted to dismiss it later as a dream or just their imagination.

Van Helsing couldn't go to the authorities, because they'd say he was crazy. None of his friends believed him until he proved beyond the shadow of all doubts that a vampire was in their midst.

Civilization & the Wilderness - a Sub-theme

Civilization and wilderness is a sub-theme because civilization is based on knowledge and living in the wilderness is based on beliefs.

England was civilized. There were rules and expected behaviors and everything everyone believed in was explained by science. As far as they were concerned, something simply did not exist if it wasn't explained by science--and that was Dracula's advantage. No one expected him to suck blood or possess supernatural powers.

Transylvania, on the other hand, was a wilderness. People there knew how to co-exist with vampires. They didn't like it, and they suffered from it, but they managed to survive by their beliefs and unscientific customs--superstitions to the English.

I had to laugh at Jonathan Harker, though, trying to remain civilized while held captive in the wilderness, was most annoyed that he couldn't shave--because Dracula had broken his mirror!

I am reminded a bit, too, of Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness, where men from civilization ventured into the wilderness among natives, whom they called savages. Freed from rules and norms, however, the civilized men became the real savages.

Conclusion

Well once Van Helsing convinced his friends that the vampire was real, they bought into what they had to do, and readily accepted the Transylvanian customs. Dracula got away from them in England, but by using their now open minds they were able to track him to Transylvania, cope in the wilderness, and complete their mission. Van Helsing would not have succeeded without everyone having an open mind.

Okay, so vampires aren't really real, but the point is as true today as it was in Stoker's time and as true as it has been since the dawn of man. People latch onto beliefs--right or wrong--and once latched onto, it takes great effort to change their minds.

References:
Bram Stoker. Dracula [Kindle Edition]. 1897.
Joseph Conrad. Heart of Darkness. [Kindle Edition]. 1899.

Vampire Lore from Dracula (1897)

I wonder how much vampire lore Bram Stoker made up for Dracula (1897) versus how much he incorporated from tradition?

Here are some vampire tenets from Dracula. Vampires:

1. Feed by sucking blood from humans
   
2. Cannot be seen in mirrors
3. Cannot cross over a shoreline except at the slack of low tide or the flood of high tide but can be carried by someone else at any tide stage
   
4. Cannot enter someone's home unless invited by somebody (anybody) and once invited, can return without restriction
   
5. Possess supernatural powers only at night
6. Supernatural powers include mesmerism, strength of 20 men, command of wild animals, ability to change form into animals (often a wolf or a bat), may dematerialize into a mist or sparks of light, can pass through cracks, and can control the immediately surrounding weather
   
7. Have the strength and capabilities of ordinary humans during the day (Hollywood seems to have invented their vulnerability to sunlight)
8. Can be destroyed only by a stake through the heart, followed by decapitation and insertion of garlic into the mouth
9. Exist eternally unless destroyed
   
10. Are repelled by garlic, holy water, crosses, and communion wafers (Hollywood must have invented the idea that Christian objects only work for Christians who believe)
11. If a victim dies under the influence of a vampire, then the victim, too, becomes a vampire
12. Victims that don't die or who escape in time, will recover normally

Reference:
Bram Stoker. Dracula [Kindle Edition]. 1897.

Bram Stoker's Dracula (1897) and Exploitation

I believe there are 3 major themes in Bram Stoker's Dracula (1897):

1. Exploitation - somebody is always exploiting somebody else in this world
   
2. Knowledge & Beliefs - we believe what we've learned to believe and close our minds to everything else
   
3. God's will be done - Good prevails over evil, eventually
   

One, exploitation, is the most obvious. Vampires feed on the living. They kidnap babies, lure children, and mesmerize healthy adults and nourish themselves by sucking their blood. After feeding, the vampire becomes stronger, invigorated, and rejuvenated. Their victims are weakened and drained of their life force. The victims don't die right away, but will die eventually if they lose too much blood.

What's interesting is that Count Dracula was once a living human himself but fell prey to some other vampire hundreds of years ago. At the time, Dracula was a leader in battles against the Turks. He claimed a glorious history, but Van Helsing suggested he was more of a common dictator like many we still have in today's world. Dracula thoughtlessly led brave men into battle but left them to die when he fled to hide and save himself--strategic regrouping in his mind. How many dictators have we seen lately do the same or something similar?

Van Helsing, knowing Dracula's history and understanding his instincts, knew where to find him when he got away. He knew he was going to go back home, hide, cowardly wait until it was safe, and he knew he would then return to London and prey on the population. Van Helsing knew they had to act immediately or a future generation would suffer.

Dracula, as a human and as a vampire, ruthlessly exploited anybody he could: babies, children, women, and men. The purpose was to meet his personal needs and nourish and save himself, without regard to lives he destroyed.

Dracula symbolizes pervasive human exploitation that still happens today: abusive relationships, political and industrial exploitation, drug dealing, confidence scams, dictatorships--any case where someone is exploiting someone else, unfairly taking their money, resources, or labor; destroying their property, air, health, or quality of life...

Reference:
Bram Stoker. Dracula [Kindle Edition]. 1897.

Dracula - it's Not Just About Sex

It seems everybody believes the real meaning to Bram Stoker's Dracula (1897) is all about sex.

Actually sex was just a part of it. The vampires used mesmerism, flattery, and sexual attraction to lure their victims. Their main goal was to feed themselves. They didn't derive any more pleasure feeding themselves than anyone else eating supper.

Most of the victims were children--who are sexually immature. Lucy fed on children in Hampstead Heath. Dracula and the 3 sisters fed on babies and children they caught in Transylvania. Maybe they preferred children because they were easier to catch.

Not all victims turned into vampires either. Besides Dracula, there were only 4 other full-fledged vampires: Lucy and the 3 sisters. (Mina was in the transformation stage but didn't complete) You'd think if merely biting a victim would cause the transformation, there would a million vampires in Transylvania since Dracula had been feeding there for hundreds of years. Maybe the transformation required sexual maturity, so they fed on children to keep the numbers down. Maybe intercourse was a necessary step to begin the transformation process. Obviously Dracula could choose who to transform and who not to transform.

Personally I think the necessary step for transformation was the 2-way exchange of blood. Remember: they caught Dracula in the act with Mina. It wasn't sex, but that's what started the process.

The main themes of Dracula, and I see it, are:

1. Exploitation - somebody is always exploiting somebody else in this world
   
2. Knowledge & Beliefs - we believe what we've learned to believe and close our minds to everything else
   
3. God's will be done - Good prevails over evil, eventually
   

Sex was just a part of #1. More pages are devoted to Van Helsing's speeches on science, civilization, open minds vs. closed minds, and child minds vs adult minds, and from the climax to the end, they depended on God's will.

References:
Bram Stoker. Dracula [Kindle Edition]. 1897.
SparkNotes Editors. "SparkNotes: Dracula." SparkNotes LLC. 2003. Web 2011.