All About the Looks: Adaptations of Dracula
Although the novel Dracula was written by Bram Stoker in the late 19th century, there are many film adaptations and theater productions which were made. The story of Dracula as a character became known through the spread of the media, but more specifically, film. Perhaps the most well known role of Dracula is "In the Hammer Studios classic from 1958, The Horror of Dracula-the film that introduced the world to Christopher Lee in the role of the world's most famous vampire" (1). Since then, Dracula has been represented in many other films or related media. According to vampire enthusiast scholar John Edgar Browning, "the Count, or his semblance, has appeared in at least 740 feature-length films, television programs, documentaries, animated works, adult features, and video games, as well as in over a thousand comic books and theatrical dramatizations" (2). That is a lot of representation for Dracula, but it may not all be the same information. Each adaptation has taken some liberties when it comes to Stoker's original novel, but the presence of Dracula himself hasn't changed too much.
Many misconceptions about Dracula have occurred because of the way the movies have chosen to visually style him. We discussed Dracula's appearance in class and found that many of us believed Dracula to look like this:
 |
A stereotypical Dracula, with the slicked-back hair, black collar cape, and vaguely foreign looks (5) |
However, there was not a place in the novel where he was dressed like this. This idea of Dracula was decided by "these movies, those of the fifties, that have given us our modem image of the vampire—dressed in black, handsome, evil, and ultimately sexual—and Holte details film and television's transformation of the myth from one of simple horror to one that opens up possibilities for humor and romance" (3). So, we all just came to the conclusion that Dracula should be a sexy, misunderstood, romanticized vampire? It appears that way. We have created monsters with a sad background story in attempt to gain sympathy for them, but this was most likely not how Stoker envisioned Dracula.
 |
A sad Dracula, because we tend to believe he is capable of experiencing sorrow (6) |
Something that may not be well-known is the fact that Dracula himself was not allowed to be shown with fangs in the film adaptations until 1958, when Christopher "Lee was the first mainstream Count to sport actual, visible fangs; before, the censors simply wouldn’t allow it, so audiences were left to assume the fangs were there" (2). I had always assumed that his fangs were his defining characteristic, but many people were not exposed to the fangs in a film. This is important to note because something that gives the vampire an identity are their fangs.
Dracula has also had its time on the stage, including a musical on Broadway. In 2004, Dracula, The Musical was showing on Broadway, but it did not find a receptive audience. One author from the New York Times stated that "if you already know the story of Dracula as put forth by Stoker and Hollywood, you will find nothing to surprise you here. If you don't know the story, you will find it impossible to follow. The show assumes the audience's full acquaintance with the source material and delivers much of its crucial exposition through sung lyrics that are not always intelligible" (4). Unfortunately, the show did not fare well and got constructive criticism, hold the compliments. On a more positive note, while in New York City, some students-myself included-went to see Kate Hamill's adaptation of Dracula. It was entertaining, fresh, and quite a twist from the traditional-style novel, proving that there are a variety of lenses to view the story of Dracula.
Works Cited:
1. Weinstock, Jeffrey Andrew. "The Vampire Film: Undead Cinema." Vol. 48, Columbia University Press, 2012.
2. Browning, John Edgar. “Listening to Our Vampires: Dracula from the Grave to the Page to Stage and Cinema.” Listening, no. 3, 2017, p. 127. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspxdirect=true&db=edsbl&AN=RN614553015&site=eds-live&scope=site.
3. Montville, Julanne. “Dracula in the Dark: The Dracula Film Adaptations.” Extrapolation, vol. 39, no. 2, June 1998, p. 173. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspxdirect=true&db=edsglr&AN=edsgcl.20913304&site=eds-live&scope=site.
4. Brantley, Ben. “The Bat Awakens, Stretches, Yawns.” The New York Times, 20 Aug. 2004, www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/movies/theater-review-the-bat-awakens-stretches-yawns.html. Accessed 5 April 2020.
5. Pulliam-Moore, Charles. "The Case for Calling All Vampires Draculas." Gizmodo, 27 Oct. 2019, https://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2019/10/the-case-for-calling-all-vampires-draculas/
6. Torres, Tamara. "Sad Vampire." flickr, 23 Aug. 2008, https://www.flickr.com/photos/nene_muerta/2791507422
Although I knew that Dracula had many adaptations, I did not know the extent of it. It seems to me that some of the adaptations are more popular among society, likely because of their modernization. Before we started reading the novel in class, I had heard a version of Dracula in which he kills in order to get revenge for his lover, who was murdered; obviously that was not the case in Bram Stoker's original novel.
ReplyDeleteAlso, it is funny and surprising to me that having fake fangs was considered inappropriate, and needed to be censored.This would be a time in which white actors were still using "black face", but Hollywood draws the line at fangs.
I agree that Kate Hamill's adaption was a fresh twist on Dracula, and I personally loved how she built up a lot of female roles, or just created a new one, like she did with Van Helsing.
Great blog!