Dracula is one of the most filmed novels ever, and with every other book to film adaption, one question always crops up; Will it be faithful? Here in lies the first problem- the actual novel is quite dull. It has a fantastic opening of course, full of tension and horror, but after that it does fall rather flat. Because of this rather annoying fact, when you sit down and watch the films you can spot a pattern. Either the film makers will have subtly edited out the boring bits, which usually result in some rather glaring plot holes while the point of the story has been missed completely, or they will ditch the original story altogether, keep the more interesting characters and utter that most dreaded line, "In the spirit of the original". The first example will usually have ridiculous back story in tow (I'm looking at you Mr Coppola), while the second will inject as much sex as possible (you too, Mr Badham) or, God Forbid, move the story to modern day America (for shame, Mr Lussier, for shame).
This is why I loved this adaption of Dracula so much. While it has, for the most part, abandoned the original story, it hasn't forgotten the themes of Victorian morality, the dangers of illicit sex and the importance of faith- I thought the subtle hint of Catholicism was a nice touch. The story that was presented, Holmwood's desperate pursuit to find a cure for Syphillis and live a full life with Lucy, perfectly highlights the fear surrounding the disease at the time, as does the tragic outcome and realisation that in his quest to rid himself of one sexually transmitted disease, he has lost his wife to another.
The scene where Dracula seduces Lucy was beautifully done- sexy but not gratuitous, which is rare for a Dracula adaption, and is further evidence that the film makers have understood that, despite vampirism being Stoker's ultimate and timeless representation of STDs, Dracula is neither an erotic nor a romantic story. At it's core, it is a story about fear.
Many people scoffed when Marc Waren was announced as the one play the famous Count, but just like Daniel Craig's performance of James Bond, I believe his casting has become a case of 'just wait and see'. He was suitably seductive and sinister, and quite frankly I thought he was brilliant in the role, as was the rest of the cast. I was particularly impressed by Tom Burke and Stephanie Leonidas as Seward and Mina respectively.
I sincerely urge you to watch this, it's entertaining but clever, sexy but restrained, scary but without cheap shocks.
Bloody Brilliant.
This is why I loved this adaption of Dracula so much. While it has, for the most part, abandoned the original story, it hasn't forgotten the themes of Victorian morality, the dangers of illicit sex and the importance of faith- I thought the subtle hint of Catholicism was a nice touch. The story that was presented, Holmwood's desperate pursuit to find a cure for Syphillis and live a full life with Lucy, perfectly highlights the fear surrounding the disease at the time, as does the tragic outcome and realisation that in his quest to rid himself of one sexually transmitted disease, he has lost his wife to another.
The scene where Dracula seduces Lucy was beautifully done- sexy but not gratuitous, which is rare for a Dracula adaption, and is further evidence that the film makers have understood that, despite vampirism being Stoker's ultimate and timeless representation of STDs, Dracula is neither an erotic nor a romantic story. At it's core, it is a story about fear.
Many people scoffed when Marc Waren was announced as the one play the famous Count, but just like Daniel Craig's performance of James Bond, I believe his casting has become a case of 'just wait and see'. He was suitably seductive and sinister, and quite frankly I thought he was brilliant in the role, as was the rest of the cast. I was particularly impressed by Tom Burke and Stephanie Leonidas as Seward and Mina respectively.
I sincerely urge you to watch this, it's entertaining but clever, sexy but restrained, scary but without cheap shocks.
Bloody Brilliant.