Dracula Lives
Friday December 29, 2006 in television | horror
Then I stopped and looked at the Count. There was a mocking smile on the bloated face which seemed to drive me mad. This was the being I was helping to transfer to London, where, perhaps, for centuries to come he might, amongst its teeming millions, satiate his lust for blood, and create a new and ever-widening circle of semi-demons to batten on the helpless.
Bram Stoker, Dracula.
In 1992 Bram Stoker’s Dracula was released in the cinema. Francis Ford Coppola’s film claimed to be a faithful adaptation of the 1897 novel and so used the author’s name in the title to advertise this. Give or take some distracting acting styles, ranging from the totally bland (Keanu Reeves) to the completely over the top (Gary Oldman), the film is very close to the original novel. But do we really give a damn?
The story of Dracula has lasted so long because it is so malleable; most people know the story or at the very least who Dracula is, so what can a film really offer if it sticks so closely to the original? Two of the strangest adaptations of Dracula were made in 1974, The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires and Andy Warhol’s Dracula. The first film features vampires very adept at Kung Fu, while the second introduces the Russian revolution as a backdrop. Although both are very different and very strange, the films manage to use the Dracula legend to their advantage.
This Christmas the BBC offered another reworking of Dracula. As we were watching it last night, my wife kept asking me if “this bit really happened” or if “that bit was true”. She wasn’t asking if this was a true story, but if the new adaptation of Dracula was faithful to the original novel. I answered “more or less”, not deliberately choosing to be vague but because I did think the new film “more or less” captured, at least in spirit, Bram Stoker’s original.
I enjoyed the new Dracula because it featured all of the essential elements you’d expect, namely fangs, blood, creepy castles, crucifixes and everything else that’s now so very familiar. I also enjoyed it because it took some liberties with the plot, so some of the developments were unexpected and I wasn’t bored by another ‘faithful’ version where I knew the outcome. Most importantly, I enjoyed the way the 2006 Dracula used many of the themes of the original novel. The fears of the alien, and the evil that is brought into the modern city of London and threatens to turn back time to a primitive and dangerous existence. The best scene in last night’s film featured Dracula eagerly poring over a map of London, parts of it mapped out boldly in red like blood-filled veins.
Dracula 2006 chooses the route of Hammer Films rather than Francis Coppola for its conclusion. After Dracula has had a stake thrust through is chest and Van Helsing has nervously asked “you did get it through his heart?” I half-expected the Count to make a devilish reappearance at the end, which he did. So the BBC may be pinning their hopes on a sequel next Christmas.
Note to BBC: don’t spoil it. Can we have Frankenstein instead?