I am going to watch a few other Dracula adaptations (including the Louis Jourdan version) and will be releasing a part two to this video later this month!
The 1977 adaptation from the BBC titled *Count Dracula* and starring French actor Louis Jourdan as Dracula was one of the most faithful of all the adaptations. The Dan Curtis Adaptation starring Jack Palance was good, as well, and Palance also went on to play Stevenson's *Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde* a year or so later.
From the book, Dracula in the crypt with gouts of blood on his mouth from feeding: it's not stated in so many words that Dracula bit Harker, but recall Dracula's words to the Weird Sisters - - "Tonight is mine; tomorrow night is yours!" So it's likely that the blood on Dracula's mouth is Harker's, and this explains Dracula's ability to put Harker in a trance later on while he attacked Mina - - he had already bitten Harker at the castle and had a certain amount of control over him.
I thoroughly enjoyed your exploration of the book and these adaptations! My favorite adaptation is the BBC's 1977 miniseries Count Dracula, with Louis Jourdan in the eponymous role. I feel it's the closest adaptation the book, allowing the early Castle Dracula scenes with Jonathen Harker to play out in detail, as well as the scenes with Lucy and Mina in Whitby, the exteriors being shot on location there. I heartily recommend that version! Subscribed!
I believe Context is so important to any discussion of Stoker's novel. Late 19th century, technology and art beginning to over-run traditions and folklore tales that had prevailed for centuries. AND THERE WAS A COLLISION!....:Don't know much about pschology, don't know much about anthropology "...Horror tales and Science fiction stories seem to be more about warnings of Pride and Manipulation ...How humans deal with Choices. Mary Shelley wrote "Frankenstein" at 21 years old while involved with a Romantic Poet who believed that Man could "perfect" humans, socially and biologically, and wrote a novel of warning about Pride and Downfall, in my opinion....Deeper issues than the current state of labeling any position one disagrees with as "racist! " or patriarchy!" in order to shut down honest discussion. Intellectually pathetic. Essay Over . ..thanks for your patience with ramblings.
I just finished a reread of Dracula and totally agree about the last 1/3 of the book, way to slow. The first 1/3 when Harker is at the castle has the most suspense and atmosphere. Stoker's short story, Dracula's Guest is a hidden gem, I enjoyed it!
Tbh, Coppola's Dracula isn't that explicit with the sexual scenes imo. Sure they are there but it's not like something out of shall we say other kinds of adult entertainment. I'd say they're done fairly tastefully. I think Coppola put more emphasis on the atmosphere of the film than anything else, making it eerie and gothic and it works for the most part.
I really enjoyed your video. The Francis Ford Coppola movie is the definitive one. For me, Gary Oldman is amazing. His accent is perfect, his demeanor really incredible. I really loved his fingers and the hair in his palms, hinting at his inhumanity and his sexual perversion. The shadow was a great touch. But Oldman's performance carries the show, making up for the youngsters. Anthony Hopkins was great as Van Helsing, with his inappropriate glee and his crazy Flemish accent. Sexual innuendo is a big part of the book. The Count is angry at God and the church and his passion for his dead wife is unnaatural and evil. His life is dark, dirty and despicable. His glamour comes from all the people he murders. It is fascinating, in a lurid way.
I'll give it another watch in the future. Maybe I'll like it better a second time around. But you are right with the details regarding Dracula the character!
The Vlad Tepes angle bugs me because Bram Stoker never was influenced by Vlad the Impaler. It was an urban myth. But, it ended up in a few Dracula films. Also, that Mina was a reincarnated version of an old love. Like this one and the Jack Palance one from the 70s.
Is that Mexican soap opera the definitive version? I imagined a dark fight against darkness like in Lord of The Rings and not a cheap drama. The screenwriter and director ruined the story of the book. Vlad's first wife did not commit suicide for love, but she would not be taken prisoner by the Turks and Vlad did not care about her death and married her death and remarried. I expected an antagonist like Sauron and Morgoth from Dracula, but it comes with cheap love drama.
@@wildmarjoramdieselpunk6396 It was a Turkish adaptation of Dracula, "Dracula in Istanbul," that first implicitly named Count Dracula as Vlad the Impaler.
I can only reiterate comments saying the 1977 BBC adaptation "Count Dracula" is the one to watch above all others. There is no adaptation closer to the book than this. Watched it at Christmas '77 and loved it totally. BBC did two other "adaptations". One in 2006 with Marc Warren, which is dull as ditchwater and 2020 as a mini series with Claes Bang. The first two episodes are very entertaining (but not faithful to the book) and the final episode is awful and moves to modern day. Don't forget the two unofficial Dracula adaptations - Nosferatu 1922 & 1979, both marvellous but had to be changed due to Stoker's estate threatening to sue.
Slight correction - BBC also produced Dracula as part of its "Mystery & Imagination" series in 1968. It had Denholm Elliot in the lead role. To be honest, it is not great. All the Transylvania bits are cut out and it is very dialogue heavy and studio bound, like a play. There's also a hard to find 1973 adaptation that was shown on CBC (Canada) as part of the "Purple Playhouse" series, with Norman Welsh as Dracula. That includes Dracula crawling down the walls of the Castle. Quite enjoyable. However, it is only an hour long, so it is very truncated.
Aside from Dracula Dead and Loving it there is another spoof concerning Dracula that is liked by many.It’s from the 70s and asks the question,what if Dracula were reincarnated during the disco era.The movie’s called Love at First Bite,and stars George Hamilton ,Artie Johnson as Renfield if I recall,and Richard Benjamin as Dracula’s nemesis.
I read Dracula when I was about 12 or 13 and loved every page. Your comments regarding how women are represented in the novel make tons of sense as I was raised with a "Victorian" ideal of women, so I didn't question how they were represented in the text. Good thing I eventually realized that feminists like Gloria Steinem,, and other powerful women in the 1970's, (ya I'm that old) had something to say. My wife is proof that women are not to be taken lightly and I bet she could kick Dracula's butt any day!
Is there an important theme there with old wealthy men feeding on the youth? Lulling them into a sense of comfort and then sucking the life from them. Thus maintaining his position of power forever.
Well, in the Dracula: Pages from a Virgin’s Diary plays on xenophobia having Dracula being danced by a Chinese actor. It plays on the scary feeling the English had of their women being corrupted by foreigner and their money. Money is even thrown by Dracula in the ballet.
The 1979 version is definitely worth seeing: it's in the tradition of the 1924 play and 1931 movie, but ends up taking the story in different directions. The 1979 remake of Nosferatu is a masterpiece, easily worthy to stand beside the 1922 original. And I strongly agree with the other commenters who recommend the 1977 British television version with Louis Jourdan, especially for Frank Finlay's performance as Van Helsing - some might consider it over the top, but I think it's brilliant. The earlier TV version with Jack Palance is notable for being, I believe, the first adaptation that explicitly identifies Dracula with the historical Vlad the Impaler. The book In Search of Dracula had come out just two years earlier, and was really the general public's first introduction to the historical basis (mostly unknown to Stoker himself) of Stoker's character. Incidentally, that version was originally to have been shown in 1973, but was pre-empted by news reports of Spiro Agnew's resignation from the vice presidency that day; so the air date was rescheduled for 1974.
Bela Lugosi's last sad role was in "Plan 9 From Outer Space," directed by Ed Wood and listed as the worst film ever made in "The Golden Turkey Awards" in 1980. AND, Tim Burton directed "Ed Wood" starring Johnny Depp, about the movie. Martin Landau won an Oscar for portraying Lugosi in the movie. (Sorry if you knew all this trivia.)
Yeah I love the movie Ed Wood! It's based on a nonfiction book about Wood and I would like to do an episode on it at some point! Landau is so amazing in that role.
Great comparison! You do such a great job breaking down plot and detail differences. It’s amazing how varied the adaptations are, and how much they tend to change the source material. The visuals and the music were fantastic in the ‘92 version, but I could’ve done without the reincarnation storyline. I wish Coppola would’ve used all his production values to create a very faithful story. Poor Keanu, I think he was just terribly miscast. I’m a big fan of Winona Ryder, so I’m able to look past her bad accent.😂 I love the ‘31 version, even though they had to change so much. For me, the absence of music makes it more haunting. Silence can be terrifying. There’s a Spanish version that was filmed at the same time, with the same sets and script, but different actors. I haven’t seen it, but some say it’s better than the Lugosi version. I still have to watch Christopher Lee’s Dracula, since he’s a favorite of so many.
Thank you! And thanks for sharing you thoughts! I've heard of the Spanish version but still haven't seen it. You should definitely check out one of the Lee movies, he was so iconic as Dracula
All right, let's break it down: The Dracula Icons: Bela Lugosi, Christopher Lee. Nice tries: Jack Palance, Frank Langella, Gary Oldman. Well done: Louis Jourdan. Who cares: Clae Bang, Thomas Kretschmann, Marc Warren. Honorable Mention: John Carradine.
You should check out the 1979 Dracula with Frank Langella and Laurence Olivier. There were actually 3 Dracula movies that year - the other two were Nosferatu and Love at First Bite(great comedy with George Hamilton as the Count)
I finished the book some weeks ago and never watched any of the movies besides dead and loving it right after and think it's my favourtie book also. It seems surprisingly progresive for it's time? Mina is one of the smartest and most cabable people in the group, and does all the logistics, and the one time all the men try tell her to say back because it's dangerous, it backfires and she gets bitten in her sleep. Also loved how emotional all the men are in the story, Van Hellsing spends a lot of time talking about how much he loves his friends and all of them cry in front of each other it's so wholesome. Also regarding Renfield.. I never understood why so many stories make him meet Dracula first? I think ''their connection'' is pretty clear in the book. Renfield has his mental problems where he is thinks eating other life makes him stronger, then at some point Dracula, when he needs to find a way to get into the asylum because he knows the scoopygang make plans in there, he knows he needs someone to invite him in. So he finds Renfild that has a window outside and makes a deal with him that he will send him lots of black widow spiders and deathhead moths to him as trade for inviting him into the building. Dracula never bites Renfield, Renfield is not his slave, they just made a deal, thats why when Dracula tries to kidnap Mina Renfield feels bad, since Mina was so nice to him and tries to fight back but dies in the attempt. And last note, Mina wanted the to be forgiving to Draculas SOUL.. or at least is asking Jonathan to not curse his soul to hell, since it's very clear from what happen to Lucy that you are not the same person after you turn into a vampire, and part of the curse of vamprism, is that you are forced to murder people forever, key part of that being that your soul can't go beyond after death, I think Mina is very aware at that point that you are not yourself after turning, so she doesn't want herself or others to be judged based on something that would be out of their control. That's why someone makes a point that Dracula was a great man once and it's a shame he became this monster after. this is the part of the book: "May God give him into my hand just for long enough to destroy that earthly life of him which we are aiming at. If beyond it I could send his soul forever and ever to burning hell I would do it!" "Oh, hush! Oh, hush in the name of the good God. Don't say such things, Jonathan, my husband, or you will crush me with fear and horror. Just think, my dear… I have been thinking all this long, long day of it… that… perhaps… some day… I, too, may need such pity, and that some other like you, and with equal cause for anger, may deny it to me! I read it as she has been scared over what she could end up doing after turning, when Dracula is a monster and Lucy was murdering kids
Thanks for commenting! I like what you say about Mina and even though I have my quibbles, I do like that she is proactive. Dead and Loving It is so good 😂
I love the 1992 version. Of course it's not the best pure adaptation due to the big changes made to Dracula and Mina but I think it is one of the best modern translations as to the shock and scandal Dracula caused to the Victorians. There is plenty things a modern reader won't even pick up on or understand their meaning off in the book. And even if someone was especially educated about the period rationally understanding is nothing compared to actually experiencing it. Just how we would see and describe Mina, Lucy or the guys characters would be quite a bit different, what we love or dislike about them. How we judge them. The novel is full of ideals of man- and womanhood and friendship as seen by the late Victorians. Upping the horror and being more explicit I think helps us to experience Dracula's horror better. But I also think Coppola really made a commentary on the Victorian's as well. The way the sexual tensions are dialled up, the fear of sexuality and sin the characters have. Van Helsing being attracted to Mina and her seducing him. Showing the use of drugs. The scenes in the insane asylum. It's very much how we seem to often portray the Victorian's today in pop culture. Gary Oldman is fantastic in the role even if it's not the real book Dracula but I also very much enjoy the acting overall. The cinematography is stunning, so is the soundtrack. Otherwise I do think Christopher Lee is best as Dracula. It would have been awesome to get him in a more high budget production like the Coppola one.
The version of Dracula I would recommend if you want the single most faithful one to the book is the 1997 BBC TV movie version. It's much lower budget than the Coppola version and stars much lesser-known actors, but it follows the book even closer, is less graphic and doesn't have the gratuitous, disturbing sex scenes. Edited to add: I see others have recommended it and you have now seen and reviewed it. I can understand why you would feel it "drags" at times, as it is the closest to the book and the book, as you pointed out, "drags" quite a bit in its later stages.
Here’s my biggest question for you regarding Dracula and his on-screen adaptations. One of the biggest reasons why I love the 1992 Dracula so much is because ever since it came out, it popularized the Vlad The Impaler-origin story so much that it kind of became “canon” in Dracula’s lore, even though Bram Stoker really only took Vlad’s family name and the setting when he used them for inspiration. But what is your opinion/take on using Vlad Tepes as who Dracula was when he was human? Is this a plotline that you like or dislike?
Maybe you might think about doing part two where you talk about,for example,the 1979 version with Frank Langella and the BBC version with Louis Jourdan,which I hear is an extremely faithful version
I love how 1931 renfield just. shows up in places. how’d he get there? in the 1927 play Seward asks him how tf he manages to constantly escape and he responds, and I quote, “wouldn’t you like to know?” icon behavior tbh
Yes lol, he's such a great character! Even though there is a sadness with him, I like the adaptations that also lean into the humor. Love the "wouldn't you like to know" 😆
I’m only now seeing this in 2024 and I’m enjoying your takes. The Coppola version has become my favorite, then the Louis Jourdan movie, the Jack Palaance version is pretty good, and the swashbuckling Peter Cushing Van Helsing battling Christopher Lee’s almost animalistic Dracula is at the top of my list. I’m VERY mixed on Frank Langella, who at the time was my late mother’s favorite. And as a film buff, I like Lugosi’s iconic version. So I’ve seen a mix of vampire movies from Nosferstu to Coppola’s Dracula and I judge them as best I can and I know the ones I really like. Oh! I heard on one documentary of the ‘31 Dracula that Lucy is still wandering around London. There was a scene showing her staked but it was cut; unsure why. So unlike other Lucy’s, she’s probably still stumbling around, snatching up a kid here and there. Now. Can somebody explain: is that a vampire bug with its own little coffin in the ‘31 Dracula? 😂
I watched the silent Nosferatu in the cinema with live music and that was such fun. I think I read Dracula when I was a teenager, but can't remember much about it. So you inspired me to go to Project Gutenberg and get myself a copy of the novel. Fun note; Lugosi was asked to play the monster in the Frankenstein film, but turned it down because the monster wasn't that interesting in the script. And he was probably right at that time. So they went with Boris Karloff. But by the time Karloff read the rewritten script the monster was made much more interesting.
In addition to Demeter, there's also Bram Stoker's Van Helsing which just focuses on Lucy and her situation after becoming Dracula's victim and eventually her turning.
@@WhytheBookWins I haven't seen it myself but i know it's a low budget movie but that doesn't necessarily mean it's bad. I'd check it out for yourself and make up your own opinion. Also, I wonder if adapting chapters of books will become more of a trend if the movie studios can't be arsed to adapt full books lol
I would love for you to cover Dracula: Pages From a Virgin’s Diary, which was a ballet broadcast on Canadian TV that’s pretty faithful to the book, over than it being a ballet and having a silent movie style.
The Spanish language version of Dracula from 1931 is another version to checkout. It was shot on the same sets as Browning’s film but with an entirely different cast. Many find the direction of this version better than Browning’s film but Villarías’ Dracula may not quite be as memorable as Lugosi’s.
"Renfield" role originally played by the actor Dwight Frye who played the usual "Igor" roles. There's an early Alice Cooper Band song "The Ballad of Dwight Frye" on RUclips. Dramatic Rock Theater.
I’ll always have a soft spot for the campiness of Hammer’s films about the Count and of course the late great Sir Christopher Lee was excellently cast for the part (despite his infamous hatred of the role afterwards). You should definitely watch the ‘79 film since it came from the same play that Universal original adapted the 1931 film from. Frank Langella reprised the role of the Count as he had done onstage (much like Lugosi before him) & he is quite captivating along with Kate Nelligan’s Lucy. You also have Dr. Loomis himself, Donald Pleasance, as Dr. Seward and even a Doctor Who in a minor role. The late Sir Laurence Olivier is also in the film as Van Helsing, but I feel he was miscast despite his efforts to deliver a decent performance. There are so many versions that it’s impossible to cover all
Thank you! Very enjoyable! 🖤 The 1979 Dracula starring Frank Langella is absolutely my favourite film adaptation. Well worth watching. It’s an adaptation of Stoker’s play more so than the book, but it’s a great film on it’s own merits. I definitely prefer it to the Coppola film, which treated Lucy’s character appallingly.
Klaus Kinski, who was Renfield in the Jesus Franko 'Count Dracula' was count Dracula in the Werner Herzog 'Nosferatu The Vampyre' his gentle minimalist acting style is quite unique.
One thing I found odd about the 1931 version of Renfield is that he keeps going on and on about how he's worried for Mina and that she must be protected but he never meets her in that version. I know he meets her in the book so it's understandable why he would be worried about her there, but as I've said he never meets her in the universal film so I don't get why he's so worried about a person he's never met.
Sorry, I have to interject on a couple of points. First, good video, but please watch the 1977 BBC production starring Louis Jordan. 1) I have read the book many times and love it for what it is: iconic. As far as your critique of the last quarter of the book I don't see it. It is always moving forward to a climax, but you have to understand that, back in 19th century literature there was always been a lot of exposition, coupled with the fact Victorian society was big on thinking before acting, they were so reserved, so the long passages of contemplation and planning makes perfect sense. Also, to your Van Helsing 'rambling', wouldn't you think this was a part of character development? Bram Stoker was the manager of the Lyceum Theatre in London, which was the house that the great Henry Irving resided, and was the inspiration for Stoker's Dracula, so characterization would come in the form of dialogue. 2) The main reason there is no music in the 1931 version is due to money. The production was already costing a lot more than anticipated so they decided not to hire a composer for a music soundtrack. In 1979 (I believe) Phillip Glass was commissioned to compose a soundtrack for the film and that version can be found in limited releases. 3) Christopher Lee took pains to make sure he was faithful to Stoker's version: well-spoken, dangerously charismatic, but ultimately a beast of prey. A monster. Everyone who hasn't read the book fails to realize that fact. The societal Dracula was due to the stage versions, that needed the audience to see the interactions between cast and title character. 4) All Hammer films of the 70's had their actors keep their English 'accents', no matter if the movies took place in England, Germany, Austria or Transylvania. The other famous character, Dr. Frankenstein, played so endearingly by the great Peter Cushing, spoke in an English accent, and not German. It's one of those things that you just accept. In fact, you even support and accept that when you state your love for Kenneth Branagh's version of Frankenstein, and they all spoke in English accents and not German. 5) very good point of the repressed sexuality in society and the xenophobia. The fact Dracula was written at the height of the Victorian era, where sexuality was basically banned plays a major part in the novel. Once Victoria took the throne clothes became important tools to enforce this 'repression' by covering up all skin, except the face and hands, especially for women, which is why the fashion became so important, your clothes conveyed your individuality, your sex, if you will, and not conveyed by your body. Society became proper and women became revered, basically held up on pedestals, to be protected at all times. So, the fact that Lucy and Mina becoming more forward as they turned being disgusting to the men fits perfectly with society standards at the time. And, the fact Mina holds pity for Dracula is the nurturing, accepting side of the Victorian era, the women being the reflection of their 'mother', the queen, the one who rises above all without judgement. 6) the xenophobia was real back then, foreigners were thought suspicious and the fact the book was written close to the turn of the century, indeed, incorporating new technology, such as the phonograph supports the fact Victorian society were the leaders of progression. The Transylvanians were ruled by superstition and the English are superior because they use their 'entering' 20th century brains to combat problems. Also, if you re-read the section where the men find one of Dracula's 'safehouses' he insinuates his plans to take over all of England. This is supported by the fact of why he kept Harker at his castle for so long, as he was still figuring out the logistics of transporting all 50 of his boxes of earth not just to England, but to all his positions around the London area, so no matter where he was in England he could always have a place nearby where he could find safety. He laments to Harker that he was a warrior, a conqueror and, that there are no places in his land left to conquer, so he is moving to England to be a conqueror once again. The fact this wasn't fleshed out in the book is because, in the end, the novel is about personal struggles, not as a nationwide crisis. I apologize for the rant, if you end up reading the whole thing, thank you. Fun fact: in the 1970 Count Dracula movie, Renfield is played by the great Klaus Kinski, who would go on to play Count Orlock in the 1979 remake of Nosferatu. I enjoyed your video very much and appreciate all your thoughts. It's always enjoyable to get another's perspective about a book you love. One final note: no movie has ever captured the entire book and its tone from beginning to end, and I don't think one will ever be made. Thanks again!
I have since watched the 1977 movie! I have a follow up video coming out later this month sharing my thoughts on that and other Dracula movies I have more recently watched. Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts! You make good points about the writing style. It's also interesting to learn about the cultures of the time and how it is reflected in the book!
@@WhytheBookWins Thank you for your reply! I respect the fact that, with so many comments, that you took the time to respond! I apologize again, I tend to rant about things I am passionate about. I did enjoy your fresh take on the book! It's always good to look at something that has become comfortable through fresh eyes. To that end that I am doing the Dracula Daily project next year. A gentleman named Matt Kirkland took Dracula and compiled all the 'entries' into their respective dates into a book (and website), and invites the reader to read the entries for that specific day - in real time. This means some dates that are out of order in the book are combined into the entry for that day. So, on May 3rd you would read of Johnathan Harker's journey, on May 4th you would read the next entry, etc., all the way up to the end of the novel on November 7! I will look forward to your follow-up on the Dracula movies, as well as your comparison of the two Nosferatu movies. Now, time to go see what other novels you have to offer on your channel! I do like the concept, since people tend to compare about filmed versions of books!
I understand where you are coming from, but at the end when you are talking about Mina I tend to disagree. I don’t think it is her being weak, I think it is her almost gaining the perspective of a vampire and having pity, or maybe a bit of empathy towards him. Because he is a tragic figure, and she feels closer to that in that moment.
Yeah I have come around on that topic and don't feel as strongly against her choice as I say in this video. I still dislike the trope of the long suffering woman because that's what society thinks women should be like. Yet her wanting them to have pity on him makes sense considering she herself knows she could one day be a vampire herself. Thanks for commenting!
So many adaptations, so little time! I originally hadn't even planned on watching as many as i did, but as the week went on I just kept watching more versions lol.
Gary Oldman is the best Dracula. Agreed that Keanu and Winona were badly cast. Should have got English actors. I thought Anthony Hopkins was a little over the top as van helsing. Shame as it was a pretty decent script.
Hmm there are a LOT of severed heads. There are also scenes with a lot of blood, but it is done in a comical way. So I would probably lean towards no you shouldn't watch it.
Yes! The gore is cartoon gore. For example the horseman whacks off a head and the head spins several times on the neck before it falls off like in a bugs bunny cartoon. If you’ve seen any Hammer films of the 50s and 60s it’s a lot like those.
Have you ever heard of a book called Dracula undead it's written by a descendant of bram stoker dracre stoker I read it many years ago it's sorta of sequel to bram stoker Dracula 🤔🦇
Isn't it a bit pointless to expect that a male and Victorian author should have portrayed Mina much different especially in a sensationalist horror novel which Dracula is? I think the fact this is NOT high literature in any sense but a racy, exaggerated and excited serialised page turner is fundamental here. I'd point at the quickly pumped out drivel that we publish in romantic fantasy today which isnt any more subtle in it's portrayal of male /female interactions over a hundred years later and written by women. How would Bram Stoker have realistically put himself into the mind of a (modern) woman. It was not just men who were different, it was the average women too. Both thought and felt different to us. And women arent much better putting themselves into the minds of men ...although we really like to pretend that we are.
Dracula from Francis Ford Coppola does not do justice to the book, since for example, Van Helsing is portrayed like a crazy old man and not a respected professor and the Dr. John Seward's place looks more like a place from medieval times and not a respected place to treat pacients with mental problems and it was unnecessary the romance between Dracula and Mina Harker
![Method Writing: The First Four Concepts - Jack Grapes [FULL INTERVIEW]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ba9jAVzADY0/mqdefault.jpg)
I am going to watch a few other Dracula adaptations (including the Louis Jourdan version) and will be releasing a part two to this video later this month!
I thought the village mother who child was taken by Dracula was one of the bravest character in the book
Yes! I was so glad at least one adaptation kept that scene.
The 1977 adaptation from the BBC titled *Count Dracula* and starring French actor Louis Jourdan as Dracula was one of the most faithful of all the adaptations. The Dan Curtis Adaptation starring Jack Palance was good, as well, and Palance also went on to play Stevenson's *Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde* a year or so later.
The 1977 BBC TV Dracula is worth a look. Its pretty faithful to the book and has key points that are crucial.
a great version!
From the book, Dracula in the crypt with gouts of blood on his mouth from feeding: it's not stated in so many words that Dracula bit Harker, but recall Dracula's words to the Weird Sisters - - "Tonight is mine; tomorrow night is yours!" So it's likely that the blood on Dracula's mouth is Harker's, and this explains Dracula's ability to put Harker in a trance later on while he attacked Mina - - he had already bitten Harker at the castle and had a certain amount of control over him.
Oohhh, interesting thought!
He would have to feed Harker his own blood to do that, but there is no reason to say he didn't.
I thoroughly enjoyed your exploration of the book and these adaptations!
My favorite adaptation is the BBC's 1977 miniseries Count Dracula, with Louis Jourdan in the eponymous role. I feel it's the closest adaptation the book, allowing the early Castle Dracula scenes with Jonathen Harker to play out in detail, as well as the scenes with Lucy and Mina in Whitby, the exteriors being shot on location there.
I heartily recommend that version!
Subscribed!
So many people have mentioned that one! I will make sure and watch it this month!
I believe Context is so important to any discussion of Stoker's novel. Late 19th century, technology and art beginning to over-run traditions and folklore tales that had prevailed for centuries. AND THERE WAS A COLLISION!....:Don't know much about pschology, don't know much about anthropology "...Horror tales and Science fiction stories seem to be more about warnings of Pride and Manipulation ...How humans deal with Choices. Mary Shelley wrote "Frankenstein" at 21 years old while involved with a Romantic Poet who believed that Man could "perfect" humans, socially and biologically, and wrote a novel of warning about Pride and Downfall, in my opinion....Deeper issues than the current state of labeling any position one disagrees with as "racist! " or patriarchy!" in order to shut down honest discussion. Intellectually pathetic. Essay Over . ..thanks for your patience with ramblings.
Yeah very true. Sometimes we seem to try and simplify things that are much more nuanced.
I just finished a reread of Dracula and totally agree about the last 1/3 of the book, way to slow. The first 1/3 when Harker is at the castle has the most suspense and atmosphere. Stoker's short story, Dracula's Guest is a hidden gem, I enjoyed it!
I'll have to read that one!
Tbh, Coppola's Dracula isn't that explicit with the sexual scenes imo. Sure they are there but it's not like something out of shall we say other kinds of adult entertainment. I'd say they're done fairly tastefully. I think Coppola put more emphasis on the atmosphere of the film than anything else, making it eerie and gothic and it works for the most part.
The Coppola version takes a ton from Dan Curtis' version of Dracula which was written by Richard Matheson.
What a BRILLIANT idea for a channel! Viewer for life!
Thank you! 🤗
I really enjoyed your video. The Francis Ford Coppola movie is the definitive one. For me, Gary Oldman is amazing. His accent is perfect, his demeanor really incredible. I really loved his fingers and the hair in his palms, hinting at his inhumanity and his sexual perversion. The shadow was a great touch. But Oldman's performance carries the show, making up for the youngsters. Anthony Hopkins was great as Van Helsing, with his inappropriate glee and his crazy Flemish accent. Sexual innuendo is a big part of the book. The Count is angry at God and the church and his passion for his dead wife is unnaatural and evil. His life is dark, dirty and despicable. His glamour comes from all the people he murders. It is fascinating, in a lurid way.
I'll give it another watch in the future. Maybe I'll like it better a second time around. But you are right with the details regarding Dracula the character!
The Vlad Tepes angle bugs me because Bram Stoker never was influenced by Vlad the Impaler. It was an urban myth. But, it ended up in a few Dracula films. Also, that Mina was a reincarnated version of an old love. Like this one and the Jack Palance one from the 70s.
Is that Mexican soap opera the definitive version? I imagined a dark fight against darkness like in Lord of The Rings and not a cheap drama. The screenwriter and director ruined the story of the book. Vlad's first wife did not commit suicide for love, but she would not be taken prisoner by the Turks and Vlad did not care about her death and married her death and remarried. I expected an antagonist like Sauron and Morgoth from Dracula, but it comes with cheap love drama.
@@wildmarjoramdieselpunk6396 It was a Turkish adaptation of Dracula, "Dracula in Istanbul," that first implicitly named Count Dracula as Vlad the Impaler.
I can only reiterate comments saying the 1977 BBC adaptation "Count Dracula" is the one to watch above all others. There is no adaptation closer to the book than this. Watched it at Christmas '77 and loved it totally. BBC did two other "adaptations". One in 2006 with Marc Warren, which is dull as ditchwater and 2020 as a mini series with Claes Bang. The first two episodes are very entertaining (but not faithful to the book) and the final episode is awful and moves to modern day. Don't forget the two unofficial Dracula adaptations - Nosferatu 1922 & 1979, both marvellous but had to be changed due to Stoker's estate threatening to sue.
Slight correction - BBC also produced Dracula as part of its "Mystery & Imagination" series in 1968. It had Denholm Elliot in the lead role. To be honest, it is not great. All the Transylvania bits are cut out and it is very dialogue heavy and studio bound, like a play. There's also a hard to find 1973 adaptation that was shown on CBC (Canada) as part of the "Purple Playhouse" series, with Norman Welsh as Dracula. That includes Dracula crawling down the walls of the Castle. Quite enjoyable. However, it is only an hour long, so it is very truncated.
Aside from Dracula Dead and Loving it there is another spoof concerning Dracula that is liked by many.It’s from the 70s and asks the question,what if Dracula were reincarnated during the disco era.The movie’s called Love at First Bite,and stars George Hamilton ,Artie Johnson as Renfield if I recall,and Richard Benjamin as Dracula’s nemesis.
I read Dracula when I was about 12 or 13 and loved every page. Your comments regarding how women are represented in the novel make tons of sense as I was raised with a "Victorian" ideal of women, so I didn't question how they were represented in the text. Good thing I eventually realized that feminists like Gloria Steinem,, and other powerful women in the 1970's, (ya I'm that old) had something to say. My wife is proof that women are not to be taken lightly and I bet she could kick Dracula's butt any day!
But isn’t Mina shown as one of the “New Women”?
Is there an important theme there with old wealthy men feeding on the youth? Lulling them into a sense of comfort and then sucking the life from them. Thus maintaining his position of power forever.
Ooo interesting take! I can see that.
Well, in the Dracula: Pages from a Virgin’s Diary plays on xenophobia having Dracula being danced by a Chinese actor. It plays on the scary feeling the English had of their women being corrupted by foreigner and their money. Money is even thrown by Dracula in the ballet.
The 1979 version is definitely worth seeing: it's in the tradition of the 1924 play and 1931 movie, but ends up taking the story in different directions. The 1979 remake of Nosferatu is a masterpiece, easily worthy to stand beside the 1922 original. And I strongly agree with the other commenters who recommend the 1977 British television version with Louis Jourdan, especially for Frank Finlay's performance as Van Helsing - some might consider it over the top, but I think it's brilliant. The earlier TV version with Jack Palance is notable for being, I believe, the first adaptation that explicitly identifies Dracula with the historical Vlad the Impaler. The book In Search of Dracula had come out just two years earlier, and was really the general public's first introduction to the historical basis (mostly unknown to Stoker himself) of Stoker's character. Incidentally, that version was originally to have been shown in 1973, but was pre-empted by news reports of Spiro Agnew's resignation from the vice presidency that day; so the air date was rescheduled for 1974.
Bela Lugosi's last sad role was in "Plan 9 From Outer Space," directed by Ed Wood and listed as the worst film ever made in "The Golden Turkey Awards" in 1980. AND, Tim Burton directed "Ed Wood" starring Johnny Depp, about the movie. Martin Landau won an Oscar for portraying Lugosi in the movie. (Sorry if you knew all this trivia.)
Yeah I love the movie Ed Wood! It's based on a nonfiction book about Wood and I would like to do an episode on it at some point! Landau is so amazing in that role.
Ed Wood is one of my favorite movies. Very touching Lugosi-Wood duo.
I love Plan 9! :) Love Vampira!
You should watch Blacula as well. Genuinely it's pretty great.
I just did! I'll have a part 2 to this video coming out the end of the month sharing thoughts on even more Dracula movies!
Great comparison! You do such a great job breaking down plot and detail differences.
It’s amazing how varied the adaptations are, and how much they tend to change the source material. The visuals and the music were fantastic in the ‘92 version, but I could’ve done without the reincarnation storyline. I wish Coppola would’ve used all his production values to create a very faithful story. Poor Keanu, I think he was just terribly miscast. I’m a big fan of Winona Ryder, so I’m able to look past her bad accent.😂
I love the ‘31 version, even though they had to change so much. For me, the absence of music makes it more haunting. Silence can be terrifying. There’s a Spanish version that was filmed at the same time, with the same sets and script, but different actors. I haven’t seen it, but some say it’s better than the Lugosi version.
I still have to watch Christopher Lee’s Dracula, since he’s a favorite of so many.
Thank you!
And thanks for sharing you thoughts! I've heard of the Spanish version but still haven't seen it. You should definitely check out one of the Lee movies, he was so iconic as Dracula
The thing with Hammer is all or most of the absent elements were used on the sequels, specially in Scars or Dracula
All right, let's break it down:
The Dracula Icons: Bela Lugosi, Christopher Lee.
Nice tries: Jack Palance, Frank Langella, Gary Oldman.
Well done: Louis Jourdan.
Who cares: Clae Bang, Thomas Kretschmann, Marc Warren.
Honorable Mention: John Carradine.
I love your content! Subscribed!
Thank you so much!
You should check out the 1979 Dracula with Frank Langella and Laurence Olivier. There were actually 3 Dracula movies that year - the other two were Nosferatu and Love at First Bite(great comedy with George Hamilton as the Count)
Ooo I love the spoofs so I will definitely look into that one. And I did read about the Langella/Oliver version and want to watch that one as well!
My dad had taped Love At First Bite off TV when I was a kid. I had a crush on George Hamilton.
I finished the book some weeks ago and never watched any of the movies besides dead and loving it right after and think it's my favourtie book also. It seems surprisingly progresive for it's time? Mina is one of the smartest and most cabable people in the group, and does all the logistics, and the one time all the men try tell her to say back because it's dangerous, it backfires and she gets bitten in her sleep. Also loved how emotional all the men are in the story, Van Hellsing spends a lot of time talking about how much he loves his friends and all of them cry in front of each other it's so wholesome.
Also regarding Renfield.. I never understood why so many stories make him meet Dracula first? I think ''their connection'' is pretty clear in the book. Renfield has his mental problems where he is thinks eating other life makes him stronger, then at some point Dracula, when he needs to find a way to get into the asylum because he knows the scoopygang make plans in there, he knows he needs someone to invite him in. So he finds Renfild that has a window outside and makes a deal with him that he will send him lots of black widow spiders and deathhead moths to him as trade for inviting him into the building. Dracula never bites Renfield, Renfield is not his slave, they just made a deal, thats why when Dracula tries to kidnap Mina Renfield feels bad, since Mina was so nice to him and tries to fight back but dies in the attempt.
And last note, Mina wanted the to be forgiving to Draculas SOUL.. or at least is asking Jonathan to not curse his soul to hell, since it's very clear from what happen to Lucy that you are not the same person after you turn into a vampire, and part of the curse of vamprism, is that you are forced to murder people forever, key part of that being that your soul can't go beyond after death, I think Mina is very aware at that point that you are not yourself after turning, so she doesn't want herself or others to be judged based on something that would be out of their control. That's why someone makes a point that Dracula was a great man once and it's a shame he became this monster after.
this is the part of the book:
"May God give him into my hand just for long enough to destroy that
earthly life of him which we are aiming at. If beyond it I could send his soul
forever and ever to burning hell I would do it!"
"Oh, hush! Oh, hush in the name of the good God. Don't say such things,
Jonathan, my husband, or you will crush me with fear and horror. Just think,
my dear… I have been thinking all this long, long day of it… that… perhaps…
some day… I, too, may need such pity, and that some other like you, and with
equal cause for anger, may deny it to me!
I read it as she has been scared over what she could end up doing after turning, when Dracula is a monster and Lucy was murdering kids
Thanks for commenting! I like what you say about Mina and even though I have my quibbles, I do like that she is proactive.
Dead and Loving It is so good 😂
In Coppola's version, Renfield went to Transylvania before Harker but came back insane. So it does tie together
Oohh, thanks for sharing that!
I love the 1992 version. Of course it's not the best pure adaptation due to the big changes made to Dracula and Mina but I think it is one of the best modern translations as to the shock and scandal Dracula caused to the Victorians. There is plenty things a modern reader won't even pick up on or understand their meaning off in the book. And even if someone was especially educated about the period rationally understanding is nothing compared to actually experiencing it.
Just how we would see and describe Mina, Lucy or the guys characters would be quite a bit different, what we love or dislike about them. How we judge them. The novel is full of ideals of man- and womanhood and friendship as seen by the late Victorians. Upping the horror and being more explicit I think helps us to experience Dracula's horror better. But I also think Coppola really made a commentary on the Victorian's as well. The way the sexual tensions are dialled up, the fear of sexuality and sin the characters have. Van Helsing being attracted to Mina and her seducing him. Showing the use of drugs. The scenes in the insane asylum. It's very much how we seem to often portray the Victorian's today in pop culture. Gary Oldman is fantastic in the role even if it's not the real book Dracula but I also very much enjoy the acting overall. The cinematography is stunning, so is the soundtrack. Otherwise I do think Christopher Lee is best as Dracula. It would have been awesome to get him in a more high budget production like the Coppola one.
The version of Dracula I would recommend if you want the single most faithful one to the book is the 1997 BBC TV movie version. It's much lower budget than the Coppola version and stars much lesser-known actors, but it follows the book even closer, is less graphic and doesn't have the gratuitous, disturbing sex scenes.
Edited to add: I see others have recommended it and you have now seen and reviewed it. I can understand why you would feel it "drags" at times, as it is the closest to the book and the book, as you pointed out, "drags" quite a bit in its later stages.
Here’s my biggest question for you regarding Dracula and his on-screen adaptations. One of the biggest reasons why I love the 1992 Dracula so much is because ever since it came out, it popularized the Vlad The Impaler-origin story so much that it kind of became “canon” in Dracula’s lore, even though Bram Stoker really only took Vlad’s family name and the setting when he used them for inspiration. But what is your opinion/take on using Vlad Tepes as who Dracula was when he was human? Is this a plotline that you like or dislike?
That's a change I'm neutral on, I would say. I'm fine with it, and don't feel strongly one way or the other.
Renfield should have sang "Downtown Train" in the Coppola version while in his cell. Would have made the movie better, stranger.
Maybe you might think about doing part two where you talk about,for example,the 1979 version with Frank Langella and the BBC version with Louis Jourdan,which I hear is an extremely faithful version
Yeah definitely!
I love how 1931 renfield just. shows up in places. how’d he get there? in the 1927 play Seward asks him how tf he manages to constantly escape and he responds, and I quote, “wouldn’t you like to know?” icon behavior tbh
Yes lol, he's such a great character! Even though there is a sadness with him, I like the adaptations that also lean into the humor. Love the "wouldn't you like to know" 😆
I’m only now seeing this in 2024 and I’m enjoying your takes. The Coppola version has become my favorite, then the Louis Jourdan movie, the Jack Palaance version is pretty good, and the swashbuckling Peter Cushing Van Helsing battling Christopher Lee’s almost animalistic Dracula is at the top of my list. I’m VERY mixed on Frank Langella, who at the time was my late mother’s favorite. And as a film buff, I like Lugosi’s iconic version. So I’ve seen a mix of vampire movies from Nosferstu to Coppola’s Dracula and I judge them as best I can and I know the ones I really like. Oh! I heard on one documentary of the ‘31 Dracula that Lucy is still wandering around London. There was a scene showing her staked but it was cut; unsure why. So unlike other Lucy’s, she’s probably still stumbling around, snatching up a kid here and there.
Now. Can somebody explain: is that a vampire bug with its own little coffin in the ‘31 Dracula? 😂
Thanks for sharing! I love how we have so many different Dracula's to compare!
I watched the silent Nosferatu in the cinema with live music and that was such fun. I think I read Dracula when I was a teenager, but can't remember much about it. So you inspired me to go to Project Gutenberg and get myself a copy of the novel.
Fun note; Lugosi was asked to play the monster in the Frankenstein film, but turned it down because the monster wasn't that interesting in the script. And he was probably right at that time. So they went with Boris Karloff. But by the time Karloff read the rewritten script the monster was made much more interesting.
I think I remember hearing that! The creature definitely has more to do in The Bride of Frankenstein
In addition to Demeter, there's also Bram Stoker's Van Helsing which just focuses on Lucy and her situation after becoming Dracula's victim and eventually her turning.
I have never heard of that one! It's worth watching? I must looked it up on imdb and it has a 3/10 rating 😬
@@WhytheBookWins I haven't seen it myself but i know it's a low budget movie but that doesn't necessarily mean it's bad. I'd check it out for yourself and make up your own opinion. Also, I wonder if adapting chapters of books will become more of a trend if the movie studios can't be arsed to adapt full books lol
I would love for you to cover Dracula: Pages From a Virgin’s Diary, which was a ballet broadcast on Canadian TV that’s pretty faithful to the book, over than it being a ballet and having a silent movie style.
Great review!
Thanks!
I really enjoyed Netflix’s newish 3-part series of Dracula. Highly recommend!
I'll have to look that up!
The Spanish language version of Dracula from 1931 is another version to checkout. It was shot on the same sets as Browning’s film but with an entirely different cast. Many find the direction of this version better than Browning’s film but Villarías’ Dracula may not quite be as memorable as Lugosi’s.
Oh cool! I will look that one up!
I watched Renfield in the movie theatre The Film was truly amazing
"Renfield" role originally played by the actor Dwight Frye who played the usual "Igor" roles. There's an early Alice Cooper Band song "The Ballad of Dwight Frye" on RUclips. Dramatic Rock Theater.
Yeah he was so good in both movies! Would be interesting to see if he was ever cast as more normal characters.
I'll have to look up that song!
@@WhytheBookWinssadly,Dwight Fry’s early roles kind of left him typecast and he was always playing twitching weirdos
I’ll always have a soft spot for the campiness of Hammer’s films about the Count and of course the late great Sir Christopher Lee was excellently cast for the part (despite his infamous hatred of the role afterwards).
You should definitely watch the ‘79 film since it came from the same play that Universal original adapted the 1931 film from. Frank Langella reprised the role of the Count as he had done onstage (much like Lugosi before him) & he is quite captivating along with Kate Nelligan’s Lucy. You also have Dr. Loomis himself, Donald Pleasance, as Dr. Seward and even a Doctor Who in a minor role. The late Sir Laurence Olivier is also in the film as Van Helsing, but I feel he was miscast despite his efforts to deliver a decent performance.
There are so many versions that it’s impossible to cover all
Yeah there are so many versions of there I still need to watch! I should do a part two to this next October (if not sooner).
Thank you! Very enjoyable! 🖤 The 1979 Dracula starring Frank Langella is absolutely my favourite film adaptation. Well worth watching. It’s an adaptation of Stoker’s play more so than the book, but it’s a great film on it’s own merits. I definitely prefer it to the Coppola film, which treated Lucy’s character appallingly.
I made a follow up Dracula video where I watched more movies including that one! It's an underrated version for sure.
@@WhytheBookWins I’ll definitely check that out, thank you! 😊
@lonestar4378 it's linked in the description of this video 😊
Klaus Kinski, who was Renfield in the Jesus Franko 'Count Dracula' was count Dracula in the Werner Herzog 'Nosferatu The Vampyre' his gentle minimalist acting style is quite unique.
Yeah i heard that! I'll be watching all of the Nosferatu movies next month in preparation for the new movie!
You didn’t mention anything about the ‘92 performance of Gary Oldham.
He was great!
@@WhytheBookWins oh good! Lol. I love this movie bc of him. I love everything he is in.
The weird haircut in the 92 movie was just a design choice by the clothing designer.
One thing I found odd about the 1931 version of Renfield is that he keeps going on and on about how he's worried for Mina and that she must be protected but he never meets her in that version. I know he meets her in the book so it's understandable why he would be worried about her there, but as I've said he never meets her in the universal film so I don't get why he's so worried about a person he's never met.
Oh I didn't even think about that! Good catch!
Sorry, I have to interject on a couple of points.
First, good video, but please watch the 1977 BBC production starring Louis Jordan.
1) I have read the book many times and love it for what it is: iconic. As far as your critique of the last quarter of the book I don't see it. It is always moving forward to a climax, but you have to understand that, back in 19th century literature there was always been a lot of exposition, coupled with the fact Victorian society was big on thinking before acting, they were so reserved, so the long passages of contemplation and planning makes perfect sense. Also, to your Van Helsing 'rambling', wouldn't you think this was a part of character development? Bram Stoker was the manager of the Lyceum Theatre in London, which was the house that the great Henry Irving resided, and was the inspiration for Stoker's Dracula, so characterization would come in the form of dialogue.
2) The main reason there is no music in the 1931 version is due to money. The production was already costing a lot more than anticipated so they decided not to hire a composer for a music soundtrack. In 1979 (I believe) Phillip Glass was commissioned to compose a soundtrack for the film and that version can be found in limited releases.
3) Christopher Lee took pains to make sure he was faithful to Stoker's version: well-spoken, dangerously charismatic, but ultimately a beast of prey. A monster. Everyone who hasn't read the book fails to realize that fact. The societal Dracula was due to the stage versions, that needed the audience to see the interactions between cast and title character.
4) All Hammer films of the 70's had their actors keep their English 'accents', no matter if the movies took place in England, Germany, Austria or Transylvania. The other famous character, Dr. Frankenstein, played so endearingly by the great Peter Cushing, spoke in an English accent, and not German. It's one of those things that you just accept. In fact, you even support and accept that when you state your love for Kenneth Branagh's version of Frankenstein, and they all spoke in English accents and not German.
5) very good point of the repressed sexuality in society and the xenophobia. The fact Dracula was written at the height of the Victorian era, where sexuality was basically banned plays a major part in the novel. Once Victoria took the throne clothes became important tools to enforce this 'repression' by covering up all skin, except the face and hands, especially for women, which is why the fashion became so important, your clothes conveyed your individuality, your sex, if you will, and not conveyed by your body. Society became proper and women became revered, basically held up on pedestals, to be protected at all times. So, the fact that Lucy and Mina becoming more forward as they turned being disgusting to the men fits perfectly with society standards at the time. And, the fact Mina holds pity for Dracula is the nurturing, accepting side of the Victorian era, the women being the reflection of their 'mother', the queen, the one who rises above all without judgement.
6) the xenophobia was real back then, foreigners were thought suspicious and the fact the book was written close to the turn of the century, indeed, incorporating new technology, such as the phonograph supports the fact Victorian society were the leaders of progression. The Transylvanians were ruled by superstition and the English are superior because they use their 'entering' 20th century brains to combat problems. Also, if you re-read the section where the men find one of Dracula's 'safehouses' he insinuates his plans to take over all of England. This is supported by the fact of why he kept Harker at his castle for so long, as he was still figuring out the logistics of transporting all 50 of his boxes of earth not just to England, but to all his positions around the London area, so no matter where he was in England he could always have a place nearby where he could find safety. He laments to Harker that he was a warrior, a conqueror and, that there are no places in his land left to conquer, so he is moving to England to be a conqueror once again. The fact this wasn't fleshed out in the book is because, in the end, the novel is about personal struggles, not as a nationwide crisis.
I apologize for the rant, if you end up reading the whole thing, thank you.
Fun fact: in the 1970 Count Dracula movie, Renfield is played by the great Klaus Kinski, who would go on to play Count Orlock in the 1979 remake of Nosferatu.
I enjoyed your video very much and appreciate all your thoughts. It's always enjoyable to get another's perspective about a book you love.
One final note: no movie has ever captured the entire book and its tone from beginning to end, and I don't think one will ever be made.
Thanks again!
I have since watched the 1977 movie! I have a follow up video coming out later this month sharing my thoughts on that and other Dracula movies I have more recently watched.
Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts! You make good points about the writing style. It's also interesting to learn about the cultures of the time and how it is reflected in the book!
@@WhytheBookWins Thank you for your reply! I respect the fact that, with so many comments, that you took the time to respond!
I apologize again, I tend to rant about things I am passionate about.
I did enjoy your fresh take on the book! It's always good to look at something that has become comfortable through fresh eyes. To that end that I am doing the Dracula Daily project next year. A gentleman named Matt Kirkland took Dracula and compiled all the 'entries' into their respective dates into a book (and website), and invites the reader to read the entries for that specific day - in real time. This means some dates that are out of order in the book are combined into the entry for that day. So, on May 3rd you would read of Johnathan Harker's journey, on May 4th you would read the next entry, etc., all the way up to the end of the novel on November 7!
I will look forward to your follow-up on the Dracula movies, as well as your comparison of the two Nosferatu movies.
Now, time to go see what other novels you have to offer on your channel! I do like the concept, since people tend to compare about filmed versions of books!
I understand where you are coming from, but at the end when you are talking about Mina I tend to disagree. I don’t think it is her being weak, I think it is her almost gaining the perspective of a vampire and having pity, or maybe a bit of empathy towards him. Because he is a tragic figure, and she feels closer to that in that moment.
Yeah I have come around on that topic and don't feel as strongly against her choice as I say in this video. I still dislike the trope of the long suffering woman because that's what society thinks women should be like. Yet her wanting them to have pity on him makes sense considering she herself knows she could one day be a vampire herself.
Thanks for commenting!
I read bram stoker Dracula last October I did like it I have watched the Coppola adaptation and the Christopher lee film
What did you think of those two movies?
@@WhytheBookWins I really enjoyed them 😊
Why didn't you add Dracula Untold to the list?
So many adaptations, so little time! I originally hadn't even planned on watching as many as i did, but as the week went on I just kept watching more versions lol.
Gary Oldman is the best Dracula. Agreed that Keanu and Winona were badly cast. Should have got English actors. I thought Anthony Hopkins was a little over the top as van helsing. Shame as it was a pretty decent script.
I love Sleepy Hollow, but I hate gore. Should I still watch the movie?
Hmm there are a LOT of severed heads. There are also scenes with a lot of blood, but it is done in a comical way. So I would probably lean towards no you shouldn't watch it.
You could watch the Disney version.
Yes! The gore is cartoon gore. For example the horseman whacks off a head and the head spins several times on the neck before it falls off like in a bugs bunny cartoon. If you’ve seen any Hammer films of the 50s and 60s it’s a lot like those.
Have you ever heard of a book called Dracula undead it's written by a descendant of bram stoker dracre stoker I read it many years ago it's sorta of sequel to bram stoker Dracula 🤔🦇
I haven't! Do you remember liking it?
@@WhytheBookWins I really enjoyed it I read it years before reading bram stoker Dracula out of curiosity 😉
You watched Keanu try be a real actor?
Your a trooper.
I forgot "to, sorry.
Isn't it a bit pointless to expect that a male and Victorian author should have portrayed Mina much different especially in a sensationalist horror novel which Dracula is? I think the fact this is NOT high literature in any sense but a racy, exaggerated and excited serialised page turner is fundamental here. I'd point at the quickly pumped out drivel that we publish in romantic fantasy today which isnt any more subtle in it's portrayal of male /female interactions over a hundred years later and written by women.
How would Bram Stoker have realistically put himself into the mind of a (modern) woman. It was not just men who were different, it was the average women too. Both thought and felt different to us. And women arent much better putting themselves into the minds of men ...although we really like to pretend that we are.
Very well said! There are a couple things I say in this video I now regret because I feel differently lol.
I'm not a fan of Coppola either, but for me it's because he ruined the life of Victor Salva's victim
Ugh yeah, it's disgusting
@@WhytheBookWins if any celebrity deserves to be cancelled it's him
Who is Victor Salva’s victim?
@@wildmarjoramdieselpunk6396 Nathan Forrest Winters
Dracula from Francis Ford Coppola does not do justice to the book, since for example, Van Helsing is portrayed like a crazy old man and not a respected professor and the Dr. John Seward's place looks more like a place from medieval times and not a respected place to treat pacients with mental problems and it was unnecessary the romance between Dracula and Mina Harker
Yeah totally agree!
Wait a minute. You don't like Francis Ford Coppola?
Well, if she is coming from the Victor Salva angle… :/