 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The idea of Dracula, young, handsome, sophisticated, traipsing about London with Mina could not be further from Bram Stoker's Dracula (the book). If you like it, fine, but it's not Stoker.
Nicolai already addressed the legitimacy of the narrative changes and the question of the title.
In my opinion, a straight telling of the book--with no changes--would be a very interesting exercise.
I would enjoy seeing that.
I certainly think there is plenty of room for both schools of thought to coexist side-by-side.
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with changes that make a book into a movie.
It's the nature of transposing one medium into another.
Fans of the film already know this.
For my money, Coppola got WAY more right than he got wrong.
Fully agree, it's still by far my favorite take on the good ol' blood sucking count. Dracula is by now a legendary character, a template where you can do a lot of stuff with. Make him out to be a creepy grotesque monster like Max Schreck in NOSFERATU? Or a dashing, handsome charmer like in the John Badham version (with a performance by Frank Langella that combines elements from both Bela Lugosi and Christopher Lee). I think all Lugosi, Lee, and Langella (the triple-L Draculas) versions were actually less faithful version than Coppola's. A book is not a screenplay, so obviously things get changed.
As I mentioned, they changed some stuff in THE LORD OF THE RINGS as well, including changing the motivation of major characters. (Including, to stay on the topic of Dracula, Christopher Lee's Saruman, who in the movie wants to join with Sauron, whereas in the Book he strives to keep the ring for himself and wants to merely use Sauron, thinking he can even outsmart him). It's normal that some things get changed.
Funny side note: Dan Curtis' 1974 version with Jack Palance was also called "Bram Stoker's Dracula", and Dracula has a similar motivation (including similar dialog) to the Coppola version. Coppola did not just take elements of Stoker's novel, but also from many previous adaptations (including the "Batman", a clear Nosferatu reference).
In any case, I love the movie... It may well be my favorite version of the movie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Big Spoilers here:
Bram Stoker's Dracula was the first Dracula anywhere (if I'm not mistaken) to come right out and state that Dracula was the historical figure Vlad the Impaler, the actual guy, and he was defending Christendom against the Muslim Turks, and the death of his wife drove him to abandon God and get a leg up from Satan. NONE of that is in the 1897 novel, although Stoker did take the name Dracula from Vlad's real, other nickname.
And apparently a lot of Dracula productions since 1992 stole all of those ideas and ran with them, perhaps even thinking that that content was in Stoker's novel somewhere, a book they didn't read. That's how authoritative and credible Bram Stoker's Dracula comes across. I think Francis Ford Coppola might even have commented on this, that his film doesn't get the credit it deserves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Nov 13, 2024 - 9:39 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Octoberman
(Member)
|
And apparently a lot of Dracula productions since 1992 have stolen all of those ideas and ran with them, perhaps even thinking that that content was in Stoker's novel somewhere, a book they didn't read. That's how authoritative and credible Bram Stoker's Dracula comes across. I think Francis Ford Coppola might even have commented on this, that his film doesn't get the credit it deserves.
For what it's worth, I reckon many of the charges of stealing can be justifiably laid at Coppola's feet, inasmuch as it is the Palance version that most heavily influenced his own version.
Additionally, is it not in the book that Dracula gets younger and more attractive as the story goes on?
Therefore, I don't find the idea of a Dracula, "young, handsome, sophisticated, traipsing about London", all that incongruous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
For what it's worth, I reckon many of the charges of stealing can be justifiably laid at Coppola's feet, inasmuch as it is the Palance version that most heavily influenced his own version.
That is worth mentioning, thanks. I was not aware!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And apparently a lot of Dracula productions since 1992 have stolen all of those ideas and ran with them, perhaps even thinking that that content was in Stoker's novel somewhere, a book they didn't read. That's how authoritative and credible Bram Stoker's Dracula comes across. I think Francis Ford Coppola might even have commented on this, that his film doesn't get the credit it deserves.
For what it's worth, I reckon many of the charges of stealing can be justifiably laid at Coppola's feet, inasmuch as it is the Palance version that most heavily influenced his own version.
Additionally, is it not in the book that Dracula gets younger and more attractive as the story goes on?
Therefore, I don't find the idea of a Dracula, "young, handsome, sophisticated, traipsing about London", all that incongruous.
In the book Dracula does grow younger in London: younger, not young; also not handsome; and he does not go traipsing about London with a love interest.
The Vlad the Impaler stuff in the film comes across like an appendage. I don't like Dracula with an origin story--I like that Dracula exists in a vacuum, leaving the reader to speculate.
And, I fully understand that movies will take liberties with source material, sometimes for the better, sometimes not. My complaint is not that FFC took liberties, or even that the liberties were not to my liking, but that he uses Stoker's name in the title, as if FFC's version is definitive.
For the record, the most accurate Dracula book-to-film was, by far, the 1977 Louis Jourdan version. BBC. Not a great film, but it really sticks to the book.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And, I fully understand that movies will take liberties with source material, sometimes for the better, sometimes not. My complaint is not that FFC took liberties, or even that the liberties were not to my liking, but that he uses Stoker's name in the title, as if FFC's version is definitive.
I don't really think that anyone thinks of this or any other "Dracula" movie as "definitive". There have been numerous adaptations before and after Coppola's Dracula, by far most of them much less faithful to the novel than Coppola's version.
"Dracula" is by now not just a novel, it's a "character", an icon, where many elements are well known and therefore also leads to toying with the known elements.
For the record, the most accurate Dracula book-to-film was, by far, the 1977 Louis Jourdan version. BBC. Not a great film, but it really sticks to the book.
It's closer to the book but not nearly as good a film.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Nov 14, 2024 - 9:12 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Howard L
(Member)
|
The idea of Dracula, young, handsome, sophisticated, traipsing about London with Mina could not be further from Bram Stoker's Dracula (the book). If you like it, fine, but it's not Stoker.
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with changes that make a book into a movie.
It's the nature of transposing one medium into another.
Fans of the film already know this.
Yes. And precisely why it would be more honest to call it Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula because it isn't Bram Stoker's "Dracula."
Then again, there's the one commonly called Franco Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet and the one that is called William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. Not trying to be pedantic or anything but give credit (or don't give credit) where it's due, call a spade a spade, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guys, try to remember that the Palance version was also called "Bram Stoker's Dracula" (one title of three, actually).
It would not make sense to crucify Coppola alone for the title.
Crucify, no. Stake through the heart, sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I enjoyed both books equally as I recall. I read them in college, not sure which one first. I splurged on buying "The Annotated Dracula" with notes etc. by Leonard Wolf and super weird illustrations by Satty. It was not part of my courses -- I was just curious to read it. I started the book early in the afternoon on Halloween in 1976 and just couldn't stop until I finished it early the next morning. I loved it!
I first read "Frankenstein" as part of a college course on Science Fiction. I also loved it! I eventually acquired the amazing version illustrated by Bernie Wrightson, which is perhaps my favorite modern illustrated version of a classic novel. The 50 or so illustrations are jaw-droppingly good and often disturbing.
I always try to remember that “Frankenstein” was published first in 1818, with “Dracula” arriving later in 1897. The “gothic” novel started even earlier in the 1700s (“The Mysteries of Udolpho” by Radcliffe etc.)
"Frankenstein", it seems to me, is informed by the dawning of a more scientific era, terms used loosely, when the generation that included Keats, Wordsworth, Byron, and Shelley were trying to figure out man's place in nature and the "natural world" including what was then known as science – with influences from more classical myths like Prometheus etc. That morphed and continued on with the Victorians – “Nature, red in tooth and claw” and all that …
The "Dracula" folklore is based on medieval legends and superstitions of course, and many elements from Christianity. Both works were hugely influential (of course!).
I saw the Universal versions of “Frankenstein” and “Dracula” when I was about 10 years old because my Mom loved them both, and they were on TV for some reason from a channel in Denver (we had cable TV that featured Denver channels). I recall both really spooked me.
Later on in my adolescence and teens I was a huge Hammer studio fan. I saw most of those films in a theater – and fell in love with the atmosphere, rich colors, fairly literate scripts, and their amazing and reappearing company of actors. I love even the problematic ones!
It would be really hard to name a favorite films from all of the choices up to the present day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
