From: tgt33358@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Thanatos)
Subject: Re: Bram Stoker's Dracula
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 10:08:50 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.063136.16345@rose.com> david.vaughan@rose.com (david vaughan) writes:
>
>*** I have tried to avoid spoilers, but there may be some
>*** which slipped in inadvertently.  Read at own risk.
Me too!

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>The fact is, even the historical Vlad Tepes was a very unpleasant, 
>thoroughly nasty character, and I have always felt that any 
>'humanization' of Dracula would still have to account for the fact 
>that he was based on one of history's most notorious tyrants. 
>Ultimately, in the novel, Dracula functioned not so much as a 
>character as a force of darkness whose lusts and schemes permeated 
>every page, even though he was offstage most of the time. While I like 
>the idea of putting more character into Dracula, I don't think there 
>is really room for turning him 180 degrees into a reluctant, 
>self-pitying vampire like Louis au Pointe du Lac, something that 
>threatened to happen several times (he actually resisted putting the 
>bite on Mina, and tried to talk her out of accepting his blood).  I 
>would picture Dracula as somewhat wornout after 400 years of undeath, 
>but determined to use his move to England as a chance to renew his 
>lust for life.  Furthermore, while he may be world-weary, he is still 
>Vlad the Impaler, a powerful warlord, who is more than willing to take 
>what he wants, destroying physically or spiritually those who get in 
>his way.
Well, my take on it was that Vlad Tepes as the movie presented him was a
warlord fighting off a brutal Turk advance, and performed the original
impalings as an act of war.  When his wife died, and he became a vampire,
his bloodthirsty actions rendered him into the Dracula we know.  Thus his
inhumane acts will be resolved the moment he gains back that which 
twisted him in the first place (the death of his wife).
	What _I_ didn't like was the ending.  The ending of the book was
IMHO perfect.  Van Helsing explains (offstage) that Dracula is an honorable and
noble creature.  If they beat him in two places (London and Transylvania), then
he would end the hunt then and there.  Notice how violently Lucy dies.  Then
notice how violently (or lack thereof) Dracula dies (both in the novel).  
I don't think Dracula was dead at the end of the novel, merely defeated.
The "My love will make everything okay" came out of NOWHERE!  No Gothic 
foreshadowing, no real denoument.  It was there and it was gone.  However,
you could not have finished the movie as you finished the book, since 
essentially Mina was a VERY weak character, and that just doesn't cout it
in the 90's. 

>
>In summary, then, I felt that Bram Stoker's Dracula is probably as 
>good a film version of the novel as we are likely to see.  While the 
>characterizations were not always faithful, the gothic atmosphere was 
>very well done, and it was a pleasure to see the basic plot of the 
>novel on the big screen along with many scenes that just never seemed 
>to make into the other versions.  It is my sincere hope that Hollywood 
>will now let the old beast rest, and start putting some original 
>pieces and adaptations of modern vampire classics (eg. Rice's 
>Chronicles and Collins' Sunglasses After Dark) on the screen. 
>Unfortunately, if this one makes money, the industry is likely to opt 
>for more of the same.
>
>David Vaughan
>Hamilton, Ont., Canada
>david.vaughan@rose.com
>---
>   RR 1.60 P002365: I never drink ... wine.   --  Dracula
>                                       
>---
>   RR 1.60 P002365: I never drink ... wine.   --  Dracula
>   RoseMail 2.00 : Usenet: Rose Media - Hamilton (416) 575-5363


-- 
I don't mind being the smartest	    / Thanatos, DeathUrge, Master of Unknown
man in the world...I just wish it   \ Time and Space tgt33358@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu 
wasn't this one...	       	    / It's a Zen thing... 
	-Ozymandias 		    \	 you wouldn't understand...