Comparison of the Draculas

"Nosferatu" (1927) is the first adaption of "Dracula"("Dracula's Death" isn't really about Dracula, it is about a lunatic who believes he is Dracula). It is one of the best adaptions so far. It is the only one where Dracula is completely repulsive and uncharming. It matches the spirit of the book better than any other. The first part is remarkably faithful to the novel, but the latter half strays from it. The character of Orlok (Dracula renamed) is on the outside what Dracula is only internally. Orlok is based on Dracula, yet he is drasticly different. Yet in a way he's the same. Think about it. Dracula (in the novel) is a talkative, charming character that could almost pass for human. Yet on the inside, behind the deception, he is a horrible, hideous monster. Orlok is on the ouside what he and Dracula are internally. He doesn't hide what he truely is behind a human face. He is as ugly externally as internally. If you could look into Dracula's soul, you would see a creature much like Orlok. Orlok wears black, and is tall and thin, but he does not perfectly match the book's description of Dracula. Dracula had hair, Orlok is bald. Dracula has slightly pointed ears, Orlok's are extremely pointed. Dracula, although somewhat ugly, can pass for human, Orlok cannot. Dracula can walk in daylight, but the sun kills Orlok.

The 1931 "Dracula" is noteable for introducing us to Bela Lugosi, the prototype for all future Draculas. This version had more cultural impact than any other, popularizing the cape-wearing, sophisticated vampire. The film itself is watered down, as it is based on the stage play. This was because of two factors, budget and censorship. Dracula himself in the 1931 version is somewhat like the Dracula of the book. He is tall thin, with a thin, pale face and red lips, hypnotising eyes, an evil grin, and wears black. He differs in the following ways. In the book, Dracula wore only black, Lugosi wears mostly black, but wears a white shirt. Also, Lugosi has no mustache, and is not old in the beginning. He also lacks the fangs and pointed ears described in the book. In the book, Dracula was described as speaking in excellent english, but with a "strange intonation", in other words, a strange accent. Exactly what kind of accent is not described, but Lugosi fills in the blank excellently. Lugosi perfectly captures the charming, deceptive count, but doesn't portray the ferocious animalistic side of the character. This isn't his fault, he just wasn't given much to work with. His performance is still chillingly otherworlderly and creepy.

Next up is the 1958 "Horror of Dracula". In this version, Christopher Lee takes over the role. Lee perfectly captures the ferocious, animalistic nature of the count, but sorely neglects the talkative, charming facade of Dracula that Lugosi portrayed so well. He has only a few lines, and is silent throughout most of the film. Lee looks about as ferocious as it gets, with red eyes and large fangs. The film itself is very watered down, just as the 1931 version was. Unfortunately, this version introduced us to the oversexualization of Dracula. The entire film is one big thinly-veiled sex movie. The film takes the opposite stance of the novel. The novel portrayed the heroes as chivarous gentlemen fighting to the death to protect their women. In the film, Dracula is shown as a metaphor for sexual freedom. "Horror of Dracula" is obviously a by-product of the sexual revolution.

Later came Jess Franco's 1970 adaption, notable for the count (Christopher Lee) getting younger as he drinks blood, and the count having a mustache. Other than this, it is quite forgettable.

Next was the 1977 "Count Dracula", a BBC adaption. It is the most faithful adaption to date. It was surprisingly faithful, but lacking in pacing. It also had rather poor cinematography. In some scenes, there were negative exposures of Dracula, strange black and white effects, etc. The music was mainly "Fantisie for Theremin from Buhoslav Martinu" played multiple time throughout the film. This film boasts Frank Finlay, the definitive Van Helsing. Louis Jourdan, who plays Dracula, is dissapointingly un-creepy. His blood-drinking is portrayed drasticly different than in the book. In the book, his victims describe his attacks as terrible nightmares, and are terrified of him. However, Jourdan plays him as a seducer. His victims moan with pleasure as he drinks their blood. Whether or not the book is a sexual metaphor or not is still up for debate, but if it was, Dracula was a rapist, not a seducer. Overall, the film is rather lackluster and dull.

Next came the 1979 "Dracula", starring Frank Langella. This is one of the worst adaptions of all time. Dracula is portrayed as a suave playboy, seducing his victims. It also includes Sir Lawrence Olivier as Van Helsing in one of his worst performances.

Next in line is the 1992 Francis Ford Coppola Film "Bram Stoker's Dracula". It is the most cinematic of the Dracula adaption, and has beautiful cinematography, a terrific musical score, and what could have been a good performance by Gay Oldman. They ruined by making Dracula into a sympathetic character who cries all the time and goes to heaven in the end, turning it into a romance between Mina and Dracula, making the heroes two-dimensional and dull(in the book, they were portrayed as gallant and chivalrous, while Dracula was two-dimensional and 100% evil with no redeeming qualities or humanity). They made matters worse by again over-sexualizing Dracula, and portrayed him as some kind of hero saving women from Victorian "prudery"(good morals, something rare today), over-depending on costumes for scares, and going against every principal the book defends. One critic, reviewing the book, said the following:

That Hollywood hasn't scratched the surface of the depth of Dracula's evil is a true testament to the stridence of this piece of great literature. Stoker's novel paints a much more brutal and erudite picture of Dracula than the movies have ever managed. Perhaps because, for some lowbrow pop culture reason, vampires are regarded as vessels of fashion first, at the expense of their potential menace and depth. We're more likely to see washboard stomachs and deep tans than we are to see anything resembling the eerily esoteric Count. Perhaps Stoker's character is simply too mysterious to be duplicated on screen, or perhaps Hollywood is too illiterate, or both.