Gary Oldman vs Klaus Kinski

If you read Stoker's original novel Dracula comes across as a very versatile character. He's sad and poetic, he's mysterious and dangerous, he's wise and nostalgic, and he's mad, grotesque and threatening. No actor who has ever portrayed the character has pulled off all of these qualities, and that is what makes the character so alluring. If I had to make comparisons, I would have to base them on the above characteristics and conclude that each actor plays one of these particulars, but none of them play all of them.

Shrek: Max Shrek played the grotesque and threatening side of the character to a "T". I once heard a film historian explain that Shrek's character was more of a rat than a man, and therefore Dracula comes off as more a pleague-carrying monster than an inhumanly tortured soul.

Lugosi: Quite possibly the most famous vampire, and certainly the most immitated, Lugosi played up the mysterious and dangerous quality of the character. Ofcourse, the Spanish version of Dracula (filmed simultaneously with the Lugosi version and using the same sets) is considered the more superior version in acting and cinemetography, but Lugosi's Dracula is enchanting in its silent stare and its dark demeanor.

Carradine: John Carradine's Dracula is often overlooked in the comparisons of the character, but it is interesting to note that Francis Ford Coppola's first encounter with the vampire was this actor's portrayal. Carradine's rendition brings out more of the sad and poetic quality of the character than previous actors have. In "House of Frankenstein," he acknowledges that he is a tortured soul commanded by the powers of light and darkness. He knows that he is superior to any creature on Earth, but is powerless to the power of the sun. This rendition actually reminds me of the character of Louis in "Interview with the Vampire."

Lee: Unfortunately for Christopher Lee, the Hammer films weren't interested in portraying any other side of Dracula than the grotesque monster. Lee has the physical stamina for the character, and his portrayal in "Count Dracula" gives him the added bonus of playing the role in the one film closest to the novel. However, other than these qualities, not much character comes out of his portrayal other than to make Dracula out to be a being so supernatural as to almost be a god.

Kinsky: Kinsky did a fabulous job of playing homage to Max Shreck's original grotesqueness, and he was even able to play a little of the sad, lonely, tortured soul as well. However, I do not see much more than a fabulously well done piece of visual stimulation in this character portrayal, and cannot therefore give him much credit for originality.

Langella: Frank Langella once said in an interview that, when offered the role of the vampire for the 1979 John Badham version, he wanted to do something with the role that would set it apart from the monstrous character of the Hammer films or the dark man in a tuxedo with a hungarian accent. Thus, Langella's Dracula is probably the most human rendition of the character ever to come out of the glory of cinema history. Langella played Dracula as a character more human than monster, but one who has traversed the sands of time alone. Thus, with lines such as "Listen, the children of the night, what SAD music they make," Langella takes up where Carradine left off in playing the sad and poetic side of the character. However, with his snarls and growls, Langella's character can become grotesque and threatening too. And, when he sits down to dinner with Lucy and speaks to her in fluent and flowing Romanian, he brings out the wise and nostalgic character a little more than the former actors have. This, and the fact that not once in the whole film will you see Langella with fangs, sets this film apart.

Oldman: finally, we come to it, the most recent portrayal of the character in any resemblance to Stoker's novel (those Dracula 2000 films were awful in my opinion). Oldman's character certainly brings out the grotesque monster, with full rubber bat suit and furry wolf costume, and the sad and poetic character as well, with lines like "Do you believe in destiny?" and "I have crossed oceans of time to find you," but none-the-less the character is portrayed hopelessly overdone. Oldman seemed to be paying homage to all the former actors combined, but in the process no originality is brought to the role, and the character seems only to become a walking contradiction.


THUS, after ALL OF THAT, I guess if I were forced to pick an absolute favorite Count Dracula, it would be Frank Langella's.

I saw part of the Louis Jourdan version; his portrayal was rather in line with the novel from what I saw, minus the limitations of the production (no backwards-aging, for one).