Money, Money, Money


I just saw the film tonight and was very impressed. It's a refreshing look at the far too overdone story, but I had a problem with one aspect. What is the deal with the money?! At first, I thought Dracula was just showing it to tempt Mina into entering into a relationship with him, but then there was an intertitle about stealing money from the British, coins spilling from D's wound, D rubbing money all over Harker and putting it in his mouth...what is the deal? And why tint the money as well as the blood? I was desperately racking my brain for solutions, some of which included giving life to the cliche' about money being the root of evil; possibly commenting on social status; etc, etc. I really have no idea, and the motivation for this really caused me to appreciate the film a great deal less than I would of had this aspect been left out/further developed.

Any ideas at all?

reply

I think this is an instance of Maddin's fidelity to Bram Stoker's novel; he resurrects (if you'll pardon the pun) a number of themes and images that fall by the wayside in most adaptations: in this case, money, with which the novel is fairly preoccupied. There's actually a scene in the novel where Dracula's overcoat/cloak is slashed by a sword-stroke and money spills out (like blood). There are probably 600 metaphorical resonances here (a few of which you already surmised: the Biblical/Christological ref, for example, to 1 Tim. 6:10--"the love of money is the root of all evil"--and John 19:34--the centurion pierced Jesus' side and "forthwith came there out blood and water"), not least of which are xenophobic and political anxieties (the eastern-European Dracula, you'll recall, is buying up all kinds of property around lily-white London), a moral critique of capitalist greed, etc. Maddin was apparently aware of- and intrigued by- this imagery and either a) thought it central to the original story or b) thought it central to any modern retelling of the story; I think he's right in both cases. (Incidentally, this also may explain why he cast a Chinese actor as Dracula--don't get me wrong, the guy's utterly fantastic!--to play up both the xenophobic and anti-/capitalist themes: in the modern(bigoted)Western imagination, perhaps, the Chinese are inscrutable cultural-vampires, illegally feeding off the "vitality" of the West by pirating our precious "Bay Watch" etc. :>) Anyway, that's my guess about the money thing.

reply

I totally agree. I thought it was also a reference to "immigrants" taking over the money of England, updated with an Asian, instead of an Eastern European. White man's fears of the Asian brain taking over Europe's (and the US's) financial systems. I think it was a great move, since Eastern Europeans (like Russians) aren't the feared power anymore. I think there is a big fear of white majority being taken over my minorities in the US and Europe.

I also thought the money related to Dracula being of the earth. As an animal, of material, of lust and all the things that are the root of evil. Showing money is a silent way of saying, "this guy is evil, he is all Earthy base things. He is animal." Which, like you say, goes along with the whole xenaphobic idea of Dracula. Outsiders ARE animals and therefore evil. They will take our money and our women. They must be stopped!

Were the scenes with money used in the original ballet? I have never seen it.

reply

I saw the ballet last year, and I don't remember the money.

And always remember - You are unique. Just like everybody else.

reply

I don't know if this is true, but I've heard the novel is anti-Semitic and Dracula is originally supposed to be Jewish? Perhaps some xenophobes in the West regard today's wealthy (non-Christian) Chinese with the same skepticism that they used to view the Jewish?

reply

I saw an incarnation of the ballet which didn't involve money but an Asian actor played Dracula who aged and didn't, it included an extended prologue/dream sequence in which the only word uttered is Mina! As for the money there was a distinct lack of it but incredibly sumptuous sets of mansions and the like so clearly money should be a factor in any retelling Dracula is and was an aristocrat money is intrinsic to the telling.

reply

One aspect of Stoker's novel is that being a vampire is expensive: you need coffins full of soil from your native land, remote mansions, reliable and trustworthy servants and accomplices, all these cost money. While a vampire has power at night during the daytime they are completely at the mercy of their enemies and need to be well-concealed.

reply

Yeah!
Another less literal connection is the opium trade, which connects with the addict overtones in a lot of other vampyr stories.

reply