#based on Dracula killing renfield

[alucardfan]

"Dont kill me...Master."

#Alucard hellsing #Hellsing alucard #Hellsing #based on Dracula killing renfield #accidental renfield oc because hellsing does not have one ..yet #hellsing oc

[thethirdromana]

I'm going to preface this by saying that I don't know how much this actually holds up, but I've been thinking about how each of the Dracula characters perceives/judges other people.

Jack Seward judges people based on looks. I don't necessarily mean that he's shallow (though I think that can be part of his character!) but his judgment is all based on observation. He's the character who describes Mina's looks the most, he's preoccupied with Quincey and Arthur's manly appearance, and he's surprised when Jonathan's appearance doesn't match his character. As soon as Renfield looks less like Jack's idea of a madman, he immediately thinks he should be released from the asylum, even though Renfield tried to kill him less than two weeks earlier.

Van Helsing judges people based on role. We see that in his misjudged treatment of Mina: she has been assigned the role of Woman (wife/future mother) and the fact that she would be better off within the circle of men completely passes him by. Similarly Arthur gets assigned Son (to Van Helsing) and Husband (to Lucy). Quincey is Hero. Despite how their relationship has changed, Jack is still stuck in the role of Student.

Quincey judges people based on action. There's less to go on here, but his trust of Van Helsing is assured by Van Helsing's care of Lucy, and his friendship with Mina and Lucy is sealed, in both cases, with a kiss.

Arthur judges people based on emotion. Very slim pickings to demonstrate this given there's so little in this novel that's actually in Arthur's voice, but his connections with Mina, Van Helsing and Lucy all seem to take place at a more emotional level than those of the other suitors. Lucy presents Arthur's proposal as more emotional than those of the other suitors; he connects with Mina by sharing grief; and he is more emotionally reactive to Van Helsing's treatment of Lucy than the others.

Jonathan judges people based on... idk, I want to say kindness? I don't know how much of this is that he simply experiences more kindness (as well as more suffering!) than the other characters in the novel. But from the very beginning when the old woman gives him her crucifix, it feels like kindness is something that Jonathan responds to strongly, and unkindness too.

Lucy is trickier too because we don't see her judging people as much as the other characters, since she doesn't meet that many people for the first time on the page. She responds warmly to Van Helsing because he is good to her. I think there's an element of judging people based on social norms but I don't know how much that holds up.

And then there's Mina, who doesn't really fit into any of these patterns. She responds to looks (her physiognomic assessment of Van Helsing), to roles and social norms (accepting the men sidelining her, albeit unhappily), to emotion (the suitors' love of Lucy), to action (the men's protection of her).

I think this demonstrates once again that Mina is the very heart of the novel. She is the listener who hears both the bands; she compiles the text itself; she reflects the strengths of the group with (in Van Helsing's words) a man's brain and a woman's heart; and she spans many of the different ways that they judge, perceive and relate to people too.

#dracula daily #really don't know how much this holds up to further analysis #but i thought it might be a fun thought to throw out there

[ninjathrowingstork]

More Renfield potato content but I can't stop thinking about this moment,

Ugh it's the first time he's seen it's possible to stand up to someone that much stronger, even if it means knowing they could kill you she'd rather go down fighting than be paid off and be owned by the mob like the rest of the department

And then

The great war. WWI.

Sure he catches himself and does know recent global events, but it means something that it's the earlier war he thinks of first. If we're basing his age off Dwight Frye's, then he'd have been fifteen when the war started, just turning nineteen when it ended. He grew up during the war that wiped out most of a generation, maybe older boys he'd known. Did young Robert Montague Renfield also join, once he was of age near the end of the war? Did he at all see action in the final years? He'd already lived in a world where he'd feel powerless against the constant death and horror of the war.

And then, being young and studying to be a lawyer in the 20s, seeing the glitz and money and industry rising around him, and then just passing the exams in 1930-31 (in Dracula, Jonathan only learns he's passed as he's leaving to meet the Count) and the early years of the Depression and stock market crash, and he's a young father and trying to make this business deal that might set his career and provide for his family as the market is fading from under him, he's grasping for any way to keep up the career and family and life that a businessman is expected to in his generation, and then. And then he meets this aristocrat who promises him immortality, to not die like so many others he'd known, to have access to prestige and society and wealth that he's craved, if only in exchange for his service. And back then, it was more common for a gentleman to have a valet, after all, and his own father might have employed one himself. But he was also alone, no one else knowing where he'd traveled to and seeing this power and monstrosity from one man, being terrified and weak and isolated he just broke. The person he'd been before was gone, traded for a trickle of physical strength and the status of serving an aristocrat and by the time society rotated and that social power didn't mean as much, it was too late for him to have walked away without being shown that was even possible. He's traded his freedom for the assurance he wouldn't die, wouldn't be vulnerable to the uncertainties of the world he'd grown up in, but he says The Great War because that was the last one he was actually free and a person for.

#idk where this is going #and i might do an actual analysis of how Dracula did influence him to join #using very human methods #but while Refield gave up the decision making in his life he was very much being influenced in that choice #renfield

[warrioreowynofrohan]

Now that we’re starting to see the fallout from the men’s sidelining of Mina, I want to discuss one of the central themes I see in Dracula, which is a critique of the Victorian ideal of womanhood.

Lucy fits the Victorian ideal perfectly. She is beautiful, sweet, kind, and fragile. She never displays any specific skills or interests of her own besides love for her financé, friends, and family. Her role is to inspire others’ action of her behalf by her passive goodness and purity, not to act herself; she dies without ever having known what is attacking her, or ever knowing about any of the blood transfusions she was given. This isn’t a criticism of Lucy; she is never (before her vampirism) portrayed anything but positively; I don’t buy the interpretation of her vampirism being a “narrative punishment” for sensuality or unorthodixy, because she is not, except as a vampire, ever portrayed as sensual or transgressive of social norms (even when she says “why can’t a woman marry three men” it is entirely in the context of being sweet and kind and not wanting to make her other suitors sad). On the contrary: she is the epitome of social norms. She is an icon of Victorian femininity - and that’s what gets her killed. Treating women as passive objects gets them killed.

Mina, despite one chapter’s digressions into having her condemn the “new woman,” is a very different and more modern figure. As if the start of the book, she works for a living (as a teacher). She pursues modern skills such as shorthand, typing, and reporting, and she is very good at them. Her letters and diary entries, even her writing style, show a sharp intelligence and a vivid sense of humour. She is brave and cool-headed in a crisis (as we see in the incident of Lucy’s sleepwalking). She makes her own decisions based on observation and good judgement (as with reading Jonathan’s diary), and she plans ahead and sees what needs to be done. She is crucial to bringing together all the necessary information about Dracula. And, for much of the book, she accomplishes all this completely untouched by him.

Until the moment the men decide to exclude her on the basis or her womanhood, at which moment she is almost immediately - on that very night - attacked by Dracula. (Not a spoiler - as of today, Oct 1, it is obvious from her diary entry). Even more, that exclusion not only endagers her by denying her relevant information, it endangers her and everyone because she can’t be open any more either. She fears that if she shows her unhappiness - if she tells anyone of her ‘nightmare’ - they will see it as further proof of nervous weakness and exclude her even more, perhaps send her away from London. (And - I didn’t realize ths until now - today’s very entries show she is right in fearing this. When Renfield presents his case rationally and is refused, he becomes emotional and desperate - and Seward sees that very emotion and desperation as a further reason not to listen to him!)

There is a very clear theme here. Treat women accoding to the Victorian ideal, neglect or ignore their talents, treat them as if their only purpose is to inspire men to greatness by their passive beauty and sweetness and purity, and you endanger both them and yourselves. Treat women as equals and helpmeets and partners, employ their skills and intelligence in concert with your own, and you can achieve amazing things together. Mina is absolutely still treated in the story as an inspiration to the men through her goodness, but that inspiration is in addition to real, practical contributions.

That’s not to say Dracula isn’t sexist. There’s a limit to how far the theme goes. Women are allowed to be talented and smart only provided that those talents are being employed in support of men - Mina learns shorthand to help Jonathan, memorizes the train timetables to help Jonathan, will no longer have a job after marriage but will help support Jonathan in his career, always acquiesces uncomplainingly to the men’s decisions and praises them. She never steps out of her assigned social place as a Victorian woman. It’s sexist not only by present-day standards, but also by the standards of the late 1800s/early 1900s women’s suffrage movement; it’s far from being at the forefront of progressivism even for its time. But it is a departure from typical Victorian ideals in that women’s place is seen as not just being beautuful, sweet, innocent, and an inspiration to men’s action, but in being an active partner to men, with talents, intelligence, initiative, and courage of their own. And men waste and ignore those talents at their peril.

#dracula daily #dracula #mina harker #lucy westenra

[spiders-rob]

I think the interesting thing about how people have pointed out that the whole "take over the world" plan was meant to be an apology of sorts/"oh, well if I rule the world obviously we could settle down and have a life or whatever." Is that, this is all true but also 💯 counterproductive. Just so fucking stupid lol.

Like, it's very blatantly unrealistic and the exact thing that Renfield is exhausted by because it is just gonna end up being ANOTHER bender he has to clean up after. Not to mention that he clearly finds the idea of the plan succeeding to also be fairly horrific.

So to Dracula it's this big romantic gesture/apology where he's gonna ~reshape the world~ based on Renfield's ideas, but actually, it's absolutely the kind of thing that Renfield is just fucking sick of morally and personally.

Dracula's pov of this conversation is:

*implicit apology* let's rule the world together. I'll rearrange the entirety of society to your ideas so we can have that life you want.

Renfield's pov:

R: I would like to stop killing innocent people, and also I want to settle down and not live in a decaying squat.

D: Got it. I am going to kill a fuckton of innocent people and in the process probably get us kicked out of yet another city, meaning we will probably end up somewhere worse. It will be your job to clean up after this, obviously. I am completely unwilling to change my behavior.

And like. It's true. He IS completely unwilling to change his behavior. "Why should I have to adapt to it. It should have to adapt to ME." etc. But in his mind he can reshape the world without changing his own actions at all. It like, doesn't occur to him that functionally this "plan" is the exact same thing he's been doing for like a century: kill a bunch of people. Fuck shit up horrifically. Probably get chased out of the city.

To Dracula's mind, because he now has this Take Over The World concept, he's changing EVERYTHING for Renfield.

In Renfield's (honestly more realistic) understanding Dracula is accelerating a century long downward spiral with the EXACT SAME bullshit he's been on since the beginning.

#renfield #renfield 2023 #robert montague renfield #dracula #rm renfield #renfield film #Renfield meta

[pinkiepiebones]

any thoughts about Hoult's Renfield ending up in an asylum like in the book? Do you think Drac and him just had a Big Fight and he ended up there or do you think they just erased that part of his story in that universe?

I think Houltfield def spent time in the asylum because Houltfield is based on if not IS Fryefield from Dracula 1931, which largely disregards the book. And there's a very brief scene in the black and white portion of Renfield 2023 where you see Houltfield entering a room and he's got his maniac hunch goin', where he's saying "Look, I didn't just 'jump in' to serving the Prince of Darkness, we had some great times!", that is a direct scene from Dracula 1931 of Renfield eavesdropping on/ interrupting a conversation between Van Helsing and Seward.

So Houltfield's story is "real estate lawyer who travels up to meet Dracula, Dracula falls for him/tells his wives "jk this one is mine back off," travels on the Vesta with Dracula to England (by that point he is fully Familiarised), gets into the asylum (but breaks out frequently ig?), tries to save Mina from becoming a bride(?), gets killed because Drac thinks he led Harker and Van Helsing to the Abbey... and then we can assume Dracula didn't die for whatever reason (Van Helsing didn't use a proper stake? He didn't hit Drac's heart?) and managed revived Renfield and they both went like, fuck, we need to get out of here." And then almost a century passes and then we get Renfield 2023. Right????

#renfield #I forget where I had it but Hoult did mention that his Renfield had the madness quote beat out of him unquote #like obviously mental illness Does Not Work That Way but also Ren seems like the type to ignore every warning sign you know? #robbie don't look

[effloradox]

LOVER; the series.

a series of soulmate!au drabbles based on the album Lover by Taylor Swift

status: in progress (4/18 written)

TRACKLIST.

ONE. i forgot that you existed (dracula) 3.4k

↳ You share dreams of past lives with your soulmate

: ̗̀➛ i forgot that you existed, and i thought that it would kill me

TWO. cruel summer (aemond targaryen)

↳ You can see the world through your soulmate’s eyes occasionally

: ̗̀➛ i’m always waiting for you to be waiting below, devils roll the dice, angels roll their eyes

THREE. lover (tony stonem) 5.0k

↳ The red string of fate leads you to your soulmate

: ̗̀➛ have i known you twenty seconds, or twenty years?

FOUR. the man (steve harrington)

↳ You have an animal that shares the same personality / disposition as your soulmate

: ̗̀➛ every conquest i had made would make me more of a boss to you, i’d be a fearless leader, i’d be an alpha type

FIVE. the archer (dream of the endless)

↳ You can see your soulmate in reflections

: ̗̀➛ i cut off my nose just to spite my face, then i hate my reflection for years and years

SIX. i think he knows (eddie munson)

↳ You can share and hear your soulmate’s thoughts

: ̗̀➛ i want you, bless my soul, and i ain’t gotta tell him, i think he knows

SEVEN. miss americana and the heartbreak prince (jason ‘jd’ dean)

↳ You have a compass that leads to your soulmate

: ̗̀➛ i counted days, i counted miles, to see you there, it’s been a long time coming

EIGHT. paper rings

↳ You have a timer that counts down to your first meeting with your soulmate

: ̗̀➛ kiss me once ‘cause you know i had a long night, kiss me twice ‘cause it’s gonna be alright, three times ‘cause i waited my whole life

NINE. cornelia street (robert renfield) 3.2k

↳ Your soulmate’s first words are tattooed on your wrist

: ̗̀➛ sacred new beginnings that became my religion

TEN. death by a thousand cuts

↳ You have a matching tattoo / mark with your soulmate

: ̗̀➛ our songs, our films, united we stand

ELEVEN. london boy

↳ You think with your soulmate’s voice until you meet them

: ̗̀➛ but somethin’ happened, i heard him laughin’

TWELVE. soon you’ll get better

↳ You develop the same injuries as your soulmate

: ̗̀➛ what am i supposed to do, if there’s no you?

THIRTEEN. false god

↳ You know they’re your soulmate when you first touch them

: ̗̀➛ i know heaven’s a thing, i go there when you touch me honey

FOURTEEN. you need to calm down (billy loomis) 2.6k

↳ Your soulmate cannot physically harm you

: ̗̀➛ stressin’ and obsessin’ ’bout somebody else is no fun, and snakes and stones never broke my bones

FIFTEEN. afterglow (wednesday addams)

↳ You can feel your soulmate’s emotions

: ̗̀➛ it’s so excruciating to see you low, just wanna lift you up and not let you go

SIXTEEN. me! (peter parker) 2.4k

↳ The world is in black and white until you meet your soulmate

: ̗̀➛ but one of these things is not like the others, like a rainbow with all of the colors

SEVENTEEN. it’s nice to have a friend

↳ When you first see your soulmate, you just know it’s them

: ̗̀➛ something gave you the nerve to touch my hand, it’s nice to have a friend

EIGHTEEN. daylight (robin buckley)

↳ You can’t lie to your soulmate

: ̗̀➛ i’ll tell you the truth, but never goodbye

#having a blast with this one ngl #will be posting them somewhat infrequently but a bunch are already done and are ready to go :) #masterlist #lover #my writing #renfield x reader

[mxsoyo]

Watching every Dracula adaptation! #2

Dracula (1931) starring Bela Lugosi

Next up is the first authorised film adaptation of Dracula. The movie is actually based on a play adaptation from 1924, which explains some of the changes they made.

Should you watch it? Yes, but not for the reasons you might think. The movie is very funny (not intentionally), great to watch with friends. It is also free to watch on the Internet Archive. It is still recognizably the story of Dracula, but a lot of the details have been changed, especially the characters, so beware of that if that bothers you.

↓ Character and Story Changes + notable moments under the keep reading. ↓

Character Changes: -Renfield takes up Jonathans role of the young solicitor traveling to Transylvania in the beginning of the movie. Until he is put under Draculas influence where goes back to his book version after that. Dwight Fryes performance as essentially both Jonathan and Renfield are both very entertaining. Like that man is giving 200%. -With Bela Lugosi starring as Dracula, this movie was definitely the starting point of the sexy-fication of the character. Even thought I think this Dracula has even worse social skills than his book counterpart. -Mina is actually Jack Seward’s daughter in the movie, I assume this change was made to explain why the main characters would be hanging around at the sanatorium. Personality wise she is a bit blander than her book counterpart, partially because she spents a good chunk of her screen time under Draculas influence. -John Harker (just John, not Jonathan in this version) has been definitely changed for the worse. They made him the sceptic that doesn’t understand what is going on and is constantly doubting Van Helsings advice. He feels a bit more like a douchy version of Arthur than Jonathan. -Like I said, Jack Seward is Mina’s father in this version and is the character in name only and in the fact that he owns a sanatorium. -Lucy (her surname has been changed to Weston) is a single girl since Arthur and Quincey don’t appear. She has a stronger interest in the macabre and has a small crush on Dracula (despite everything about him). -Van Helsing gets a lot of good lines in the movie, he seems a lot less eccentric, and Dracula remarks that he has heard of him. But he is not yet the badass expert vampire hunter later movies make of him. -The movie also added two prominent characters the sanitarium worker Martin the and nurse Briggs, which both serve as a kind of comic relief. Story Changes: -As far as I know this is the first time the female vampires (Draculas roommates) are referred to as his wives. -We get a lot more scenes from the point of view of Dracula -Dracula actually introduces himself to the main characters as their next door neighbour and casually comes over for conversation before they find out he’s a vampire -Lucy dies very shortly after being introduced, but the plotline of the gang trying to keep her alive was given to Mina instead - The ending is surprisingly anticlimactic. They find Dracula lying in his coffin in Carfax Abbey, Van Helsing kills him off-screen, while John looks for Mina. -Afterwards Van Helsing also says they should leave without him, they do and then the movie just ends

Notabel Moments: -The movie starts with Swan Lake out of all songs and then is dead silent when it comes to background music afterwards -The opossums and armadillos (classical Romanian wildlife)

-this GIANT BEE (totally not a normal sized Bee jerusalem cricket in a miniature coffin)

-The BATS!!! Oh my god the spirit halloween bats! The bat driving the carriage?! -the spirit halloween plastic spider on a string -”I never drink... wine.” is such an iconic line, that I was surprised it’s not from the book, this also goes for ”the strength of the vampire is that people will not believe in him” -The best scene in cinema history! I cant do it justice by explaining it, you’ll have to watch it yourself, it’s at 1:03:20

Next Up: Dracula (1958) starring Christopher Lee

#if anyone has any tips on how I could improve these reviews #like the structure and stuff #let me know #dracula daily #dracula 1931 #bela lugosi #dracula #dracula adaptations

[picklepie888]

My Personal Ranking of Every Dracula Adaptation I've Watched/Listened To Since Dracula Daily

(Warning: spoilers under the cut)

So since I've started reading Dracula for the first time via Dracula Daily, I have over the past few months watched three movies and two podcast/audio plays of Dracula. The three films I've watched are the 1931 film starring Bela Logosi, the 1958 film starring Christopher Lee, and the 1979 film. The audio versions were the Mercury Theatre radio play starring Orson Welles, and the podcast Murray Mysteries by Knöve's Storytelling. These five Dracula adaptations had varying degrees of quality, and now having completely finished reading the original story I can now make a definite ranking of them based on book accuracy. Without further ado, let's sink our teeth into the content.

5. Dracula (1979)

Differences from the book

Jonathan's saga at Drac's castle is completely skipped over and the film begins with the Demeter crashing

Lucy and Mina's names are swapped in this film. So the girl who Dracula drains to death is named Mina and Lucy is Jonathan's fiancee. I looked it up later and apparently the director just thought that 'Lucy' was a better name for a leading lady. Really stupid reason if you ask me, but whatever.

This is a very heavy Dracmina adaptation (or Draclucy in this case? IDK the girl he falls for is definetly meant to be Mina but with Lucy's name)

Both Quincey and Arthur are absent in this version

Renfield is sane at the beginning of the film and is shown interacting with the other characters before he descends into madness and ends up at Seward's asylum later

Dracula is a prominent character throughout and the characters interact with him regularly. Obviously Lucy (actually Mina) interacts with him the most (ugh)

Van Helsing and Seward are Mina and Lucy's fathers. And Seward is about the same age as Van Helsing, which I've noticed is pretty common in these adaptations

We never actually see Transylvania in this film

Lucy (Mina) becomes a full vampire at the film's climax

Van Helsing dies in the final confrontation, and Jonathan kills Drac via exposure to sunlight.

What I Liked

Starting with the things I liked about this movie, because there's not many. I like that Van Helsing and Jack Seward are friends in this version. The other two films I've seen didn't have the bond between these two characters which was a core part of the original story. I liked that they shared a good portion of their scenes together and they do act like two men who have known each other for a long time. I'll give this movie credit for getting this one thing right.

The cinematography is exquisite. The muted colors, the way the inside of Dracula's residence at Carfax is framed on camera, the eerie gothic aesthetic throughout the film is masterfully done. But pretty visuals don't make up for poor characterization.

Mr. Swales is in this version. He's only in two scenes, but I was still pleasently surprised to see him in an adaptation.

They did the Lizard Fashion™ scene.

What I Disliked

They absolutely massacred Mina's character. She was so unbearably hateable throughout the film. The narrative made it clear that she didn't give a crap about Jonathan, and she practically threw herself on Dracula the minute she saw him. There was also the scene where she tells all the men (yes including Jonathan) that she hated them for coming between her and Dracula. Can you imagine book!Mina ever saying such a thing to her beloved husband who was willing to damn himself for her?!?! And DO NOT get me started on the Baptism of Blood scene! The part of the story that's supposed to be a horrifying metaphor for rape is instead played out as an act of passion between two lovers. There's also no ambiguity here, Dracula and Mina just straight up have sex. And Mina loved every minute of it. Imagine someone made a film about a rape victim and framed their traumatic experience as a passionate love scene! I almost went into a fit of rage at this scene, it disgusted me to my core!

Jonathan is really bland in this film. The writers clearly decided to set his characterization aside so they could focus more on the spooky vampire vibes and the affair his fiancee has with the vampire. They didn't make him a bad guy, but I didn't feel anything but pity for him in this film. The only scene where he shows any other emotion aside from 'concerned husband' was when he got understandably jealous when Mina was flirting with Dracula and he called her out on it. Other than that, he doesn't show anywhere near as much passion for Mina as he does in the book.

There's a scene where Drac lizard crawls into Lucy's window, and when she sees him, she smiles and shows her neck to him. I didn't like this, because it implied she was giving consent for him to drink her, which again frames the victim on having some blame on what happens to her.

Dracula still brutally kills Renfield like in the book, but I didn't really understand why? I might of missed something when watching, but Renfield doesn't do anything to try to protect Mina in this version. Drac just teleports into the asylum, snaps Renfield like a twig, refused to eleborate, then kidnaps Mina.

Did not like this movie. Terrible adaptation and so many characters, especially the women, got screwed over in favor of framing a stupid 'forbidden love' narrative.

Rating: 0/5

4. Dracula (1931)

Differences from the book

Still no Arthur or Quincey

Lucy is in the film, but she only has maybe two minutes of screen time, and her arc never got a conclusion, she just stays a vampire forever I guess. They could've left her out of the film completely and it wouldn't change anything.

Seward is yet again an old man in this film, and he's Mina's father. He also doesn't have much of a relationship with Van Helsing, they act more like business partners than friends.

Renfield takes Jonathan's place in the beginning of the film as the solicitor who goes to Dracula's castle. The narrative frames his encounter as the reason he went insane.

Mina has nothing to do in this movie but be a passive damsel in distress. About 70% of her dialogue is her screaming her husband's name.

Jonathan is simply called 'John' in this version. Seward is never adressed by his first name, so there's no confusion.

Like in the 1979 movie, the characters regularly interact with Dracula throughout the film, and frame Van Helsing as the one guy who knows he's a vampire and has to prove it to everyone else.

Renfield also has way more scenes in this film than he did in the book.

The final confrontation takes place at Carfax, Drac kidnaps Mina, and he's killed by Van Helsing and Jonathan.

This version is more based off the play from the 20's rather than the actual novel. And you can kinda tell by the way the story is paced, and how the characters come into the sets.

What I Liked

Bela Logosi as Dracula and Dwight Frye as Renfield are both by far the most entertaining aspects of this film. Even though I think they both got more screen time than they should, I have to say they both pulled off their characters spectacularly. Especually Frye as Renfield; the way he was able to portray a mild-mannered solicitor and then a madman is incredible.

There's no musical score through out the film, which really adds to the creepy atmosphere. Especially for the scenes at the begining at Dracula's castle where there isn't much dialogue.

The sets are really cool! Dracula's castle in Transylvania looks enormous and all kinds of creepy, just as it was described in the novel.

There's no Dracmina in this version, and Jonathan and Mina actually care about each other!

What I Disliked

The pacing was really wonky. As I mentioned before, Lucy's whole story arc was just glossed over, she was dead almost as soon as she was introduced. And then they brought up that a woman that looks like her is going around kidnapping children, and then that issue's just...never brought up again for the rest of the film. So is she still a vampire? Did she die after Drac was killed? And her death had very little impact on the main characters, even Mina who is supposed to be her friend. The whole ordeal with Renfield at the castle and the Demeter was also over with within the first five minutes of the movie. I get that they could only fit so much of the story in an hour and a half film, but come on!

All of Mina's intelligence and agency she had in the novel is completely thrown out the window, and she's replaced by a sexist archetype that was shown in every horror movie in the thirties. She spends the majority of the movie screaming and crying and being under Drac's control. This version of Mina is still better than the 1979 on though. At least this one loves Jonathan.

Jonathan is still pretty bland. His whole personality is just 'concerned husband', and that's about the extent of it. We don't get to see his arc from a gentle Englishman to vengeful gremlin on the name of his wife like the og story. All of his feminine aspects is taken away too, and he basically just acts like the generic male hero with no moments of self doubt. I do appreciate that they kept the dedication to his wife though.

Van Helsing and Seward don't act like friends. In fact most of their interactions involve Van Helsing proposing an idea that vampires could exist and then Seward tells him he's full of crap. This goes back and forth until Mina starts to turn.

Several of the plot points happen offscreen and then is brought up later through dialogue by the characters. Namely Dracula's assualt on Mina.

Renfield died like a bitch in this version. He was crying and begging Dracula to spare his life, unlike in the novel, when he grabbed Dracula in his mist form and wrecked him in order to protect Mina. He still helps the heroes in this version, but it doesn't feel as genuine when he chickens out the minute Dracula threatens him.

Overall, not a great adaptation, but a decent movie on its own. It would have worked better if it had been a series of films, so that way they could have all the story arcs with more proper pacing. They still did Lucy and Mina dirty, and there's no justice for Arthur and Quincey.

Rating: 2/5

3. Dracula (AKA Horror of Dracula) (1958)

Differences from the book

Still no Quincey! Seriously, what does Hollywood have against the cowboy?? No Renfield either.

Jonathan dies at the beginning at Dracula's castle.

There's only one vampire bride, and Jonathan kills her at the start.

Arthur and Lucy are siblings in this version.

Mina and Lucy have also swapped fiancee's, but unlike in the 1979 version, they still have the same roles they had in the book. So Mina is married to Arthur, but Lucy still gets drained/turned into a vampire.

Both Jonathan and Seward are minor characters in this movie. Jonathan dies at the castle at the beginning, and Seward only appears in the scenes where Lucy is ill. For the most part, Arthur fills in the roles of all four men who aren't Van Helsing. So if you thought Arthur didn't have enough to do in the og story, he does literally everything in this version. Except one thing, which I'll get to in a moment.

Two new characters were made for this movie. Arthur and Mina's maid, who basically takes the role of Mrs. Westenra from the book, and the maid's daughter who becomes a victim of vampire Lucy.

Van Helsing is the one to kill vampire Lucy rather than Arthur.

Arthur kills Dracula in a physical showdown.

What I Liked

This was the first movie adaptation I saw with Arthur in it, and I liked that he has more of a role here, even more so than he had in the book. I just wish we didn't have to sacrifice the other male characters sans Van Helsing for it.

The scene where Bloofer Lady Lucy lures the maid's daughter away to the graveyard was legitametly disturbing. The way she talked to the girl reminded me of how adult predators tend to talk to children to get them to follow them. Really scary stuff.

Dracula himself shows up sparingly in this movie! Finally a film adaptation that understood that a part of the horror of Dracula is that he only shows himself when he wants to.

The Baptism of Blood scene is actually portrayed as a traumatic moment for Mina. She's terrified and clearly doesn't want what the Count does to her.

Christopher Lee made a pretty awesome Dracula, with the few scenes he's in. He nailed the mystery and creep vibes the Count had in the og story.

What I Disliked

This movie had Van Helsing stake vampire!Lucy while Arthur stood there and covered his eyes. I didn't like the direction they took with this scene, because Arthur killing Lucy was a pivotal part of his character arc in the book. At the very least, movie!Arthur makes up for it a bit when he kills Dracula in the ending.

I think making Arthur and Lucy siblings was a weird choice. Especially since they kept the scene from the book where vampire!Lucy tries to seduce Arthur with a kiss before Van Helsing stops them!! So there's some icky incenst undertones there because of that. I really don't get why so many Dracula films insist on making the characters related when none of them were in the book.

The main cast felt pretty empty without Jonathan, Jack, and Quincey. Again, since Arthur fills up all the other men's roles it felt like the cast was lacking, with the focus mostly being on just the two men (Art and Van Helsing).

Mina didn't have much to do in this film, although I did appreciate her devotion to both Arthur and Lucy. It was clear that she cares about them both. And there's no Dracmina thank God! Aside from that, she just kinda played the role of 'emotional support.'

There's a scene where after Van Helsing places the garlic flowers all over Lucy's room, she throws a fit and smashes one of the vases. She then has Arthur's maid get rid of all the flowers and open her windows, the very things Van Helsing instructed not to do. I get that this was probably because Drac hypnotized her, but again the narrative is kinda blaming Lucy for what happens to her. Plus the maid was kinda an idiot to listen to her and not the doctor who instructed her to keep the flowers there.

They made the final confrontation with Drac a big showdown, unlike how it was in the book. On the one hand, its much more dramatic, but Arthur was the only one who was really involved, as in the book where all the main characters had to defeat the Count via teamwork.

This was one of the better Dracula films I've seen so far. This one was more focused on the human characters (even though they got rid of half the cast), and they allowed Drac to be a mysterious monster rather than a typical villain. Again, I really liked Christopher Lee's take on the Count. I just wish they had at least kept Jonathan for the rest of the film.

Rating: 3/5

2. Mercury Theatre's Dracula (1938)

Differences from the book

No Quincey (again!)

Arthur and Jack are combined into one character (literally named Arthur Seward).

It's implied that Seward is the one who put all the journal entries together rather than Mina.

Mina and Lucy don't interact in this version, and Mina isn't introduced until after Lucy's death.

No Renfield or vampire brides.

There is minimal Dracmina, but it's all on Drac's side, and Mina doesn't reciprocate at all (thank God!)

Mina kills Dracula in the end!

What I Liked

Orson Welles might just be my favorite Dracula so far! He has such an incredible voice that is both mesmerizing and spinechilling. His take on Dracula will keep you awake for several nights.

Despite being the shortest adaptation I've seen so far (it's under an hour long), they somehow managed to get all the important plot points of the story, and it doesn't feel rushed or poorly paced.

The main focus is on the human characters, and the found family aspects from the original story are still there! Seward is still hopelessly devoted to his old professor, and Jonathan and Mina are in love and bound to each other.

There was no victim blaming for the female characters!

Mina got to kill the Count! After all these terrible film versions where she's been reduced to a screaming damsel or a promiscuous bitch, Mina finally got the justice she deserves!! I'm so glad Welles and his team understood that Mina's role in defeating the Count was just as important as the men's! I just wish later adaptations knew this!

What I Disliked

Mina and Lucy's friendship was left out of the narrative. I know this was probably to cut time to fit the hour-long timeslot, but their friendship was so important to the story.

It felt too short?! Again, I know they only had an hour to broadcast the story, but I felt like it could've gone on another thirty minutes at least. It was really good though, so that hour went by too fast for me.

As good as this version was, it still really could've used some vampire-hunting cowboy action.

This radio play came out in 1938, and somehow it understood the female characters better than most modern Dracula adaptations. The voice acting is great, the sound design is great, and Orson Welles nailed it as Dracula!

Rating: 4/5

1. Knöve's Storytelling's Murray Mysteries (2021)

Differences from the book

The characters have canon queer identities.

Jonathan is ace.

Mina is bi.

Lucy is pan.

Seward is a lesbian.

Art is nonbinary.

Van Helsing is implied to be aroace.

Seward and Van Helsing have both been genderswapped, and their first names have been changed to Jane and Abigail respectfully.

Arthur strictly goes by 'Art' and uses they/them pronouns.

Renfield is only refered by the initial 'R.'

The story takes place in the modern day, and the characters use modern technology and slang. Most of the characters use audio recordings rather than written diary entries.

Drac vapes and owns a cat.

The story starts with Mina and Lucy at Whitby, and we the audience don't get to know about Jonathan's encounter in Transylvania until Mina does, when she listens to Jonathan's audio diary.

Holmward becomes canon by the end.

Jonathan and Mina's roles are swapped in the final act, so Jonathan is the one Drac violates and is slowly turning into a vampire, and Mina is the one who goes feral for her hubby.

Jonathan and Mina have a dog in the epilogue rather than a son.

Quincey gets to live!!!

What I Liked

This is the most faithful adaptation I've seen by far! All the important story beats are there, as are the character dynamics! This is the first adaptation I've seen that has all the main cast, and they work wonderfully together!

This one has Quincey!!! And he has the best lines in the whole show! Seriously, they took his himboness from the book and dialed it up to 11! It's magnificent! And they included the iconic bat shooting scene!

The idea to have Dracula as a podcast spread out through multiple episodes was a brilliant idea! They were able to pace the story the way it should, we get to spend time with every character and really get to know each of them, and the whole 'found footage' aspect this podcast has was a stroke of genius!

All the voice actors have amazing chemistry together. If you watch any of the BTS videos, you'll see that almost all of them are friends IRL, which adds to their performance here. I especially love Mina and Lucy's interactions, they really do feel like they've been best friends forever.

The team makes the decision to leave Jonathan out of the vampire hunt due to his trauma, unlike the og story where they left out Mina because she was a woman. This makes more sense considering the changed time period, and it's less misogyny BS we have to deal with. It also gave us unhinged vengeful Mina, which I greatly appreciate.

The scene where Jonathan tries to get Mina to promise she'll kill him if he turns is so heartwrenching! I swear, the VAs got me screaming crying and throwing up at how regretful, angry, desperate, and terrified they both sounded at the same time! God all the emotions were on point!

Dracula himself only appears for about three episodes in this series, which was all we really needed of him. Almost all the focus was on the human characters, which was as it should be.

What I Disliked

Dracula and Van Helsing don't have accents. I know this is supposed to be a more serious adaptation, and the VAs attempting to do accents that aren't natural to them may come off as unintentionally goofy, but still it didn't feel quite as authentic to the characters. Van Helsing was already pretty goofy enough as a character, it wouldn't have felt out of place if they had kept her Dutchness. Dracula also sounds like Just Some Guy, which is actually kinda hilarious after all these adaptations that try so hard to be over the top villains with foreign accents.

There are some areas in the story where I thought they were a little *too* faithful to the book. Namely the relationship between Seward and Renfield. Granted, it's not quite as bad as it was in the book, but it's still not great either.

This was definetly the best Dracula adaptation, and I don't know how anything else could top it! Maybe if we get a fully fledged TV series some day that's faithful to the book, but for now this podcast is just the best! Great writing! Great voice acting! The whole series is on YouTube, please go listen to it!

Rating: 5/5

#dracula daily #dracula #dracula adaptations #murray mysteries #mercury theatre's dracula #dracula 1979 #dracula 1931 #bela logosi #christopher lee #orson welles #horror of dracula #dracula 1958 #movie review #podcast review #long post #jonathan harker #mina harker #lucy westenra #abraham van helsing #jack seward #arthur holmwood #quincey morris

[cherryqueenoftarts]

Someone here asked why Jack doesn't yet suspect that someone is preying on Lucy, and it got me thinking. It's a great point. The Jack the Ripper murders predate Dracula by a few years. Why wouldn't Jack, a man who deals with people like Renfield every day, think of the Ripper and begin putting together a theory of some madman (his term) crawling through Lucy's window at night?

I poked around Google to see if there's any connection between Stoker and the Ripper. Aside from him meeting two men suspected of being the Ripper (did he know they were suspects? it didn't say), there doesn't seem to be much there. One source did mention that he made a comparison between the evil of the Ripper and the evil of Dracula. So we know Stoker was aware of serial killers; hence Seward should be, too.

Anyway as I was reading my findings I was struck by something else. In multiple sources people dismiss the idea that Dracula was based on the Ripper because the Ripper tortured and killed prostitutes while Dracula "romantically" preys on high class ladies.

You guys.

Okay, to be clear, I don't see much evidence that Stoker based Dracula on the Ripper.

But like. Did any of these people read the book? Romantically? Ffs.

Also (and this is the point I've been working towards, believe it or not) the idea that Dracula doesn't prey on poor sex workers just annoys me. We have no idea. No one would tell us, in this epistolary novel, if sex workers were turning up dead in London gutters. It's not newsworthy when a sex worker dies looking pale but otherwise unharmed. We've seen that Drac has a huge appetite (*cough*Demeter crew*cough*). The fact he *hasn't* killed Lucy yet implies an almost guarantee that he's eating other people. Who better than sex workers? Maybe some vagrants here and there, too. The way they die would likely mislead most people who found the bodies into thinking it wasn't by violence, too.

Dracula likes to slowly torture and draw out his kill when it comes to Lucy. Is she the only one? We have no idea.

Aaand now I want a story about Dracula's unknown victims.

Okay, so what about the fact that London isn't becoming overrun with fledgling vampires? Well, idk if Stoker ever gives us an explanation for how Drac makes new vampires, but it's clearly not an automatic thing, or Transylvania would have a lot more of them (a lot of them babies--yikes).

Will someone pretty please write the story of these missing victims?

Maybe I'll take a crack at it...

#dracula daily #lucy westenra #dracula #dr seward #dracula speculation #bram stoker #jack the ripper #tw serial killers #tw baby mention #tw dead body #tw death #tw violent death

[nabanna]

Been thinking about Re:Dracula and how it's really difficult to do a truly accurate adaptation without just reading the book word for word in an audio format, and about how two big things I see in movie and other visually based adaptations are how they cut down the plot and they cut down the cast size.

Thinking about one that does it like: Mina, Johnathan, Lucy, Quincey, Van Helsing

Combine roles between Mina and Seward, and between Quincey and Arthur.

Mina is the medical student who studied under Van Helsing (emphasizes her role as the Smart One, lets Van Helsing see her more as an apprentice rather than a child to patronize, also gets in some Victorian gender role drama as Mina is a (highly qualified but still) woman going into a scientific/medical field dominated by men, she doesn't own an asylum though so alas no Renfield... unless... hmm, anyway one reason Jonathan is so eager to get that promotion is to help Mina finish medical school)

Give Quincey Arthur's most notable traits of being rich and having dogs, but also the most important traits of being an American cowboy from Texas who tells stories and plays up the persona for fun. And has a gun. Give Lucy other less important suitors in a flashback or something but make it clear these two Really Have Something

Mina becomes Lucy's best friend and doctor, maybe with Lucy's mother being dismissive of Mina as a woman trying to go into the medical field but accepting of her as an unpaid nurse for Lucy, Mina receives the news about Johnathan while Lucy seems to have gotten better but she asks Lucy's fiance to keep an eye on her just in case, and to contact her old professor if needed.

Harkers get married on the spot as god intended.

While Mina's gone, Van Helsing is unfortunately still a misogynist and doesn't handle Lucy and her mother as well as he could have, Quincey is just deferring to the apparent expert, Lucy dies and proceeds to Bloof, Van Helsing handles that roughly the same way as before but with only one sidekick this time.

Mina and Johnathan return upon receiving the news and Van Helsing tries to convince Mina that vampires are a thing the same way he did with Seward but with more "ah but you don't need to know all that because you're a woman" so she doesn't buy it until she connects the dots with Johnathan's experience and reads his journal, proceeds to tell him everything in there was real and gets Quincey to help them catch up on what happened with Lucy and to catch him up on what Dracula seems to be up to.

They go to Van Helsing for advice, he comes up with an arrangement that keeps Mina busy with something important but "safe" while he and the lads go out breaking and entering. Quincey shoots at a bat, Dracula gets Mina, Johnathan gets his anime transformation, Van Helsing burns Mina with something holy, there's an argument between the guys that gets cut off by Mina breaking down and Johnathan shooing the others out to comfort her, but Quincey sleeps in the hall outside.

Dracula runs away but forgets to turn off Mina's psychic "find your phone" settings, Mina is the Train Fiend, Van Helsing is confronted with how his efforts have led to further pain and realizes maybe they'll be better off if he steps back into a mentor rather than leader role, Quincey arms everyone and takes care of them by throwing money around and trying to be the level headed dependable comforting one, Mina can tell when Dracula is paying attention to her and this is the only time when hypnosis is necessary, the chase happens roughly as in canon.

Mina and Van Helsing go up to the castle to fight the Weird Sisters, maybe it's a bit more active this time, maybe Mina manages to channel Dracula's command in a way that saves them from the girlies but they realize that she's more vampiric than ever and killing Dracula is even more urgent.

Quincey and Johnathan follow Dracula by boat or by horse, whichever one is more exciting. They bond and it's low key kinda bisexual ngl but if anything comes of that it's a promise to talk to Mina once it's all over and they're safe again, they generally plan wistfully for the future, Johnathan feels a chill in sync with when Mina uses the Dracula power, Quincey suggests a spar to practice and get out their energy, maybe to add more interest here one of Dracula's scouts finds them and says there's a group of Dracula's servants that want to be free and will help them fight when they catch up.

The final battle goes a little differently, Mina puts herself in a barrier circle to protect Van Helsing from the possibility of her going vampiric but keeps a gun to provide ranged aid, Quincey and Johnathan roll up to Dracula's entourage and their secret allies back them up in the fight, Mina and Van Helsing provide cover fire and maybe make it seem like there's way more armed reinforcements up here to scare off the servants, the boys tag team Dracula as god intended, the gang reunites.

If I want to be evil and make good on those death flags, then Quincey dies (but not before seeing Mina's recovery and also getting kissed on the cheek by both Harkers at the same time) and the Harkers' first son is named after him. If I want to spare Quincey, then Van Helsing dies and his last moments are spent telling the gang that he's proud of them, and especially telling Mina that she's the brightest student he's ever had and he only wishes he could live to see her success but something about watching over them all from heaven idk. I guess the Harkers would name their first son Abraham then lmao, and maybe I'd give Quincey a lasting injury from the fight so he uses mobility aids in the future, and they'd definitely stay as a close knit trio forever. One might even call them roommates. See the thing is Quincey dying is canon and would bring more proper tragedy but also I don't want to kill him...

#dracula daily #dracula au #mina harker #johnathan harker #quincey morris #lucy westenra #dr van helsing #dracula #my posts #me

[bigmeter]

This Dracula shit getting annoying, I'm not even gonna read the book because I can already tell you the characters:

-Jonathan is just a smol! bean! making his way through the world in Transylvania and the main blorbo

-Mina is a brunette empath and knows shorthand, Not Like All The Other Girls

-Renfield is souichi

-Lucy is #femaleempowerment with eyeliner sharp enough to kill a man!1!1!1 #FEMINIST

-Dracula seems like the most based by far, living in a cool castle and trying to eat people with his three weed smoking girlfriends

You have all RUINED literature by being so annoying bringing stan culture to books, I swear to god

#dracula daily #dracula #re: dracula #bram stoker #yall are so fucking annoying

[radiodeerr]

it always struck me as as suprisingly subversive that Renfield was kinda set up as like the main character/protaganist in the first part of 1931 Dracula and then bang, in an instant he's a creepy little gremlin and his laughing in the Demeter is regarded as the most chilling moment of the film. Like in the book Jonathan Harker survives the Dracula ordeal and is more of your typical protaganist. Everyone talks about how subversive it is that Psycho killed what was set up to be the protaganist half way through, but Dracula kinda did a similar thing much earlier.

renfields character is one of my fav things ever honestly - he really was set up to be a really big character at the beginning and then he immediately became just a silly lil gremlin guy who still manages to create this character who you wouldn’t imagine to be crazy and then you see him entering rooms laughing and it’s honestly so well done rhat it truly is creepy

dwight done an amazing job on performing renfield as that type of character in the movie and i’m honestly so obsessed with it!

i haven’t got round to reading the book yet but as soon as i do i shall add on more of my opinion to this since this is just based on the 1931 movie! but i am a big fan of how renfield is shown and presented

#renfield #renfield film #robert montague renfield #dracula #dwight frye #dracula 1931 #1931 renfield

[see-arcane]

Anyway I vote for A! "People shouldn't get reincarnated unless they have a very very good reason" is a strong point for me, even though I would like to see more Renfield.

📝

Noted ✅

There IS a reason the larger casts get reincarnated in B and C beyond just 'ooh that would be cool.' Jonathan is behind Mina and company returning. Mina, because Mina. The others?

Extreme guilt. The Suitors and Van Helsing already slew Mina once upon a time. Jonathan, still human, cannot give in to his base vicious urge for bloody revenge, and so commits suicide, going full seppuku with the kukri blade in his gut...

...Not realizing the consequences. There's a combo of classic bitten (By Dracula! Not Mina!)/suicidal death magic that brings him back as a vampire, plus some lore to explain how he's taken on Dracula's full bag of tricks. But the important thing is that when he rises, he has no self control yet. He's a base vampiric newborn, having only two wants:

Drink blood. Follow all impulses, no matter how horrible.

And his last impulse as a living man was to kill the men responsible for slaying Mina and keeping him from protecting her. Cue carnage for the last human heroes standing. It isn't until after he's slain them and gotten his bloody fill that Jonathan's senses start filtering back, along with a sturdier grip of his less blunt wants and personality. And he realizes what he's just done.

This leaves Jonathan the Dracula in the unique position of not being a warlord-turned-Dracula, but a genuinely good and guilt-riddled man-turned-Dracula. And what is a good, guilty, lovesick man going to do with arcane powers and Scholomance-level spells and devilry at his fingertips?

Look at this mess. Look what I have done. I must fix this.

And so in tragic monster fashion, he follows that impulse, regardless of the time or means necessary, and tries to 'fix it.' A spell to bring the wrongfully dead back in a hundred years--for it is not a speedy ritual--and give them back the lives that were cut so violently short.

Sorry, sorry, it will be better this time, all will be well, no conquering, no monsters in the dark, Mina, everyone, sorry, so sorry...

Because as driven as he is by romantic love and yearning for Mina, to Hell and beyond, he's also driven to Do Good. Be Good. I Will Help. I Will Make It Better. And so he brings them all back.

A monster's apology.

#anyway #I love me some tasty tasty angst #jonathan harker the dracula #jonathan harker #mina harker #dracula bad ending #dracula #dracula daily

[stephpotterart]

I am listening to Dracula on audible as I work... and I've developed a little headcanon that makes me laugh...

Headcanon: Bram Stoker's Dracula is based on an encounter with a Vampire, but the entire story has been misconstrued and exaggerated. Rewritten and given an inaccurate narrative. He assumed that the Vampire was Vlad Dracula, based on the descriptions of the man... but it was actually Nandor.

Nandor, who had been living alone in a wrecked castle for a couple generations, only because it's quiet and he moved in while in Vampire Depression

Nandor who who made the three sisters into his brides because he was lonely, but now regrets it because yeesh, they can't take the hint to leave.

Nandor who just wanted to live in England for a season or two with Laszlo and Nadja while they prepare to emigrate to the United States of America.

Nandor who didn't mean to kill everyone on the Demeter, but who panicked when he was noticed, turned into a bat, which in turn scared the shit out of the crew who then started to leap overboard and overreact.

Nandor who would have helped the Captain except said Captain lashed himself to the helm with a crucifix (Fucking guy!)

Nandor who can turn himself into a black dog, though doesn't always do it at the best of times.

Nandor who was trying to get rid of a previous Familiar with a slightly failed Hypnotism (Renfield) which ended up with the Brain Scramblies.

Nandor who found a pretty girl sleepwalking and thought she'd make a lovely 38th (possibly 40th) wife.

Nandor, who had a consensual affair with a married woman, but whose husband definitely didn't appreciate and now it's being remembered as an attack on the purity of her soul and their marriage.

When he eventually reads Bram Stoker's book, he's probably going to be offended lol.

#dracula #bram stoker #bram stoker's dracula #headcanon #wwdtis #nadja what we do in the shadows #wwdits nandor #nandor the relentless #vampire

[thenightling]

Renfield Review

Renfield Review: I just got done watching Renfield and I liked it a lot.  It was a decent horror-comedy, especially if you like the cheesy, over-the-top acting of Nicolas Cage though his only real “Nicolas Cage-ism” is when he got to shout “HAIL SATAN” while making the heavy metal devil horns hand gesture shortly before being (likely temporarily) “Killed.”

The plot is that after ninety-two or so years serving Dracula, Renfield has finally decided to leave his toxic relationship with his boss.  I’m a little surprised the movie didn’t play on the fact that many book historians believe Renfield was a metaphor for homosexual attraction but considering how abusive the relationship was depicted in this film it might be for the best that they didn’t touch on that.  

  Now I’ll start with the negative and then work my way to the positive, the opposite of how I usually do my reviews but I have more positive things to say than negative.

First negative thing is I am not a fan of how they do Dracula’s teeth.  Having all of his teeth be pointed is a bit distracting to me.    The other things I dislike are related to the mythos.  We never see Dracula take wolf-form but we do get to see him as mist and a flock of bats. This bothers me a bit as I happen to like wolves and so few people remember he can take wolf form.  He even did take wolf form in the Bela Lugosi movie but it’s off camera, you hear others describe his wolf form running outside. I also don’t really like that he burns in the sun.  I know this is based on the Universal Studios Dracula but in the first Bela Lugosi Dracula movie he didn’t actually burn in the sun.  That wasn’t added until the sequels.  He was just Nocturnal.  And in Stoker’s novel he could move around by day just fine.  He just couldn’t shapeshift by day. Also the message about being in codependent / abusive relationships is a little heavy handed. I also found it odd that Dracula’s blood could heal the badly injured and even raise the dead and yet those the blood was used on weren’t turned into vampires.  Usually that healing factor in his blood has that tiny side effect of... You know... making you a vampire... There’s one small mistake in Renfield that I noticed.  The magical circle used to contain Dracula should not be called a protection circle. That kind of circle is a binding circle. When the magical circle is used to contain or trap a supernatural entity it’s called a Binding Circle. When the Circle is around you or others to protect you from supernatural threats getting in, that’s a Protection Circle. In Hocus Pocus when Alison makes the circle of salt around herself to protect herself from Winifred’s power, that’s a Protection Circle. In The Sandman when Morpheus is trapped, that’s a binding circle. In principle they work the same way in that the supernatural entity cannot cross the barrier of the circle.  But when the entity is trapped in the circle it’s a binding circle. When the entity cannot enter the circle, that’s a protection circle.    It appears the writer for Renfield got slightly confused on this subject.  They called the circle that trapped Dracula a protection circle. As I said, it’s petty.   

Now for what I like...

I do like the over-all message.  This version of Dracula is not the charming and sympathetic version you get with Frank Langella or Gary Oldman.  This version is pretty evil.  He’s also manipulative and an abuser.    There is a great homage to the 1931 Dracula movie and Nicolas Cage plays Count Dracula really well (if I could just get past the teeth).   And Renfield even does the classic Dwight Frye laugh at one point if you listen carefully.    There’s a fun cameo appearance from William Ragsdale (Charley Brewster in the 1985 Fright Night and Fright Night: Part 2, 1988).    

The movie has a good moral about standing up for yourself, rescuing yourself, and freeing yourself from codependent and toxic relationships while also depicting a delightfully over-the-top and very evil version of Count Dracula.  And though this is connected to the Universal Studios Dracula I can’t help but feel that Hammer’s Dracula is being referenced when Renfield talks about the routine of Dracula’s feeding sprees and then getting “killed” and the various ways he’s been defeated.   Though they made him burn in sunlight like the later Universal movies and Hammer Horror movies they did show off a lot of Dracula’s traditional powers.    One of my favorite moments is near the end and it is a shameless commercial for Tumblr but I liked it just the same. A protection circle (read: Binding circle) is used to contain Dracula.  The person who uses the binding circle got the instructions from a “Wiccan Tumblr.”    It’s always good to see pro-Wicca content. Usually it’s only Catholicism used to contain or defeat Dracula.  And even though it was a shameless advertisement for Tumblr I was still amused by the reference.     I liked the ending and I like the affirmation for Renfield that he is enough and that he does not need Dracula to function.  He can finally be his own person.  And he learns how to socialize and make friends and rebuild his sense of self. 

I still prefer The Invitation (2022) for a more serious modern Dracula movie for its Gothic ambiance and charismatic depiction of Dracula but this was still fun and I would happily watch it again.

#Renfield #Dracula #Nicolas Cage #Wiccan Tumblr