Tumgik
#dracula 1979
moliathh · 5 months
Text
Dracula//Helsing
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
276 notes · View notes
theroseinthedarkness · 5 months
Photo
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
Dracula (1979), dir. John Badham
40 notes · View notes
johnzombi · 7 months
Text
Tumblr media
PINK SPINES
🌈📼💖
29 notes · View notes
picklepie888 · 1 year
Text
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)
Tumblr media
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)
Tumblr media
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)
Tumblr media
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)
Tumblr media
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)
Tumblr media
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
149 notes · View notes
kenro199x · 1 year
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
56 notes · View notes
Text
draculizing as always
Tumblr media Tumblr media
[ID: two loose, messy marker drawings of scenes from dracula movies. the first shows vampire lucy (renamed mina in the movie) from the 1979 dracula, wretched and decomposing in the darkness and reaching out. a bat hangs from the ceiling in the background.
the second shows arthur and van helsing from the 1958 dracula. they are standing together in lucy's tomb, and van helsing is explaining the situation as arthur looks on in dismay.]
155 notes · View notes
prettynerdieworks · 1 year
Photo
Tumblr media Tumblr media
DRACULA (1979)
77 notes · View notes
bandaidfingers · 1 year
Photo
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
🩸DRACULA (1979)🩸
I’ve seen Frank Langella’s portrayal of the Count in this movie touted as Thee Sexy Dracula™️ which I find hysterical for two reasons, 1. He’s really far from the first actor meant to make Dracula charming and handsome and 2. I find him utterly repulsive. And not even in a fun scary way, just in a Some Guy way. This Dracula is any man that would go completely unnoticed by me on the street. Try as this Dracula might to use his seductive hypnotic influence over me after swooping through my bedroom window at night, I am rolling over and telling him to buzz off. This movie does have some merits though, there are some very stylish sequences in this, including the scene where Dracula bites Lucy while the two of them are entwined in this almost-psychedelic realm of red light. I also enjoy the ending a lot with its implication that Dracula has either survived his destruction, or that his influence over Lucy is more powerful than even his death. The list of things I enjoy in this goes on, but unfortunately the portrayal of the characters ultimately ruins it all for me, most of the supporting cast is present in this one but they’re all such shallow and abrasive versions of themselves, there is absolutely no one worth rooting for. I can’t even find Lucy’s apparently possessed behavior post-Dracula bite to be shocking as this movie gives no evidence at any time that she acts any different normally. Anyway, Dracula turns into both a bat and a wolf multiple times in this one, so that’s fun at least.
138 notes · View notes
atundratoadstool · 2 years
Note
Where did the big turning point regarding Dracula's character in medium happen where he became a tragic figure angsting about living forever and lost love? Stoker's Count is a being of pure evil who the book implies willingly chose that path and while Bela Lugosi and Christopher Lee glamorized the character considerably, Dracula was still portrayed in their films as a wicked monster. So is it purely an invention of Francis Ford Coppola and Castlevania?  
[Spoilers: A lot of Dracula’s cinematic history and various alterations to its plot]
So, I think part of what’s going on with Dracula by the time we hit the 90s is that the literary tradition that Anne Rice more or less jump-started--in which authors look to vampires as tormented outsiders worthy of our sympathy--had reshaped expectations for vampire media in general. At some point in the 20th century, people realized that maybe it was time to take the figures that literature had routinely vilified in relation to apprehensions regarding race, gender and sexuality and to reposition them as protagonists. I think this is a shift that you can see influencing Frank Langella’s 1979 Dracula even if the Count is still very much the villain there.
With regards to Coppola’s iconic Dracula, though, there is a very specific line of media I believe you can trace to show how we got from Lee and Lugosi’s Counts to Oldman’s. In the 1960s, the beautifully low budget gothic soap opera Dark Shadows introduced the world to the sympathetic vampire character Barnabas Collins, which big plot arc involved becoming obsessed with a woman he believed to be the reincarnation of his lost love Josette. While there were prior Gothic texts that featured reincarnated lost loves (the 1932 Mummy film and H. Rider Haggard’s She), a lot of people feel that Dark Shadows really established the basic plot as regards vampires. This eventually made its way into Dracula adaptations in the 70s, and featured in both a 1974 version of Dracula starring Jack Palance and in the original 1972 Blacula (and I will note for all that film’s failings, Prince Mamuwalde handles his reincarnation plot a lot more gracefully than Dracula generally does). While it was Coppola’s film that really popularized the idea of the Count as a tragic romantic lead, it was drawing on about three decades of prior stories with very similar dynamics.
222 notes · View notes
youremysunshine8 · 5 months
Text
Watched Dracula (1979) last night, and man that Jonathan was WEAK. When Lucy (who for some reason is his fiance in this one?) starts turning into a vampire, he's all screaming and begging for help instead of offering up his veins. Some holiest love smh
Dracula daily has made me love Jonathan Harker SO MUCH
14 notes · View notes
fatmagic · 1 year
Photo
Tumblr media
57 notes · View notes
Photo
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
Period Drama Appreciation Week 2022
Day 7 - Free Day
↳ 𝕲𝖔𝖙𝖍𝖎𝖈
Crimson Peak (2015), dir. Guillermo del Toro
Death Takes a Holiday (1934), dir. Mitchell Leisen
The Phantom of the Opera (2004), dir. Joel Schumacher
The Ghost and Mrs. Muir (1947), dir. Joseph L. Mankiewicz
Dracula (1979), dir. John Badham
Dragonwyck (1946), dir. Joseph L. Mankiewicz
496 notes · View notes
neon-green-reagent · 9 months
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
Frank Langella as Count Dracula in Dracula (1979)
18 notes · View notes
melancholic-frog · 10 months
Text
dracula (1979) certainly made some interesting choices. when will they make an accurate dracula adaptation?
why is mina dead? why is dracula trying to make lucy his wife? why is jonathan interested in lucy and not married to mina? where is quincey? where is arthur? WHERE IS THE POLYCULE?
15 notes · View notes
picklepie888 · 7 months
Text
I will never forgive Dracula (1979) for what they did to Mina.
25 notes · View notes
hqrker · 4 months
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
2 notes · View notes