Dracula
How many of you out there have read the Bram Stoker original? Its one of my favorite novels, and there's a number of really shocking and disturbing stuff in it for its time. None of the movie adaptations (that I'm aware of) have ever truly done the book justice.
A hound will die for you, but never lie to you. And he'll look you straight in the face.
My Collection
Many times, and it was indeed ahead of it's time. There are some great vampire novels out there (but I don't like Anne Rice, so I'm not including her - sorry) but Dracula stands the test of time and is still my favourite.
I have read it, but about ten years ago and only once! I liked it a lot, I think I'll get a copy if I can find it in a London charity shop next summer. I mean, I liked it even though I am normally indifferent to vampire stories.
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My copy is second hand...well read and worn, a book with character
One question I have to ask is why do people feel the need to romanticize Dracula and make him 'misunderstood'? I mean, I've sympathized with and rooted for quite a few villains and Dracula has always come off to me as despicable.
A hound will die for you, but never lie to you. And he'll look you straight in the face.
My Collection
The film certainly took liberties with that aspect didn't it! Yes, I read him as what he was - a monster.
I loved Stoker's Dracula - I've read it many times. And yeah, I see Dracula as evil, not misunderstood.
"People, especially children, aren't measured by their IQ. What's important about them is whether they're good or bad, and these children are bad." ~ Alan Bernard
"You needn't die happy when your day comes, but you must die satisfied, for you have lived your life from beginning to end and ka is always served." ~ Roland Deschain
I certainly liked Dracula but it is not my favorite vampire story. I agree that this novel was ahead of its time.
What's your favourite Monte?
Jean, I have an extra copy of it. It has an extremely shitty cover (It looks more like the wolfman than Dracula) but it's still the same book, through and through. I'd be more than willing to send it your way.Originally Posted by Jean
wow!!!!!!!! bears don't ever judge books by their covers!Jean, I have an extra copy of it. It has an extremely shitty cover (It looks more like the wolfman than Dracula) but it's still the same book, through and through. I'd be more than willing to send it your way.
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm not exactly sure how I'd go about sending you the book without you giving out private info (address)
But I have a Fed Ex right by my apartment, so it's ready to go.
I posted my London friend's address here. If all goes well, I'll get it for my birthday
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So, can we still send you mail there? Would it be a bother for your friend?I posted my London friend's address here. If all goes well, I'll get it for my birthday
my friend will be happy for me, if he doesn't have to take any more heavy things to St.Petersburg (having an enormous family here and always bringing lots of stuff for them)
I too, hope to be able to send something to everyone when I am in Europe next summer
back to Dracula now!
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I was always curious how we got from this evil monster to this stereotypical "Bleh! I Vant to suck your blood!"
It really hit home about his age, how he speaks of fighting in wars hundreds of years ago, just under a different name. I kind of used that as an explanation for one of my own characters.(It's where my screen name comes from, his last name.)
I hear Nosferatu is the most faithful adaptation of the book, its title and character names notwithstanding (didn't have the rights, and Stoker's widow tried to sue). I haven't seen it, but that seems like reason enough to look at it.
As far as adaptations go, though, I'm no expert and don't pretend to be--I've only seen two (the 1931 Lugosi film which I saw at a young age and remember very little of, and the 1992 Coppola film Bram Stoker's Dracula). To be honest, the form of the book (which I only read years ago and need to re-read) doesn't seem to me to lend itself well to adaptations--all I mean by this is that it loses a lot of the mystery and intrigue if you're actually SEEING what it describes, rather than imagining it yourself.
That plus the fact that Dracula's been done literally to death (if you'll pardon the expression) means that any new Dracula movie needs more of a raison d'etre than simply being a faithful adaptation. Nosferatu is excused because it was the first adaptation entirely, and it came BEFORE Lugosi's famous rendition popularized the character and ingrained him in the public's imagination--and yet, of course, there are the name problems.... (Orlok? Ugh....
As far as adaptations go, however, having only seen the two I mentioned above, I think Bram Stoker's Dracula is the best. Besides being faithful to the novel for the most part (I've read that it took a lot of cinematic inspiration from Nosferatu), it actually combined Stoker's count with the real life Vlad the Impaler (who was really almost the count's opposite) and made it work, at least to my own satisfaction, others may disagree. But for my money, anyway, it gave a better motivation for WHY Dracula does all the things we KNOW he did from the novel.Spoiler:
And the fact that the real life Vlad Dracula was so different from Stoker's count--devout Christian warrior regarded as a hero, fighting against foreign invaders, impaling them on stakes (sound more like Van Helsing, or the count's other enemies?) only impresses me all the more. Had I been fully aware of the differences before seeing the film, I would have found it difficult to believe it could be done satisfactorily. All the two really seem to share is a name (and Stoker was originally going to call the character Count Wampyr.... Ugh....
All I can say is, now when I think of Dracula, I think of Gary Oldman's character. As someone on imdb said, with Oldman's performance, Dracula became him. I just find it so hard to go back to Lugosi after seeing that film--besides, all too often we see Dracula in a campy, almost parodying fashion (Van Helsing, anyone?). Oldman's Dracula actually had heart, and justified naming the whole story after him as he truly is the protagonist of the film, and not Jonathan Harker who becomes his rival. Thus Keanu Reeves' lacking performance can probably be forgiven in that regard.
Anyway, sorry for the long post (I tend to think things over to death, pardon the expression), but those are my thoughts on the matter. Feel free to disagree....
Last edited by Jean; 01-22-2008 at 04:48 AM. Reason: added spoiler box
dear friends,
this is not a spoiler thread, so please mark your spoilers
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I read it.
It was great.
"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)
I liked Coppola's film, but Oldman's hair....that was so wrong. I haven't seen Nosferatu either, but I think I may need to take a look at that one. The Malkovitch film was good too (damn, I can't remember the name!).
"People, especially children, aren't measured by their IQ. What's important about them is whether they're good or bad, and these children are bad." ~ Alan Bernard
"You needn't die happy when your day comes, but you must die satisfied, for you have lived your life from beginning to end and ka is always served." ~ Roland Deschain
Shadow of the Vampire, and it proved to me without any shadow of a doubt that Willam Defoe is one creepy S.O.B.
And that Eddie Izzard is funny no matter what he's doing.
Thanks! That was going to bug me all day.
"People, especially children, aren't measured by their IQ. What's important about them is whether they're good or bad, and these children are bad." ~ Alan Bernard
"You needn't die happy when your day comes, but you must die satisfied, for you have lived your life from beginning to end and ka is always served." ~ Roland Deschain
No problem.
I've tried to see as many as the Dracula movies as possible, considering he's the most used character in film history. I'm not even into vampires or anything, I just want to see all the different variartions.
Oldman was one of the best so far.
Yeah, I liked his character, but the hair....ugh.
"People, especially children, aren't measured by their IQ. What's important about them is whether they're good or bad, and these children are bad." ~ Alan Bernard
"You needn't die happy when your day comes, but you must die satisfied, for you have lived your life from beginning to end and ka is always served." ~ Roland Deschain
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
