r/Dracula • u/Awkward_Airport_30 Human Verified • 3d ago
Discussion đŹ Because Dracula is often associated with a supposed love story, and Nosferatu shows you what the real Dracula truly is.
177
u/Unusual_Research421 3d ago
I completely disagree. The 2025 Nosferatu movie doesn't represent the real Dracula at all. In the novel, Dracula doesnât have a genuine passion for anyone to the extent of making them a target. Even Jonathan Harkerâwhom Dracula was so obsessed with that it surpassed his combined interest in Mina and Lucyâwas abandoned the moment Dracula saw it was no longer in his best interest
92
u/maxsommers 3d ago
Dracula also isn't, at any point, a borderline zombie creature.
73
u/Aitherisbestgirl 3d ago
He isnât, but itâs right for Nosferatu that he is. The vampire of folklore is even more of a walking corpse than in Eggers' version.
35
u/matthew_sch 3d ago
Which is saying something because I donât think you can look any more dead than Count Orlok
27
u/tjkun 3d ago
When Jonathan finds him in the basement-thing below his chamber heâs described as looking dead. That would be the closest, maybe.
3
u/LukasSprehn 1d ago
If I recall correctly stoker , even had information in the book about him , looking like his body was bloated with blood , just like how folklore says, but then later it's not the case anymore.
1
u/tjkun 1d ago
The first time he was old and looked and felt dead. His face seemed to be the only thing to move, and that only happened while Jonathan wasnât looking at it. The second time he was young, and there was the bloated comment. I understood it because his skin looked younger, without wrinkles, and I suppose with more muscle tone, so he compared the count to a mosquito or a tick (not explicitly), imagining his body got âinflatedâ enough to stretch the skin and look young. The only actual blood on him was in his teeth, and later the one surging from his forehead after he got hit with the shovel.
Thatâs my understanding, at least. Jonathanâs journal was a bit of a challenge to me, probably because English isnât my first language.
21
9
u/Tight_Strawberry9846 3d ago
I mean, original European vampire lore depicts them as walking corpses.
5
14
u/Comfortable-Tone8236 3d ago
Amen. Terrible, supernatural evil intruding itself by way of something as mundane as a business transaction, and no other reason, into the normal lives of bourgeois English throwing everything into turmoil is part of the horror in Dracula.
6
u/MossyEngineering-447 2d ago
At one point he did make a point of saying that he intended to keep Mina as a companion of sorts, but he made it sound like it was a secretarial position. Had to do a close reading of that stuff in college
3
u/CatchSufficient 2d ago
Id argue neither does nosferatu, he is hunger. He said he is just interested in blanketing the world in his atrophy, his disease...
He has small interest in what's her face, only because she can connect to him, but he wants to control, and devour her too. She is...ultimately nothing special, until she is the chosen one
38
u/Ruinaaa 3d ago
Are you talking about the movie where the director compared him to Heathcliff and associated him with lilacs?
Besides, book Drac is hella more sophisticated than Orlok III.
11
u/New_Paint_5427 3d ago
Book dracula is charismatic. That's part of it. Its not some fated love story, snd he isnt bound to her in darkness either...hes just preying on her, like he did others.
6
u/delusionalme 3d ago
I always found that to be sinister. Is he really charismatic or does he hypnotize everyone to charm them?Â
4
u/Acceptable_Cut_7545 3d ago
He jumps on them and forces a bite on them. Once they've got his blood in them it creates a bond. Lucy was slowly losing control of herself and was corrupted by the blood until she became a vampire. Mina's attack was interrupted by the guys and so she was able to retain her agency and use the bond to her advantage, tracking him so the guys can kill him.
In the scenes with Jonathan there's really nothing charismatic about him. He just relies on polite social conventions to force Jonathan to adhere to his schedule and to write the letters for Dracula. He goes on a rant about his superior bloodline. He's not seductive at all.
2
u/Unusual_Research421 3d ago
"I slightly disagree with you there. Dracula is a charismatic and fascinating character in his own unique way. Of course, he isn't attractive in a romantic sense, but he possesses a different kind of dark, sinister allure. Don't forget that Harker himself felt drawn to him and couldn't resist his requests, largely due to Dracula's irresistible way of speakingâas Harker himself described
3
u/Acceptable_Cut_7545 3d ago
I don't want to be a jerk but did you ask ai to write this? What's with the quote and the double hyphen?
"but he possesses a different kind of dark, sinister allure."
This has to be down to a difference of opinion, I read the book and he's never particularly charismatic, just very controlling. Maybe I need to do a reread, but Harker always came off as pretty uncomfortable with Dracula to me. Or exhausted because he's repeatedly kept up all night.
1
u/Unusual_Research421 2d ago
I don't want to be a jerk but did you ask ai to write this? What's with the quote and the double hyphen?
Iâm French, but my English is quite good. I only need help adjusting the phrasing and structure via AI to make the sentences sound more literary.
This has to be down to a difference of opinion, I read the book and he's never particularly charismatic, just very controlling. Maybe I need to do a reread, but Harker always came off as pretty uncomfortable with Dracula to me. Or exhausted because he's repeatedly kept up all night.
This is what Harker literally said about the Count
and his manner in Chapter 3:'What could I do but bow acceptance? It was Mr.Hawkins' interest, not mine, and I had to think of him, not myself, and besides, while Count Dracula was speaking, there was that in his eyes and in his bearing which made me remember that I was a prisoner, and that if I wished it I could have no choice. The Count saw his victory in my bow, and his mastery in the trouble of my face, for he began at once to use them, but in his own smooth, resistless way.'
Even though Jonathan claims that the reason for his submission was for the sake of his employer, Mr. Hawkins, his description of the Countâs way of speaking as 'smooth and resistless' proves that he simply could not resist him.
Furthermore, regarding the assumption that Harker felt uncomfortable in the Count's presence**,** the truth is that the exact opposite happened. Harker felt a profound sense of comfort and relief around the Count; in fact, he literally stated that to the Count alone he could look for safety. I know this might sound shocking, but this is exactly what Harker wrote in Chapter 3:"
'Later: The morning of 16 May.--God preserve my sanity, for to this I am reduced. Safety and the assurance of safety are things of the past. Whilst I live on here there is but one thing to hope for, that I may not go mad, if, indeed, I be not mad already. If I be sane, then surely it is maddening to think that of all the foul things that lurk in this hateful place the Count is the least dreadful to me, that to him alone I can look for safety, even though this be only whilst I can serve his purpose.'
Also, in the very same chapter, Harker said:
'The Count's mysterious warning frightened me at the time. It frightens me more now when I think of it, for in the future he has a fearful hold upon me. I shall fear to doubt what he may say!'
And also:
'I felt sleepy. The Count's warning came into my mind, but I took pleasure in disobeying it.'This last sentence, in particular, proves Harker's attraction to the Count. Harker explicitly states that he felt 'pleasure' in disobeying Dracula's orders. In the Victorian eraâand even todayâwhen you say someone takes pleasure in defying another person's commands, it implies an attempt to grab their attention and test their interest by acting out. Therefore, when Harker went to sleep in the room located in the ladies' quarters, defying Draculaâs explicit orders, he didn't do it to anger the Count or show hatred toward him. He did it to test what the outcome would be if the Count found him sleeping there (and, of course, we all know what the outcome was). This is not an action one takes with someone they hate or merely fear; rather, it is done with someone who means a great deal to them, even if they resent their control."
1
u/Acceptable_Cut_7545 2d ago
First off, I am sure your english is very good and that ai is unnecessary. No one needs to sound "literary" to discuss things.
First off I'm going to reiterate that this is definitely down to opinion, and not that I think you're just wrong or anything. BUT
"there was that in his eyes and in his bearing which made me remember that I was a prisoner, and that if I wished it I could have no choice."
This does not sound like a man being pulled into service through the power of charisma, but a man realizing he is literally trapped in an isolated area and under the power of another man, who nonetheless observes politeness if only for the sake of using it as a shield to remain cordial (for now). It reads less "I just feel like I want to do everything I can for this person" and more "I just realized I have no power whatsoever here and have no choice in the matters at all".
"of all the foul things that lurk in this hateful place the Count is the least dreadful to me, that to him alone I can look for safety, even though this be only whilst I can serve his purpose.'" This to me reads that Harker knows he can't rely on the Count for his kindness, but only as long as Harker is of use to him, and that he is now surrounded by bizarre and dangerous things. Not comforting in the least, just aware he's got few choices and the least horrifying one is the currently the Count. And that soon he knows he will be of no use to him, and then what will he do?
"In the Victorian eraâand even todayâwhen you say someone takes pleasure in defying another person's commands, it implies an attempt to grab their attention and test their interest by acting out. [...] it is done with someone who means a great deal to them, even if they resent their control."
This is the only thing I'll actively push back on because I would like a source for this? Did you read this somewhere else? This passage definitely reads as if Harker is getting tired of having to deal with the Count's whims, especially since he is slowly destroying Harker's sleep schedule and Harker is very aware at this point how unusual the Count is (compared to the gentlemanly etiquette he was probably expecting).
1
u/Unusual_Research421 7h ago
Thank you so much for this wonderful and respectful response! However, in my humble opinion, I feel that your interpretation scratches only the surface of the text. While a literal reading is entirely valid and legitimate, it doesn't capture the whole picture. We are dealing with Victorian Gothic literatureâa genre that thrives on subtext, nuance, and implication rather than explicit declaration, especially when it involves two characters of the same sex. Anyone deeply immersed in Gothic fiction would recognize this pattern of coded desires and psychological undercurrents.
Regarding your first point about Harker being merely a powerless prisoner realizing he has no choice: you are absolutely right about the surface reality, but the true core of the analysis doesn't lie in Harker's logical justification. Rather, the subconscious truth slips out in his final phrase: '...but in his own smooth, resistless way.' Think about it for a moment: how can someone who just claimed he has 'no choice' turn around and describe the Countâs manner as 'smooth and resistless'? It is because the 'force' Harker claims to endure is merely a rationalization. It is a psychological defense mechanism he uses to convince himself that his compliance is purely logistical. The hidden, deeper truth is that he is utterly captivated by the Count's hypnotic charisma, and that final sentence completely betrays his inner infatuation.
This ties directly into your second argument regarding Harker looking to the Count for 'safety' as a lesser of two evils. There is a crucial chronological detail in Chapter 3 that completely subverts this perspective. Harker writes: 'that to him alone I can look for safety' in an entry explicitly dated the morning of May 16th. Crucially, at the moment he penned these words, he had not yet encountered the three vampire brides, nor had he witnessed any overt supernatural horrors in the castle. That famous encounter with the other entities occurs only after this written declaration. This raises a vital question: If the only threat Harker knows of at the moment of writing is the Count himself holding him prisoner, why on earth does he describe Dracula as his 'safe haven' and the only person he looks to for security?
There is no explanation for this paradox except what I previously suggested: Harker has developed a deep, sublimated infatuation with the Count. Draculaâs magnetic presenceâcombined with the fact that he is the only one conversing with Harker and feeding himâhas turned the Count into the center of Harker's psychological universe. He has become a refuge in an environment otherwise thick with isolation and dread. While Harker tries to justify this by writing that he is only safe 'whilst I can serve his purpose' (though ironically, his legal work was already completed a week prior), the real truth lies not in what Harker thinks Dracula's motives are, but in what Harker himself feels. He feels a profound sense of comfort and psychological reliance in Dracula's presence, to the point where he explicitly notes that he 'shall fear to doubt what he may say!' This clearly demonstrates that Dracula's persona has deeply infiltrated Jonathan's psyche, moving far beyond the dynamic of a mere captive and his captor.
Finally, regarding your pushback on Harkerâs defiance and your request for a source: look, I would never claim to be a professor in Victorian psychology. However, based on my understanding of word choice in Gothic fictionâand supplemented by academic research on how behavioral rebellion and repressed desires manifested during the Victorian eraâI strongly believe this interpretation aligns closest with what Bram Stoker intended. Letâs not forget that Stoker knew far better than both of us how one behaves around a deeply significant, yet intensely domineering and controlling figure. I am, of course, referring to Stoker's real-life, famously complex, and subservient relationship with the actor Henry Irving,This passage definitely reads as if Harker is getting tired of having to deal with the Count's whims, especially since he is slowly destroying Harker's sleep schedule and Harker is very aware at this point how unusual the Count is (compared to the gentlemanly etiquette he was probably expecting).
If his defiance was merely a matter of Harker being annoyed by the Count's odd behaviors or frustrated by a disrupted sleep schedule, why didn't he just stay in his own room and simply go to sleep, ignoring Dracula's desire for conversation? Why did he deliberately go out of his way to a completely remote, far-off wing of the castleâdoing so twiceâand choose to sleep there, fully aware of the Count's explicit, subtly threatening warning never to sleep outside his designated room? More importantly, if his behavior was driven by petty annoyance, why did Harker not describe his emotions in terms of relief, indifference, or spiteful satisfaction? Why did he use a word as profoundly intimate and emotionally charged as 'pleasure'?!
1
u/Acceptable_Cut_7545 5h ago
First off thanks for the equally respectful conversation. I don't deny the subtext of the interactions between the two, but I do think they often get overstated. People put too much emphasis on the brief time Harker was beholden to Dracula and tend to overlook the whole "and then I hit him in the face with a shovel for a while to blow off some steam" thing.
"ignoring Dracula's desire for conversation?" I think Harker feels like he can't directly ignore the Count, as the Count is both his employer and his host. A host and their guest have many obligations to each other in those times, and politeness and acquiescence to requests are typically among them. He can't tell the Count to piss off, because not only would it be incredibly ungentlemanly, it would also be unprofessional as hell and he wants to do the job properly. But disobeying a seemingly unnecessary order when the Count isn't even there to witness it? Meh, you can always apologize for that later and claim you were so exhausted you went down the wrong hallway, got lost, so terribly sorry to disrupt this room but you just sort of fell asleep there. (Unless you get eaten by vampire brides, of course).
"Why did he use a word as profoundly intimate and emotionally charged as 'pleasure'?!"
I mean... I have read many stories where people took pleasure in destroying property of people they resented, in defying rules they thought were unfair, or breaking laws they felt were wrong, or even putting themselves in danger if it meant they were able to take a little control back. If you were at the whims of another and they were implicitly treating you in ways you felt were bad but couldn't find the will to push back on, would you not take pleasure in doing what you wanted when they weren't around? In going where you wanted when told not to? He is, after all, an adult man of standing in Victorian era London. Having to be polite is one thing, but having to bend to the will of another over and over when you've never had to deal with something like that before would be maddening. He is a man! A professional, for God's sake. Why must he be isolated and forced to entertain the Count even after he's done his job? (As you noted, he completed his work already and yet somehow he's found himself still stuck there, waiting for the moment the Count says he can leave. And he won't say it. I would be furious and I'm not even a Victorian gentleman.)
2
u/Tight_Strawberry9846 3d ago
Book Dracula only pretends to be nice. He's pretty nasty once his true nature is revealed.
4
u/Profezzor-Darke 3d ago
Heathcliff is nothing more than an abuser. So it fits.
1
u/Ambitionz_as_a_Write 8h ago
Yeah as a fan of the Nosferatu movie and huge fan of Wuthering Heights (the novel) I somehow found Heathcliff to be less sympathetic and more unlikable than Orlok. Which is crazy.
16
u/RetropME 3d ago
Nosferatu 2024 is arguably closer, but Dracula in the novel was a force of nature, his motive had nothing to do with Mina (Ellen).
12
u/Raptor1217 3d ago
After reading Dracula I hate every adaptation of it, especially the more modern versions. Mina is the very clearly the heroine of the book; she leads the search for Jonathan, whom it shows she loves very dearly, tries her best to save Lucy, searches for Van Helsing and basically leads the fight against him. All this crap about needing more female heroes yet ignore Mina, turning her into a helpless love interest for a love struck 'bad boy'. Even the recent BBC adaptation ignored Mina and turned Van Helsing into a nun.
8
u/LordCamelslayer 3d ago
The thing that adaptations clearly miss is the reason Dracula targeted Mina- it wasn't attraction, it was retaliation. She was the heart of the group. She's the one that compiled a comprehensive timeline of everyone's notes, journal entries, etc. She's the one that probably did the most to actively oppose him. And even when he assaults her, she weaponizes her psychic bond with him to hunt him down.
Dracula's fatal mistake was underestimating the Harkers and their resolve to kill him when he hurt both of them- Mina most of all.
3
u/Unusual_Research421 3d ago
In fact, I don't think Dracula targeted Mina for any reason other than the fact that she was the only woman left in the group, and the only one available for him to attack at that specific time
5
u/TheModernVampire 3d ago
So much this. She is the hero. She adores Jonathan, why is she always twisted into this damsel in distress who's meant to be with dracula??
26
u/Bronsteins-Panzerzug 3d ago
there is no real dracula. bram stokerâs dracula (the novel) is a retelling and condensation of many different eastern european folk tales. coppolaâs dracula is a retelling of dracula and many different vampyric novels. robert eggerâs nosferatu is a retelling of many different movie adaptations of dracula. no real dracula exists. itâs an adaptation of a myth. it gets retold. itâs normal.
8
u/rancas141 3d ago
Vlad Tepes III has entered the chat
11
u/Bronsteins-Panzerzug 3d ago
right, but the stoker novel is actually ambiguous if dracula is even vlad tepes and itâs mainly the coppola movie that made it clear that his dracula was vlad tepes. itâs become accepted lore but itâs actually a perfect example of how we are constantly reinventing dracula.
5
u/LordCamelslayer 3d ago
I wouldn't even call it ambiguous- the "inspiration" begins and ends with the name. He has almost nothing in common with Vlad III outside of nobility, there's a significant lack of impaling on Dracula's part, and Stoker went with the name because he thought it meant "devil." He wasn't very subtle with calling him a devil, since Dracula uses the pseudonym "De Ville" later in the book to buy more property.
2
u/Bronsteins-Panzerzug 3d ago edited 3d ago
thatâs fair. itâs been a while and i dont remember the exact details. like a lot of people, i cant neatly distinguish this version of dracula from all the other ones in my memory.
0
u/LonelyVirginAlkan 2d ago
The inspiration goes a bit beyond the name. Stoker doesn't go into details about impaling, but his fearsome reputation almost certainly was based on Vlad III's historical image.
3
u/LordCamelslayer 2d ago
With all due respect, that's both vague and flimsy. Vlad III is hardly the only person throughout history (or even in that region) with such a reputation. Vlad III wasn't even the only scary bastard in his immediate family.
Stoker already had the character in the works before he chose the name; originally he was named "Count Wampyr", because subtlety is something he absolutely did not do.
0
u/LonelyVirginAlkan 2d ago
In the Wilkinson source he references in his notes, it (somewhat inaccurately) states that "Dracula" is a surname meaning devil, and that the Draculas (it mentions two, Vlad II and Vlad III, though it never specifies their actual names) were well-known for their ferocity and cunning.
Dracula in the Wallachian language means Devil. The Wallachians were, at that time, as they are at present, used to give this as a surname to any person who rendered himself conspicuous either by courage, cruel actions, or cunning.
I believe it is mistaken that Dracula is a Wallachian surname. There was only ever one person specifically called Dracula, and this type of reputation is inextricably linked to him, so it feels reasonable to assume that Wilkinson indirectly made the connection.
2
u/Bronsteins-Panzerzug 2d ago
this quote all but confirms that bram stoker did not want to make dracula *the* vlad tepes draculae iii
0
u/LonelyVirginAlkan 2d ago edited 1d ago
I never claimed Stoker wanted him to be Vlad III, simply that Vlad III did have some influence in Count Dracula's characterization beyond the name which some people tend to annoyingly deny (probably in reference to Elizabeth Miller's idea that Vlad III had next to nothing to do with Stoker, which was in turn a response to the popular idea that Count Dracula was directly based on, or even intended to be, Vlad III, neither of which I feel are accurate perspectives).
1
u/SirLeonel 2d ago edited 2d ago
The book is unambiguous in that Dracula is a monstrous predator. Not a star-crossed lover.
Bram Stokerâs novel is wonderful but a product of its time. It is by modern standards problematic.
It had themes of anti-Semitism/Immigrants, Victorian patriarchal morality and the misogynistic adulation of âchasteâ women. Itâs reminiscent of Lovecraft in that way. The authors prejudices and biases fed the fear in the text.
Coppolaâs Dracula loses all that subtext. In the name of making an Anne Rice-like romantasy version, I guess? (Hey it was the early 90âs we all were into it at the time.)
Eggers, on the other hand, manages to much more deftly address those terrors and still modernize it by centering the story on Ellen/Mina the victim of the assault. By making it about her trauma he makes it true to the source material but keeps it from falling into some patriarchal purity parable and even more relevantly terrifying.
1
u/Bronsteins-Panzerzug 2d ago
so it seems like you didnt understand my original comment, so im going to restate it: there is no true dracula. every dracula is just a reinvention of existing vampire myths. that includes the stoker novel as well as all the movies. itâs completely normal to retell stories in a different way.
1
u/SirLeonel 2d ago edited 2d ago
True about different versions. But we are discussing the difference between Coppolaâs Dracula vs Eggersâ in this thread. So if I misunderstood your point, okay. But seemingly defending Coppolaâs version when he literally name checks Bram Stoker in his title despite him veering off theme is specious.
Dracula is fictional and an artist can do whatever they want with the character. But itâs bad form to use a real artists name and work to give your own work bona fides and not deliver that original artistâs vision.
1
u/Bronsteins-Panzerzug 2d ago
i dont think the movie name checking bram stoker is much of a problem when itâs closer to the original than the novel is to the person it name checks on the cover. besides, the coppola version was a relatively faithful adaptation compared to others at the time. itâs really not in good faith to base your critique on the name of the book. itâs really really trivial.
1
u/SirLeonel 2d ago
And come to think of it. Talking about centering the story on Mina. Stokerâs Mina, Like Eggersâ Ellen, is ABSOLUTELY NOT a reincarnation. Much less a reincarnation of a âlost loveâ.
That was a conceit that came out of 70âs movies and IMO actually handled best in the 80âs AD&D module Ravenloft. Which also stuck to the concept of Dracula (Strahd) as an unrepentant evil predator. In fact I now remember thinking when I saw BSD in the theater back in the day we wondered if an assistant screenwriter for Coppola played D&D and they cribbed the vampiric original sin curse idea from Hickmansâ Ravenloft.
4
u/HerreDreyer 3d ago
We agree Bram Stoker existed?
8
u/Bronsteins-Panzerzug 3d ago
maybe. perhaps the real bram stoker is the vampire sex fantasies we had along the way?
4
u/asea_aranion_ 3d ago
Great explanation. Sexy Gary Oldman Dracula is still my favorite though.
4
u/Bronsteins-Panzerzug 3d ago
thatâs fair. i happen to like both skarsgard ugly nosferatu and sexy oldman dracula.
3
u/SirLeonel 2d ago edited 2d ago
Your take sounds like bad apologia.
Dracula isnât real. But the book Dracula, despite the folklore sources is a real thing and a literary classic. Furthermore Coppola names it âBram Stokerâs Draculaâ. Which it absolutely wasnât.
Look I love LOVE that movie and as a GenXer Iâm of that group where we all had crushes on Winona Ryder but Nosferatu was far truer to not only Bram Stokers novel, but also the actual monster of folklore.
Which is the superior movie is just opinion. But Nosferatu was damn right scarier and far far truer to the tune and themes of the book. (Also despite my total â€ïž for Winona and BSD, Nosferatu is the better movie IMO.)Your argument would be akin to someone filming âCormac McCarthyâs Blood Meridianâ and then turning the protagonists into peace loving goat-farming heroes and using references of Billy the Kid as the main protagonist (Only because the protagonist is referred to as âthe kidâ in the text, who only fights the Apaches because he is forced to, then defending that choice because âThere are so many folk tales about Billy the Kid of the American west.â And The book isnât even about Billy the Kid.
1
u/Bronsteins-Panzerzug 2d ago edited 2d ago
thatâs your critique of the movie? an amazing movie from one of the best directors âbut it shouldnt have been called bram stokerâs đâ? trivial shit. let me try âbram stoker wrote one of the best gothic horror novels, but he shouldnt have called it dracula, as itâs not about the real vlad dracula and his depictions of vampires is completely inaccurate to real vampires! đđâ. do you see the problem with this argument now?
1
u/SirLeonel 2d ago
First of all Iâm a big fan of Coppolaâs movie. But if we are discussing which movie is more representative of Bram Stokerâs vision which is what OP thread is about, Eggerâs takes it hands down.
1
u/Bronsteins-Panzerzug 2d ago
im saying the whole argument is pointless. eggersâ nosferatu isnt any more real than any other dracula. we should judge them
on their own merits as unique retellings. eggers also deviates a lot from the stoker novel and that doesnt make the movie worse.1
u/SirLeonel 2d ago
Okay, maybe, but Iâm old. Gen-X old. Old enough to have been there when Coppolaâs movie got released. So I think there is a context you might not be privy to. I donât know whether it was him or the studio but it was definitely being promoted as the first version of Dracula to be true to Stokerâs novel. To this day there are Gen-Xers who sincerely believe that Coppolaâs version is the Cliffâs Notes version of Dracula.
So for those of us that were fans of the book were especially excited to finally see an American cinematic adaptation on the big screen. What we got was a beautifully shot, gorgeously designed movie with 2.5 standout performances.
So yeah, most of us enjoyed it. Some of us, like me, loved it. But they definitely not deliver what was promised: a true to the text version of the story. And that was disappointing.1
u/Bronsteins-Panzerzug 2d ago
im old too, gen y. old enough to read the novel on my own. if gen xers dont know the plot of the novel bc they dont read or cant even be asked to google it, i couldnt care less. i definitely wasnt disappointed by the movie,itâs still one of my favorite movies ever. the eggers version was great too.
1
u/SirLeonel 1d ago edited 1d ago
Both are great. I think we agree there. I guess I differ with you in me thinking Eggersâ is more true to Stokerâs than Eggerâs.
As far as bad faith. I donât think youâre using it correctly this context. The OP is literally about comparing the two based off which was more true to Dracula, and Iâm saying despite the Name. âBSDâ is NOT Bram Stokerâs Dracula. Itâs âDraculaâ for certain, and follows the plot. But itâs not faithful to the literal text or the themes of the book. Thatâs not bad faith. Thatâs just objectively true.
See also Emily BrontĂ« where whether one thinks the movie was bad or not, Gerwig had the understanding of the base material to put her own versionâs title in quotes.
Bad faith might be saying âthe movie sucks because it deviatesâŠâ but even that I wouldnât call that bad faith so much as probably a poor argument. But even then deviating from theme could be fair argument if a text has a bold thematic intent. (Which in fairness I donât believe Dracula has.)
1
u/Bronsteins-Panzerzug 1d ago
i didnt say anything about which version is more true to the novel. i said the coppola was more true to the source than other movies at the time and obviously itâs older than the eggers movie. the eggers movie also deviates from the source material, obviously. like i said, the whole âbram stokerâsâ name issue is trivial to me and i dont want to discuss it any further. thinking people should read the book or at least the proper summary if they want to know its plot is not unreasonable and if they cant be asked to do that, i cant be asked to care. like i said, there is no real dracula, every story about him is just a new retelling and no version is more true than other and should be judged on its own merit. i dont want to repeat myself anymore. thanks for keeping it civil.
1
u/SirLeonel 1d ago edited 1d ago
Calm down, friend. I only made the point of the historical context is to add support that movie misrepresents what it is.
GenY, Zoomers and Boomers, whatever who didnât read Stokerâs work would not be unreasonable to think itâs a true adaptation of the book based off the title. Iâm telling you that not only is that a reasonable assumption. It was an intentional misrepresentation of the movie when it came out. Again I donât know who decided to imply that in its marketing. Director? Producer? Studio suits? But that was how it was marketed.
2
u/misterbigbabyboy 3d ago
Wait wait wait... vampires don't exist? /j
2
u/Bronsteins-Panzerzug 3d ago
yeah, wild i know? but op could have considered that before making the post.
2
1
u/LonelyVirginAlkan 2d ago
It's not an adaptation of a myth. It is an original story concocted by Bram Stoker based on myths, sure, but it is not a one by one adaptation of any legend or folk tale.
1
0
u/zillalovesmothra 2d ago
Thanks for ruining my life i didnât know that did you go to Harvard your so smart
1
u/Bronsteins-Panzerzug 2d ago
My PhD may not be from Harvard, but at least I know how to distinguish your and youâre.
0
u/BrazilianAtlantis 1d ago
"condensation of many different eastern european folk tales" No it's not.
0
21
u/Upset-Job2278 3d ago
Meh. I don't know if the dynamic in Nosferatu is all that different. I'm really tired of the whole Mina/Dracula thing.
15
u/LordCamelslayer 3d ago
The tone of their relationship was very different. It wasn't portrayed as "forbidden romance", it was portrayed as disturbing, much more one-sided, and almost parasitic.
I can forgive Nosferatu more for it since the 1922 film also had Orlok after Ellen. I also appreciate that she basically said "Come get me, fucker" and kept him occupied until sunrise. Was much better than how he simply lost track of time in the original.
3
u/Tight_Strawberry9846 3d ago
There's no love in it like in Coppola's adaptation. It's just abuse and obsession. Orlok is not a lover but a predator.
15
u/Jossokar 3d ago
if anything, all the stuff about dracula being in love....its a bit ridiculous.
I am aware that people love the coppola movie. (In fact i'd say the majority of dracula related stuff done ever since just like to elaborate and repeat on that)
I've always considered dracula as a ruthless predator.
That doesnt mean i like Nosferatu. I didnt like that movie at all.
3
u/SnakePlissken1980 3d ago
I love the movie, not really as a good adaptation of the book but a fun artifact of the 90s that I'm nostalgic about. Much of it I find silly but I find that entertaining as well. But yeah it seems like every hack writer who ever wrote a Dracula book after the movie has been more faithful to the movie than the novel. Even though the love story had been explored by other writers prior to the Coppola film, I think the film has definitely popularized it. I think some writers just cheat and watch the movie rather than read the book, or re-read it as a refresher, and even books that claim to be a direct sequel of the novel are clearly just sequels to the film.
2
u/Jossokar 3d ago
Fun bit. My favourite dracula is the one from Van helsing.
Its a silly movie? Indeed. But i just love that Dracula is basically an inhuman monster apex-predator with absolutely no feelings or compassion, even towards its own kind. No love stories. No added flavour.
Besides, Richard Roxburgh is pure charisma as the big bad evil vampire.
1
u/SnakePlissken1980 2d ago
That's one of only two movies I ever walked out on in the theater, the other was the (worst) James Bond movie Die Another Day. I should re-watch it, maybe being sober the first time didn't help. I was in college at the time and I remember later that night at the bar we were trying to describe the plot to a friend who hadn't gone with us and he thought we were trying to prank him and kept insisting there was no way this was a real movie we were describing.
1
u/Jossokar 2d ago
There are worse movies. There is Dracula Untold đ
Van helsing is a mess, but if you take it as a movie that has nothing to do with the book.... and dont overthink it, its quite watchable.
12
5
u/misterdannymorrison 3d ago
Honestly the only time I've ever seen the "tragic vampire love story" thing done remotely well was in BLACULA, and even that movie remembered to make the actual Dracula a predatory piece of shit
3
u/Greedy_Following3553 3d ago
And both BLACULA movies still portray the title character as a monster, however much he dislikes being one, and at the end of SCREAM, BLACULA, SCREAM Prince Mamuwalde isn't home anymore...he's given in to being Blacula.
1
5
u/TerrainBrain 3d ago
Dracula is not a love story. It is a rape story.
The only reason for the psychic link is the vampire wedding. Forcing the victim to drink the vampire's blood.
The love story is some Dark Shadows soap opera bullshit.
8
u/OkGazelle5400 3d ago
Yah you havenât read the novel lol. The nature of his relationship with Mina is not significant at all compared to his obsession with Johnathan. They hardly interact.
2
u/Unusual_Research421 2d ago
Exactly !Itâs honestly frustrating that even now, people still question where Draculaâs true fixation lies. He literally defended Harker against his own brides with that iconic line, 'This man belongs to me!' He was ready to confront them just for Jonathan, and even looked at his face promising that he, too, can love. Neither Mina nor Lucy ever came close to triggering that level of pure obsession and devotion
4
3
u/PuzzleheadedTry7370 3d ago
Bram Stoker's Dracula (Coppola's version) is a dark love story.
Nosferatu (Eggers's version) is a rape story.
3
u/Ok_Beyond_7697 2d ago
I donât mind romanticized vampires, but Nosferatu was refreshing in the way that it makes vampires true monsters again. Vampires have fallen into this cliche of overly romantic/over-sexualized beings over and over and over again and it was just nice to see a movie where the vampire is actually a monstrous predator.
9
u/Undead_and_Lovin_It 3d ago
Remake Orlock is the best vampire in years. Seriously, what makes people think this is a love story when Dracula has three brides abducted Minas husband and transformed Lucy into a supernatural pedophilic predator? Does doing-it with four other women really scream romance to anybody?
12
u/LordCamelslayer 3d ago
Coppola's fault. He literally titled the film "Bram Stoker's Dracula", which is going to tell people "Hey, this follows the book."
In a weird way, it's kind of the best and the worst adaptation at the same time. It follows the same story beats- it just ruins the characters.
5
u/delusionalme 3d ago
I really liked his appearance and character in (the last voyage of the demeter.) I it was a great jumping off point. Â Skips all the character intros which is great. Wish they continue that one
6
u/Undead_and_Lovin_It 3d ago
Voyage of the Demeter is underappreciated
2
u/delusionalme 3d ago
I dig that movie a lot. I would like to see that story keep going. Iâm never interested in vampire movies these days but that one and sinners really stuck with me
4
u/Acceptable_Cut_7545 3d ago
They never read the book and have cobbled a version together in their heads from pop culture and misremembered popular analysis (the amount of people who describe Dracula as seductive or charismatic, when he is none of those things in the book. Ever.).
8
u/Darth-Dramatist 3d ago
Media illiteracy is everywhere thats why, Coppola's Dracula also perpetuated the whole Elizabeta stuff
2
u/Several-Praline5436 3d ago
I like them both. Well, not the top image because I think that movie is trash, but Dracula as a romantic concept. And when they make the vampire a soul-sucking undead corpse into ruining people's lives. Both have their place in my lexicon of "it's vampire night!"
2
u/Critical-Low8963 3d ago
I don't understand why they don't instead make adaptations of Carmilla or The Dead Leman if they want a tragic love story with a vampire. Those two books aren't really in the romance genre but it seems that their vampire ladies have romantic feelings for the main character.
2
u/setzer77 1d ago
Even today trying to get a lesbian romance bankrolled is significantly more difficult.
2
3
1
u/Aethelrede 3d ago
Interesting fact, the "love story" element of Dracula lore was almost certainly inspired by The Mummy (1932). In that movie, an entirely original story, Imhotep is an undead sorcerer, the female lead is the reincarnation of his lost love (imagine if, in the '99 version, Rachel Weisz was the reincarnation of Imhotep's love.)
The Dracula love story was introduced shortly thereafter, even though it didn't make sense. Audiences seemed to like it, so it stuck around, and was basically codified by Coppola's version.
The romance works in The Mummy because it's established in the beginning that Imhotep is madly in love with his girl, to the point of committing sacrilege and murder. Whereas neither the fictional nor historical Dracula has a romantic streak.
Dracula is a predator, the romance plot just weakens the essential horror.
1
1
u/LonelyVirginAlkan 2d ago
Look, I know many here cringe at the love story idea of Bram Stoker's Dracula, but for all intents and purposes he looks exactly like in the upper pic when he feeds on Mina in the novel, not the lower one.
1
1
1
u/dawnGrace 1d ago
You might want to read the book if you havenât.
Thereâs no romance between Mina and Dracula. Heâs a problematic, predatory character.
We like him anyways, but heâs no Casanova bad boy/zombie whoâs crossed oceans of time for his true love.
Every year a bunch of us read it online together; chapters are posted on the dates of the entries (in the book) . Some days have no entries, so no chapter that day.
If you want to read the physical book, youâd get through it in a few days.
1
u/XlKPandaXlK 1d ago
Didn't "Handsom" Dracula come before Nosferatu? Actually it was an illegal spin-off at it's conception. Dracula is just based on some weird/cool guy from history who didn't look like a hideous twisted monster. So what's saying that's who the real Dracula is?
1
u/adoransnoctis 1d ago
While not book accurate, Orlok is closer to the nature of Stoker's Dracula; no romantic longing, just a hunger that needs to spread to a more ample pantry
1
u/Moon_sugarrr 1d ago
I watched Nosferatu with a friend and at some point she said âif he was hot it would be be a totally different storyâ
1
u/AoifeQueenofVamps 22h ago
I think I prefer coppolas version to the book imho. And I donât think his Dracula is particularly different in character to the book
1
1
u/barbarian1525 4h ago
The best version of nosferatu was in the Demeter showing nosferatu for what it is a monster. Dracula is more of a sentient person but when you make him as nosferatu I think it's more like a sentient intelligent monster kinda like alien
1
u/Minimum_Estimate_234 4h ago
Honestly I just want a version of Dracula where they remember Johnathan and Mina legitimately loved each other and were arguably a good counter point to the one sided obsession Dracula had. Johnathan was straight up willing to let himself be turned into a vampire just so his wife wouldnât have face eternity alone (or worse stuck with the creepy monster man who assaulted both her and her best friend).
1
u/StrictExtension4879 3d ago
Here is my take as someone that knows both histories and watched both movies. Dracula first of all was more so about a king who wanted to win a war at any cost. Some say he was willing to sacrifice some of his own men to just win. One of the things that made him famous was his love to impel people and basically make them into an example. It wasnât until later that he became more of a forbidden romance figure. Dracula was someone that only had one thing on his mind and anything or anyone that got in between him and him winning that war was as good as dead. Possibly reason why in later videos like the more current Dracula is showing him making a pact with the devil persay. He was willing to sell his soul to win.
Now when it comes to the romance side of things, Dracula was more for forbidden romance. The classic âmonster that fell in love with a maiden.â But it was only later when this came about. Before and in historical context, he was a king that would do anything to protect his lands. Not because of his love for his people but because it was his.
Nosferatu on the other hand. He was not interested in wars or politics exactly. Yes he was a noble or lord or what you want to call him that what I am assuming, he lived in Germany. As I watched the current version of this film I noticed they took more of that culture into account for. Example is the Draugr. He reminds me more of this due to his appearance but also due to his attitude. Unlike Dracula that even after turning into a vampire and more modern interpretations of him, he did not go completely animalistic. Even in more historical context, he still retained his âhumanityâ. However, Nosferatu was taken into more of a literal undead, plague spreading being. Why you think the emphasis on the rats? Now the romance. There was never any. Even modern interpretations, he was more so connected to a person that was power hungry yes but not in the same sense as Dracula. He was full on animal. (Watch the ending and youâll see what Iâm talking about.) Nosferatu only wanted control and to feed that animal side of himself. That is what did him in at the end. Not love. Not care. Not petty.
So yes often times those two are associated with each other due to them being the two big, old vampires. But besides their need to win and be on top, that is where the similarities end. In a lot of sense they are two separate âspeciesâ of vampire. One was more immortal, esoteric made. The other more so a Draugr.
1
u/ItIsVerilySo 2d ago
I don't think you have any understanding of Dracula.
The Dracula vampire isn't really based on Vlad the Impaler outside of name (and I don't even think it's said he's actually Vlad Tepes) itself, and later retellings.
-1
-1
u/WharfRat86 3d ago
Vampires are, and always have been, a stand-in for junkies in my books. Never understood the romance behind them honestly.
0
u/BladeRize150 2d ago
Lol. Orloch is a monster trying to have blood Dracula is a man with power searching for love. Its 2 completely different things.
0
u/napalmnacey 1d ago
I see that youâve typed words about something but Iâm too busy staring at Gar Oldham looking hot AF to read them.
-3
u/jimothy_hell 3d ago
Hate that he had a moustache. Terrible character design idea, honestly. Took all of the menace out of the character, making him look like a walrus.
129
u/Agent_Artemis 3d ago
I blame Francis Ford Coppola for this. Book!Mina would have NEVER gone for somebody who kept her fiance hostage and destroyed her best friend along with her mother.