Jackson's Comparison

Dracula as a Beast

 

            Within the four takes on Dracula that we’ve seen in class, three films and the original text, a reoccurring attribute to the character is his ability to transform into different animals. In looking at the different ways that Dracula is depicted as a beast, it is interesting to trace the scenarios for which he makes these transitions. While only few of these mediums take liberties to explore this unique power thoroughly, the ones that do are rewarded with not only something effectively horrifying, but substantive as well.

The introduction to the character of Dracula in Bram Stoker’s novel depicts him as both cunning and motivated by instinct. Although one of his more popular and generalized transitions is into a bat, it is when his plans are put into action, arriving in London where he is shown as a wolf leaping onto the shore. This “wolf” is seen terrorizing London, and when amongst similar animals in the zoo, even they howl as Stoker sets an unsettling tone in his novel, and in this scene there is an effect from Dracula’s transition. In Francis Ford Coppola’s film adaptation of the novel shows Dracula as many beasts in contrast with the character’s emotional state. He uses the wolf, unlike the two other films, both showing literally the horrors on the boat, but also to show how Dracula is predatory in nature. For instance in the film Dracula is shown as a wolf when attacking Lucy, who is only a pawn in his quest for Mina, thus the attack is an action of instinct and tact, much like that of a wolf. It could also be mentioned that since Lucy is shown as being a more sexualized character than Mina, a symbolic ending to her natural life in Coppola’s film is in a primal fashion at the hands of Dracula as a beast. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMQoG1KenGM)

            Both F.W. Murnau’s Nosferatu (1922), and Todd Browning’s Dracula (1931), are similar in that they only hint at Dracula’s abilities to transform, if not showing the power in a subtle or abstract fashion. Murnau’s depiction of the character is that of a pale man-bat, fitting for the literal adaptation of a nocturnal monster, however this is somewhat lacking, as Murnau’s Dracula is only really seen as this monster and nothing more. Browning’s take on the character is more in the form of a human being, portrayed by Bella Lugosi, and is in fact shown as having sympathy toward wolves howling outside his castle, using a quote from Stoker’s novel, “ah the children of the night, what beautiful music they make.” However where there is no showing of a Wolf in Dracula, Lugosi is seen transformed into a bat in his seduction of Renfeild. The animalistic nature of Dracula in these films is more for effect in horror rather than substance in the character.

            Nina Auerbach is quoted as saying that “every generation gets the vampire it deserves,” and she’s right in the sense that there cannot be a proper telling of Dracula, without the required canonizing of the character, one of the key traits being his ability to morph into an animal. At the end of the day it is up to the auteur to come up with how this power will be translated into they’re respective medium, and whether an audience prefers effect to substance in Dracula as a beast, is they’re decision. 

Sam Dumas Comparison

The Van Helsing in Bram Stokers Novel, Nosferatus 1922, Browning 1931, and Francis Ford Coppolas Dracula, all show different variations of one of literature and films most famous and heroic heroes. 

            Van Helsing is known to be one of the most educated and nearly superhuman scientists in the story.  The first time that Van Helsing is introduced as the medical genius is when Lucy Westenra has fallen ill, due to Vampirism.  Evolving this point on, Van Helsing is group leader is the fight against Count Dracula.  Overall, though the lines are blurred as different versions of the epic story are retold, Van Helsing serves as the driving force for good.  He represents the good as Dracula represents the evil.

            Specifically, in the Bram Stoker novel, Van Helsing’s character is clearly depicted as the heroic, representation of all knowing and all good.  In relation to Dracula, his character is the representation of its opposite.  It is one titan against the other in a fictional tale playing off of survival of the fittest.  In the book, Van Helsing’s medical practices are very clear.  His character seems to have a further knowledge than all the rest.  He has a dominating confidence in his abilities to break through the barriers of normal, what they refer to as “western” medicine.  In the book, Van Helsing is separated from the group because of his all knowing doctorate in medicine, and his somewhat “waspy” personality.  He uses forces outside of the human realm to fight against something that is entirely not human.

            In the 1922 film, Nosferatu, Van Helsing is an entirely different character in itself.  It would be tough to compare his different uses of medical styles in this film, because he is fairly absent as the role of Draculas antagonist.  The character of Van Helsing, named Bulwer, is absent from the adaptation of the Dracula story. (Nosferatu, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosferatu)

            In Browning 1931 version, Van Helsing is back.  Van Helsing really comes into play right after Lucy’s death.  In my opinion, and though this is accentuated even more in Coppolas film, Browning depicts a darker side to Van Helsing in this 1931 film as well. After watching this film, I was left a bit confused to this sudden parallel between the good and evil characters.  Though, once I thought about it more suddenly and researched the idea a bit, I understand now that their similarity is derived from their inherent difference.  Van Helsing and Dracula are both represented as having more layers.  By this I mean they are the most in depth, able to see past just the surface.  (366 Weird Movies, wordpress.com).

            Flashing forward to Coppola’s Dracula, the main difference here is that though in Brownings film Van Helsing is more paralleled to Dracula in the sense of being more layered, Coppola’s Dracula introduces a more evil Van Helsing.  The very large difference in Van Helsing’s character in this movie is that instead of blurring the lines of similarity through knowledge, Coppola blurs the line of actual good and evil.  In all the other adaptation, including the book, Van Helsing and Dracula are either representations of the opposite of similar in a knowledge and intellectual way.  Coppola blurred the line between good and evil, putting Van Helsing in a far more superhuman light.

Paul's Comparison

When Nina Auerbach said, “Every generation gets the vampire it deserves,” she could not have been more right. Each adaptation of Bram Stoker’s novel is a distinct reflection of the society that produced it. This is especially evident when you look at the interactions between the men in the vampire hunting group. In every adaptation, their relationships are indicative of the culture that produced the work.

In the original novel, the four men work together equally with Dr. Van Helsing and Mina. Each one has a specific set of experience and useful skills. Aside from a few tense scenes early on, they all also seem to get along well. In fact, a good portion of the book seems to consist of characters telling each other how much they trust and respect each other. This is a reflection of the stuffy Victorian society it was written in. Every disagreement either starts or ends with a drawn-out apology which only prompts more apologies from other characters and ends with everyone reaffirming their friendship.

The 1931 film has a completely different dynamic. By the time the storyline is in full swing, there is not much of a group at all. Mina has been reduced to the “woman in distress,” while the American John Harker rescues her with Van Helsing as a sort of sidekick. It seems as if they tried to include every old Hollywood trope in the film. The team of equals has been reduced to the lone hero with a sharp suit and a square jaw.

In Francis Ford Coppola’s adaptation, the team is shifted yet again. Dr. Seward clearly has an antagonistic relationship with Quincy and Arthur that did not exist in the book. By the end of the film, the dynamic is completely different again. Quincy and Arthur are the masculine figures while Dr. Seward and Jonathan take a more submissive role behind Van Helsing. Their interactions are also more emotionally charged, most notably when Arthur gets so angry at Van Helsing that he pulls out a gun. This is representative of the entire film. What was once subtle and subdued has become broad and overstated. This is indicative of the environment that the film was released into. By 1992, many movie clichés had run their course. People today would not be interested in a film where every character gets along all the time, as in the novel. They are also tired of the solitary hero who single-handedly saves the girl. The more complex dynamic in this adaptation shows how the film tries to complicate things just for the sake of it.

Explanation

As the story of Dracula moves between media, it is interpreted in different ways. Bram Stoker’s original novel is slow-moving, steadily revealing shocking secrets. Francis Ford Coppola’s film adaptation, however, is a whirlwind of grand artistic visions and elaborate art direction. There is much debate as to whether the adaptation does the story justice, or if it is a perfectly legitimate artistic achievement when viewed in its own right. We intended to examine the differences and come up with a work that encompasses both versions.

The photo is more of a reflection of the Francis Ford Coppola film than the book. While the book is organized around mystery and shadow, the film revels in spectacle and baroque imagery. In a way, this picture bridges the gap between the two versions. Many of the film’s scenes involve grand set pieces like this, but this seems more subdued. While the film would present this scene with lighting and thunder, the photograph remains true to the book by being quiet and grey. It almost looks like a giant hand of fog, reaching out to grab the Hancock Building.

The story is meant to emulate the style and incorporate some of the themes of Bram Stoker’s novel. The book is most effective at developing atmosphere and building to crescendos of violence and horror. This is mainly reflected here in how the horror elements of the story are gradually eased into spotlight. At the very beginning, there doesn't seem to be anything particularly sinister going on. Chicago, especially near the lake, can get really foggy, and the Loop clears out pretty quickly at night. Much like the Harker chapters in Dracula, the story then becomes progressively more unsettling and horrific. A normal fall day turns into an eternity of icy horror.

Taken together, they are an attempt to bridge the stylistic gap between the novel and Coppola’s film version. Both attempt to recreate the subtle, uneasy feeling of the novel, but on the grand scale of the film version. It goes to show that just because a work contains majestic, ornate imagery, there is no reason why it also has to be loud and impersonal. As we have shown, there is a happy medium in between the two opposing styles.

Fictional Narrative (Sam Dumas).

…As the night sky began to peak its way through the subtle grays and blues of the hazy October day, the wind took a sudden gust over the city and an eery feeling was a constant throughout the city.

 

Just a few short hours earlier, Michigan Avenue was as bright and clean as any tourist or resident often brags about.  The streets were flooded with a healthy mix of business suits and tennis shoes, with the cars weaving in and out of what appeared to be a perfect autumn day.  With one street performer as entertaining as the next, crowds frequently formed at most street corners, taking in the energy that the magnificent city of Chicago had always brought to its visitors from sunrise to sunset….

 

This day, however, was not like any other…

 

As the clock struck seven and rush hour was beginning to fade, so were the suns gleaming rays.  The once vibrant city streets continued to lesson in size.  As if a vacuum was sucking it out, nearly all the cities energy had been swept away and replaced with a negative air.  Neither a street performer, nor a lit up storefront remained.  Human life had seemingly disappeared and left what?  Not a flashing street light, gentle stomp of a pedestrian’s foot, or even a subtle break in the nearby waters.  

 

All that could be seen was a dark and gloomy over passing of air.  Suddenly, one of the largest hubs of travel and communication had now become a secluded, dark, and entirely separate entity.  Neither a scream or a gunshot could be heard.  All that was left was the unknown.  The unknown cloud that hung just northwest of one of Chicago’s most famous structures, the unknown noises swiftly swept across the skyline, and the unknown cause of such a bizarre circumstance.

 

As the early nighttime hours crept on by, the sky worsened in color.  The few white spots were disappearing, the grays turned to black, and the black blackened.  Soon enough, the whole sky appeared to be black.  Ten o’clock struck, as did eleven and twelve.  The buildings swagger now turned into a scary swing as the wind picked up in speed…

 

With the sky entirely black and night in all its glory, distant noises of pain began to beckon out over Lake Michigan.  What was separated at first by minutes quickened to loud shrills every thirty seconds until the noises stopped.  The wind did as well, and so did the buildings swing and swagger. 

 

As the morning hours came back around, the sun did not.  The morning rush hour was replaced with a silent air or horror.  Days turned into week and weeks turned into months.  autumn had now come and gone and winter replaced it.  The normally cold days were dull and lifeless.  Not a footstep could be heard.  Months continued to pass and so did years. 

 

Chicago was forever lost and never again visited.  The city eventually froze over and its inhabitants were never found.  The city was untouchable, not penetrable from any direction, leaving the once vibrant city as a dark time in space, never to be appreciated for its energy and glow ever again.