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.