Yes, with the exception of the women. In the book, Dracula only wants Lucy, and takes Mina to punish her. If I remember correctly there is no mention of a great love of Dracula either.
If we can save humanity, we become the caretakers of the world
Actually in the book, it is not mentioned who Dracula prefers but he does claim Lucy first and after the vampire in Lucy is destroyed and her soul is laid to rest, he then eyes Mina. The film version while giving an origin story of the title character by incorporating bits of his historical namesake, the Romanian Prince Vlad Teppes (whose title 'Dracula' meant son of the Dragon) into the film is truthful in parts to what really happened to Vlad although in real life regarding his wife's self-inflicted death, she did so because of his cruel ways (whereas in the film she killed herself because she thought him dead due to their enemies) yet much like the references in the book, the real Dracula did fight Turks to protect his land in upholding Christianity. The film apart from trying to follow most of what the book depicted has done its best to make Dracula a romantic character which he is not and he does seek Mina due to her being the reincarnation of his long-lost love Elisabeta and only claims Lucy when he is heartbroken about Mina marrying Jonathan though after Lucy's destruction, he once again turns his attention to Mina until the end when both of them are free
shareYes and no. Parts of it (most of the scenes where Dracula is particularly evil) are very faithful to the book, but the romance subplot, the sympathetic elements of Dracula's character, the over-the-top sexuality, and several other significant elements of the movie are completely unfaithful to it.
There actually hasn't been a satisfactorily faithful adaptation of the book yet.
The original 1922 "Nosferatu" starts out similar to the book, but turns into its own thing.
The 1931 classic is very atmospheric, and has some great scenes and great performances (especially Bela Lugosi, the best Dracula of them all, and far closer to the book's Dracula than a lot of people give him credit for), but is based more on the stage play than the book (and it is watered-down and truncated, even as an adaptation of the play).
The 1958 Hammer version is likewise watered-down. It's atmospheric and not at all bad, but it's not a very satisfactory adaption of the book. Its many sequels are their own thing, not based on the book's plot.
The 1970 Jess Franco movie has some parts that are faithful to the book, but veers off into its own territory. Christopher Lee's appearance in it is very similar (albeit not identical) to Dracula's description in the book.
The 1973 version with Jack Palance introduced the concept of Mina being the reincarnation of Dracula's wife, a notion completely foreign to the novel.
The 1977 BBC version is almost entirely faithful to the plot of the book, but Louis Jourdan's portrayal of Dracula isn't a very faithful rendition of the character.
The 1979 version with Frank Langella makes Dracula into a romantic seducer, again, completely unlike the book.
The 1979 remake of "Nosferatu" is very much its own thing, and the character of Dracula/Orlok in it is a tormented, sympathetic character, very unlike Dracula as portrayed either in the book or the original "Nosferatu".
Dario Argento's 2012 version isn't very faithful to the book, not to mention low-quality even by its own standards.
The new 2013 television series starring Jonathan Rhys-Meyers is incredibly, almost unbelievably unfaithful. The plot has no similarity to the book, and the character of Dracula is the very opposite of the book's character in almost every way. It's as if the creators of the show said, "Hey, let's write down every attribute of Dracula, then make our version the exact opposite."
Courage, men! We've not sunk before, and we'll not sink now!
especially Bela Lugosi, the best Dracula of them all, and far closer to the book's Dracula than a lot of people give him credit for),
Could you elaborate? Not disagreeing (I've only just started reading the original book), just interested.He captured the essence of Dracula beautifully. Many of Dracula's mannerisms and character traits as written by Bram Stoker find their way into his performance. The "smile that Judas in hell might be proud of" (in Bram Stoker's words), the ethereal but simultaneously ruthless demeanor, the overly welcoming (to the point of being disconcerting) urbane demeanor that switches to savage hatred at a moment's notice, etc.
Whilst I was looking at the books, the door opened, and the Count entered. He saluted me in a hearty way, and hoped that I had had a good night’s rest. Then he went on:—
“I am glad you found your way in here, for I am sure there is much that will interest you. These companions”—and he laid his hand on some of the books—“have been good friends to me, and for some years past, ever since I had the idea of going to London, have given me many, many hours of pleasure. Through them I have come to know your great England; and to know her is to love her. I long to go through the crowded streets of your mighty London, to be in the midst of the whirl and rush of humanity, to share its life, its change, its death, and all that makes it what it is. But alas! as yet I only know your tongue through books. To you, my friend, I look that I know it to speak.”
“But, Count,” I said, “you know and speak English thoroughly!” He bowed gravely.
“I thank you, my friend, for your all too-flattering estimate, but yet I fear that I am but a little way on the road I would travel. True, I know the grammar and the words, but yet I know not how to speak them.”
“Indeed,” I said, “you speak excellently.”
“Not so,” he answered. “Well, I know that, did I move and speak in your London, none there are who would not know me for a stranger. That is not enough for me. Here I am noble; I am boyar; the common people know me, and I am master. But a stranger in a strange land, he is no one; men know him not—and to know not is to care not for. I am content if I am like the rest, so that no man stops if he see me, or pause in his speaking if he hear my words, ‘Ha, ha! a stranger!’ I have been so long master that I would be master still—or at least that none other should be master of me. You come to me not alone as agent of my friend Peter Hawkins, of Exeter, to tell me all about my new estate in London. You shall, I trust, rest here with me awhile, so that by our talking I may learn the English intonation; and I would that you tell me when I make error, even of the smallest, in my speaking. I am sorry that I had to be away so long to-day; but you will, I know, forgive one who has so many important affairs in hand.”
Wow what an excellent post.
I might be inclined to check out some of these adaptations at some point. It's funny but my sister used to love the interactive text game from waaaaaaaaaaay back in the day, but it wasn't really my thing.
"Best" is subjective. It's demonstrably not the closest to the book though.
shareA CG motion capture would be faithful.
shareI really like this, it´s entertaining and looks splendid, but it has Mina and Dracula in love, Lucy the Whore to Mina´s Madonna, etc. It has lot of stuff from the novel, turned to wonderfully cinematic form, but it´s not closest version.
shareMany of the details are correct, and Coppola copies a lot of the dialogue and "epistolary" material (letters, journals, etc.) verbatim. Moreover, his is one of the few movies that includes most of the the main characters in the novel with their correct names (with one exception probably for American audiences - Arthur Holmwood becomes Lord Godalming when his character's father dies halfway through the book, not Lord Holmwood). However, the overall plot -- a romantic love story -- is no more like the book than most other movies.
On the other hand, Coppola can rightfully claim that his movie's love interest is provided by the same source material that likely inspired Bram Stoker himself. According to the legend of the real Vlad Tepes, his beautiful wife did throw herself from the battlements of Vlad's mountain castle into the Arges river below after receiving a false message of her husband's death in battle, pretty much exactly as is shown in the movie.
A lot of people argue that the little-known 1977 made-for-TV production "Count Dracula" starring Louis Jourdan in the title role is the closest you will find to Stoker's novel (http://http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075882). I haven't seen it in years, but I'd have to say it's closer than Coppolas in terms of the basic story and central conflict. However, I'd also suggest that Jack Palance looks a lot more like the vampire Stoker describes than Jourdan or any of the many Hollywood pretty boys who followed Lugosi (http://http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070003).
For me, the 1977 BBC effort is the closest to the book. But some (not me, btw) say it is not the most entertaining version. Many, if not most give the nod to Coppola's version for pure entertainment.
sharei doubt people would LOVE to see a faithful adaptation of a book consisting of memoirs and letters (if i remember correct)
this version is pretty entertaining- so probably my favorite.
I doubt people would LOVE to see a faithful adaptation of a book consisting of memoirs and letters (if i remember correct)
this version is pretty entertaining- so probably my favorite.
The BBC see a good job with that 1977 adaptation. Great cast, too.
share