The Dracula Movie - Term Paper Example

? Dracula Both The Dracula movie directed by Francis Ford Cappola and the novel written by Bram Stoker have been ified as a master piece in moviemaking and in literature respectively; although the novel was praised for originality while the movie attained the compliment for being the most honest interpretation of the book. There were several things about the novel that the movie did not follow and many things in the book that were mentioned nowhere in the movie. The best thing about the novel is its Victorian setting which has been beautifully adapted by Cappola and has lived up to the visualization that a reader develops in his mind; however, the place for the events has been changed. Although the novel has been praised for its originality, the movie has also been praised for its inclusion of new ideas; which, though not present in the novel, made the story even better and were relevant out of the loop from the premise of the novel. One such instance is about Count Dracula, where he believes Mina Harker to be a reincarnation of Count Dracula’s long dead wife Elisabeta. Although in the novel there is no such mention of any such incarnation, this gave the film and added sense to it which, although not being essential, made the movie more interesting than the novel. Overall I believe that the movie did better than the novel. The reason that I prefer the movie over the novel is its pacing, which, as compared to the novel, is quite passable, whereas the pacing of the novel is slow. Lucy Westerna’s character in the movie, in my option, is better than the character in the novel. Her over-sexual nature is what keeps the reader fascinated with her personality. And it is because of her sexual nature that she is entrapped by Count Dracula. Her relation with Mina as portrayed in the novel shall be complimented because even though it exaggerated the details it did not take their friendship too far. Another aspect about the movie that I liked was its visual sense; when I read the book, my personal visualization of the Victorian setting was not nearly as sufficiently good as the visualization of the movie, credit of which shall certainly be given to the director Francis Ford Cappola and the costume and art directors. Throughout the book, Count Dracula was portrayed as evil and everything he did in the novel showed his antagonist side. That was what the author Bram Stoker intended, but in the movie it is not so. The movie did not portray Count Dracula as the protagonist but rather his portrayal in the movie led the audience to assume that he was driven by valid reasons, such as his wife suicide, which although mentioned in the novel, was not giving that much of intensity to his character. Still, it is clear that in both the novel and movie that Count Dracula was moved by selfish motives. Another thing that I felt was in the movie that was not in the novel was the movie’s immense focus on Count Dracula. In the novel all the characters have been more or less given equal lines, but in the movie, Count Dracula was there in every scene, thus giving him more attention than the remaining characters. I also liked the movie’s ending better than the novel. In the novel, it was shown that Harker stabbed Count Dracula with a Bowie knife, but in the movie it was Mina. This ending, if not a major impact on the overall conclusion of the story, did change the perspective of the movie. In the novel, as already mentioned before, Harker killed the Dracula who was just to protect the Mina, but as in the movie, before Mina proceeds to kill Count Dracula, both of them share a passionate kiss which illustrates that Mina might have had developed feelings for Count Dracula, besides Mina being cursed by Dracula, which played a major role in Mina’s behavior. The movie has not faithfully portrayed the character of Van Helsing. As in the novel Mina describes Van Helsing as, a man of medium weight, strongly built, with his shoulders set back over a broad, deep chest and a neck well balanced on the trunk as the head is on the neck. The poise of the head strikes me at once as indicative of thought and power. The head is noble, well-sized, broad, and large behind the ears. The face, clean-shaven, shows a hard, square chin, a large resolute, mobile mouth, a good-sized nose, rather straight, but with quick, sensitive nostrils, that seem to broaden as the big bushy brows come down and the mouth tightens. The forehead is broad and fine, rising at first almost straight and then sloping back above two bumps or ridges wide apart, such a forehead that the reddish hair cannot possibly tumble over it, but falls naturally back and to the sides. Big, dark blue eyes are set widely apart, and are quick and tender or stern with the man's moods. (Stoker Chapter 14, Page 2) However, her portrayal by Anthony Hopkins in the movie did not justify Van Helsing’s character. Even though, Hopkins portrayed the character beautifully, but his casting still was not in essence with which the novel was written. The same was with the character of Count Dracula. In the novel, there was no portrayal of Count the Dracula showing any sign of a homosexual, but in the movie, his appearance and his way of talking clearly deceived the audience into believing that the Count might be homosexual or bisexual. The way the novel was written and the way the movie was made also differed greatly. As the novel was written in the form of journals and letters, the movie did not show such a thing, which changed the whole perspective of the story. While the novel was written in first perspective with different characters, the movie was just a narrative without any perspective, and this changed the way the story progressed. Let’s assume if the novel was not written, anyone could see the ending coming in the movie while in the novel no such predictions could have been made. The language of the movie and that of the novel also differed greatly. In the novel the language used was more of the 19th century, unlike in the movie. The movie therefore, made more sense to the audience as they could more easily comprehend it, and the target audience was increased. Had the movie been from a gothic horror it may not have been as successful as the novel. Another difference very clear was in the character of Mina Murray. The novel showed Mina as a laidback girl while in the movie she experiences with her sexuality which probably would not have been the case had the setting been of Victorian Era, like in the novel. Another thing that was different in the movie is the inclusion of Vlad the Impaler. Here in the movie, Vlad the Impaler was mentioned in the sense that Vlad Dracula went on to fight the war against the Ottomans which was mentioned nowhere in the novel. Although this was not negatively received by many critics and audiences, Francis Cappola did take liberty in the portrayal of Count Dracula by inventing a past story regarding him, the reason of which was to create an illusion in the mind of the audience regarding the character of Count Dracula. Since Vlad the Impaler is a real character, his inclusion might arise a possibility of the existence of vampires. The abilities and power of Count Dracula have also differed in the movie. Although in the novel it was illustrated that during daytime the vampire is almost unaware of his surroundings and is not capable of anything, yet in the movie, Count Dracula was shown to be weak but not unaware of his surroundings, which is a major diversion from the book. A difference existed in the portrayal of the Dracula regarding his ability to shift shapes which was the shape into which he transformed. In the movie he has the ability to turn himself into old and young age but this was not mentioned in the novel. Another difference is in the clothes of the Count Dracula; throughout the movie Dracula was seen wearing different attires but in the novel all he wore was black. “The count was as black as night” (Stoker 60) From a societal viewpoint, female sexuality played a major role in the characters of Mina and Lucy. Both of these characters’ appearances in the movie were done in a way to make them much more acceptable to modern audiences. Even though sexuality did play a part in the original novel, its role in the novel was not of the same magnitude as it was in the movie. Both of Lucy and Mina’s attire were revealing, which would have been frowned upon in the Victorian society. The movie adaptation of Dracula was seen to be much like the novel and such has not been the case with other novels, not even Nesfaratu which is among the most famous Dracula movies. The characters, all except a few, were exactly as I pictured in the novel, and the sweet evilness of Count Dracula was present throughout the movie. His character was not portrayed to be ruthless in the sense that he just feeds on people, but that he feeds on people who are a threat to him or a problem to what he wants to achieve. Francis Cappola truly brought out the novel in the form that would please literary critics and would even classify it as one of the best Dracula or vampire movies ever made, with its inclusion of historic figures such as Vlad the Impaler. Works Cited Bram Stoker's Dracula. Dir. Francis Fors Cappola. Perf. Keanu Reeves, et al. 1992. Stoker, Bram. Dracula: A Mystery Story. London: Archibald Constable and Compan, 1897. Read More