MovieChat Forums > Dracula (1979) Discussion > Romance? Really?

Romance? Really?

posted 12 years ago by Modern-Prometheus
14 replies | jump to latest

Am I the only one who found this film to be a less romantic than everyone else seems to think it is? Yeah, this Dracula is deliberately made more sexual than previous depictions, but I didn't see it as a tragic romance at all. He seemed more like the typical monster whose humanity was a facade, brainwashing innocent women into becoming willing victims.

I mean, it's a fairly close remake of the 1931 film, which I wouldn't call a romance at all without a doubt. What's the really major difference? Sex. And that, to me, doesn't change a horror story into a romance.

I can't think of a witty signature right now. I like turtles.

[–] kaskait 11 years ago

Bingo

You got the point of the production and the main theme of Langella's interpretation. He may look good but he is a rapist. That was the intent of the book as well.

Try to find the Louis Jourdan BBC version of Dracula. It sticks close to the story and shares a lot of artistic atmosphere with this version. I think it was recently released on DVD.

[–] R_Kane (15828) 6 years ago

You obviously never read Stoker’s novel. The closest thing to rape in the novel is Dracula’s brides feeding on Harker in the castle.

[–] recklesscow 10 years ago

I mean, it's a fairly close remake of the 1931 film

You had me until that. I don't think it's anywhere similar. For one, the film opens in England and skips the Transylvanian trip of Jonathan Harker altogether, the roles of Mina and Lucy are reversed, and this version of the Dracula character is not anywhere near as socially awkward as Bela Lugosi's, who was "out there" eccentric even to the 19th century residents of England.

[–] Carpenter_Fan 10 years ago

Also Renfield is the one who makes the trip to Transylvania in the 1931 version and not the Harker character.

I never understood why they departed from the novel so greatly.

"We're all afraid of the dark inside ourselves." - Sam Loomis

[–] R_Kane (15828) 6 years ago

They departed from the novel because the first Dracula movie was not based on the novel. It was based on a popular stage play.

[–] Modern-Prometheus 9 years ago

Hence why I said "fairly close" and not "shot-for-shot" or "extremely close". Both the 1931 film and the 1979 film are based on basically the same Broadway play so it's no coincidence.

Warning! The Monster is loose!

[–] ChristianeK 9 years ago

Bingo. I hated him.

“Look, you don’t really think that I could be in love with a rotten little tramp like you, do you?”

[–] KatharineFanatic 9 years ago

It's all a matter of perception.

This film presents dual Draculas -- the charming, suave, handsome romantic with Mina and the brutal, terrifying murderer about the men. Exactly how he's supposed to be portrayed.

You can buy into the delusion and the facade, or face the truth.

I see him both as a tortured soul and an undead fiend. I like it that way.

[–] Modern-Prometheus 9 years ago

This film presents dual Draculas -- the charming, suave, handsome romantic with Mina and the brutal, terrifying murderer about the men. Exactly how he's supposed to be portrayed.

I disagree. In the novel, there was no such charming, suave, handsome romantic side with Mina. There was a pseudo-rape scene in which Dracula forced her to feed from a wound in his chest, but that's about as sexual as their relationship ever got.

Depicting their relationship as some forbidden romance really leaves a bad taste in my mouth considering the extent of their interaction in the novel was a symbolic rape. Turning "rapist" and victim into lovers in subsequent adaptations is just personally disgusting to me.

Warning! The Monster is loose!

[–] KatharineFanatic 9 years ago

I meant this film is true to itself (exactly how he's supposed to be portrayed) -- not to the original material. Dracula is intentionally a dual personality, showing one side to Lucy and another to the men / the audience. It's asking the audience to see beyond the facade to the monster, and because Langella gives such a compelling, romantic performance, many people choose not to.

[–] lm362 8 years ago

You are right. Mina should never be portrayed as a love interest for Dracula. But there are hints of Dracula having had someone in life that he loved dearly.
In the novel-
-he says that he once loved and that the women at the castle knew it from the past.
-Also, the coffins of the women at the castle were in a certain order-highest to lowest.
-The short story, Dracula's Guest is supposedly the deleted first chapter of the novel. In this, there is information about a Countess whom Dracula turned into a vampire prior to 1801-the date listed as her death. So romantic things are in both, but briefly.

The problem is that these things are never in the films. These things are all that is needed to show a love story. No film needs to portray Mina as a romantic partner. And Lucy should only be loosely portrayed as one or not at all. I say this because she only sought to victimize children, so possibly she was also a sort of reminder of someone Dracula had loved in life.

The best portrayal in a film is of-
-Dracula as a noble but ruthless leader
-All conversations between him and Harker at the castle
-having had a wife he loved who died, the Countess being a reminder of his wife
-showing the position of the women's coffins at the castle as described in the novel and his telling them he can love and they know of it from the past.
-how he uses Mina as his prey and as a helper to destroy anyone who seeks to destroy him
-his ruthlessness and violence towards Harker, Van Helsing, Holmwood, Quincy and Seward
-Van Helsing telling Mina of his admiration for the great and powerful mind Dracula had in life and who he was. This part in the novel always hurts me.
-that he must be stopped and destroyed.
-Van Helsing describing the look of peace on Dracula's face after his death-a must have scene or quote for a film

That is how the novel and short story portrayed him. And any flashback scenes of a wife should not show her looking anything like Lucy, Mina or the Countess. And her death should closely follow the true facts of the death of the real Dracula's wife-the note she got told of the castle coming under attack soon. It was not about her wrongly being informed of Dracula's death. She drowned from jumping from the castle to avoid capture by the enemy(Turks?). And if they leave out the note, the film still should reflect true facts as close as possible.

"Do All Things For God's Glory"-1 Corinthians 10:31
I try doing this with my posts

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] CountVladDracula 9 years ago

You knew this version didn't follow the novel. I prefer faithful versions of Frankenstein but you don't see me bashing and attacking every Frankenstein movie you enjoy that deviates from the book.

Technically Van Helsing spoke German, not Dutch. And Lucy was not engaged to Jonathan and Dr. Seward was not Lucy's father, nor was he a foodie. And Renfield was not a dock worker.

Of course the novel isn't a tragic romance. But what makes you think a version where Mina is Van Helsing's daughter who dies in his arms is going to follow the book? Why use that as a reason for your rancor? Why not accept this as a separate entity with a similar character with the same name?

No, this has nothing to do with the novel. It would be like going to the board for Horror of Dracula and complaining about Dracula not starting out as an old man even though nothing else of that film follows the book at all.

What we see here is not Stoker's character but something born of a zeitgeist archetype but has enough complexity and depth to stand on it's own. And there's no harm in embracing the romantic character if you know full well it's not what exists in the book.

I might prefer the literary Frankenstein Monster but you don't see me complaining about how he could be quoting Milton in the 1985 film The Bride, or antagonizing Karloff fans. It's okay to have a preference but don't let your obsession with one aspect of the book ruin all films on you that don't even claim to be following it.

Imagine if I went to the Dracula 3000 board angry because there is no Quincey Morris.

There are so many things worse than a romantic Dracula (which isn't even that bad, it gives depth to a character that sometimes is painfully flat). At least this version seems to love what he is and has no qualms about his nature. Many are whiny and broody. And consider the awful NBC Dracula series or the 2013 film Dracula: The Dark Prince (Not to be confused with Dark Prince: The True story of Dracula). Save your energy for the truly terrible ones.

[–] angelosdaughter (158) 7 years ago

In this version, Dracula is presented as a romantic figure of old family and a witness to hundreds of years of life and history, a bit world-weary. He sees Lucy as a challenge, something he rarely meets. She is intellectual, strong, and spirited, in Dracula's view a fit mate for him. In that sense he falls in love with her as a person, romantically.

Renfield is useful to Dracula as an agent that, being mortal, can operate in daylight on his behalf. After he kills Renfield,he does tell Lucy that she will have to remain mortal a bit longer; guess he didn't think of all of the ramifications of eradicating his human agent.
Mina is weak and silly. He sees her only as a source of nourishment.