You see, Bram Stoker's Dracula
is a tense little novel about the psychology of vampire hunting. It's been turned directly into a film many, many times; IMDb tells me there are over 200 incarnations of Count Dracula captured on film in the last 90 years. The most famous have been Bela Lugosi's
version in 1931 and Gary Oldman's in 1992.Now, my complaint is NOT with Gary Oldman. The man is magical. My complaint is with Frances Ford Coppola and the "Freudian" sexuality* that he pulled out of Dracula. The book hasn't got a hint of sexuality in it. Sensuality, maybe... if we're stretching. The scene where the succubuses approach Jonathan Harker? In the book, they don't touch him. In the film, it's an all-out orgy.
The most popular version of this film was made nearly 20 years ago, and I think it's time for it to be done again, this time without the graphic sex and violence.
First up, Jonathan Harker. The picture of an English gentleman. He works for a law office and is courting Ms. Mina in the most respectable way possible. He becomes the unwitting prisoner of Count Dracula and pieces the puzzle together on his own. Once he knows who Dracula really is, he jumps through hoops to escape and facilitate the destruction of the evil vampire. So we need somebody who is both a respectable business man and a potential vampire-slaying hero, preferably British and of proper marrying age (in his late twenties or early thirties, according to the tradition of the time). Matthew Goode.
Next, Mina, Jonathan's bride. She is the portrait of a lady; proper, loyal, demure, polite and quietly intelligent. You get the sense that nearly every man she comes in contact with falls in love with her (not lust... love). She's just reaching marrying age, so she's young, probably only 18 or so, and so we need somebody who exudes the "first flush of youth" and comes across as the vulnerable girl that a young lady from this time would be. I think Carey Mulligan looks about right. Sweet, innocent and somebody that you could believe these men all fight to death to protect.
Mina's friend, Lucy, is the first real victim of Dracula's that we see. She starts off as a meek young lady, but eventually becomes a monster herself. I actually think somebody like Keira Knightley would be good for this; she's pretty and frail looking, but she's kind of a spitfire that you sort of want to see get her head chopped off, no?
Dr. Abaham Van Helsing is the genius of a man who breaks down the science (if we can call it that) and method of attacking and destroying Count Dracula. I know Hopkins got gobs of attention for this, but I picked Hugh Jackman as the better version. And, frankly, I stand by that. Who really thinks that Anthony Hopkins could do the physical things that Van Helsing does? No, he likes his victims with a nice Chianti, not after a rugged mountainous climb. I want somebody dashing, debonaire, intelligent and ruggedly handsome. Somebody like Viggo Mortensen.
Renfield is the scariest mo-fo I think I've ever read in any book. I know Dracula is supposed to be the real villain, but this guy is so freaking unstable and creepy it is unbelievable. The man ate live bugs thinking that he was absorbing their life force. And then he sat down, cool as a cucumber and discussed his mental instabilities. Creep-o. I saw Vinnie Jones.
Now, the man of the hour. Count Dracula himself. The immortal evil. The character who was based on Vlad the Impaler. The connoisseur, the intellect, the devious, villainous nobleman. He should be equal parts charming and creepy. Cultured and unnerving. Sophisticated and psychotic. Do you think there is any way that Johnny Depp would do this?
*Don't get me started on the entire concept of Freudian sexuality anyway. It's like the man's work was one giant "That's what she said" joke; the original content wasn't deliberately sexual, but if you strain hard enough to keep your mind in the gutter you can turn it into something dirty.
Also, while you're reading my ranting, let's be clear: Bram Stoker actually spent most of his adult life campaigning FOR censorship. He thought the government needed to keep literature, theater and newsprint clean. He campaigned tirelessly to keep the arts free from immorality and destructive influences. Does that sound like the man who wrote the dirtiest book of all time? No. Because he didn't intend for the book to be dirty.
