Bric-à-brac

calantheandthenightingale:

forthegothicheroine:

monochromereflections:

Now, I’ve kind of jumped onto the hate for NBC’s new Dracula series. When I first heard of the idea a while ago I had little information on it, and I initially had hope for it. Unfortunately the more I learned of it the more and more annoyed and disappointed I became.

What it seems to me is just a ploy to cash into the current obsession with romantic vampires (then again every romantic Dracula plot has been).

Now, I’m not going to claim Stokerist purity. I try incredibly hard to be open minded when it comes to Dracula. I can still watch an enjoy many interpretations of the character and the plot, even sometimes the romantic ones. I’ve often defended movies that get a lot of hate from the elitists who refuse to acknowledge anything related to Dracula other than Stoker’s novel 100%, though I too can understand their frustration.

I love Stoker’s novel. I have since I first read it when I was 8. I’ve devoted a good portion of my life to studying the impact and evolution Stoker made to vampires and horror.

But as I’ve gotten older I’ve become increasingly agitated at the fact literally no one has made a film or TV series based 100% on the book. For a story praised so highly why does Hollywood meddle with it making it nearly unrecognisable to Stoker’s intention? Dracula in film has never been portrayed as Bram wrote him. There’s always something changed or something added or something disregarded.

And quite frankly I’m tired of the fact there has never been anything in film that has ever been true to the book.

Which comes into the title of this rant: Dracula is not a romantic figure.

Read More

Very good points!  I think it’s fine to have crushes on characters you’d cross the street to avoid in real life, but that doesn’t mean we should excuse what they do or pretend it didn’t happen.  And frankly, I’m a little selfish in my desires for Stoker-purity: I <i>like</i> Dracula being evil.  I find a ruthless and manipulative warlord more interesting than “Barnabas Collins but not as cool.”

Oh my God whoever made this post— let me love you!  (Everyone needs to read this!)

Lately, I’ve been so upset over the exact same thing (since I’m in the middle rereading Dracula), and seeing that awful trailer for the new NBC series today didn’t help me any.  I don’t mind when writers take artistic liberties— let me make that clear— but what often goes on in the industry  today is much closer to rewriting than “adapting.”  I don’t even mind some of the different interpretations of the source material; I might criticize the ‘92 version an awful lot, but I will admit that it’s actually a good film and even one of my favorite vampire films— and I don’t even mind the sillier use of the Dracula story in the Hellsing anime.  However, it’s so frustrating that, with all the countless “adaptions” of Dracula, we don’t have a single one that’s faithful to the novel— not even one!

And I agree wholeheartedly with the above comments.  I love that Dracula is an evil, sadistic bastard.  That’s why he’s so interesting.  And the fact that you, as a reader, get to interact with him through the other characters— that you’re able to brush shoulders with someone so dangerous and corrupt— is thrilling and even erotic.  This is why Gothic works like Dracula are so important; they provide an outlet for the part of us that is inherently violent and animalistic.  The Gothic is all about exploring dark fantasies, indulging dark desires, finding pleasure in pain— about reveling in things that you would never even dare think of doing in real life— and this is why it’s so frustrating when Hollywood decides to “tame” such works.

*sigh*  I’m sorry.  I ranted again.

FANGIRL CHALLENGE: [12/15] Movies

Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)

“These creatures do not die like the bee after the first sting, but instead grow strong and become immortal once infected by another nosferatu.”

(via calantheandthenightingale)

polunocnica:

Illustrations based on the classic Dracula film for class. All in scratch board- my first time using it, found it pretty enjoyable! 

(via fuckyeahillustrativeart)

gothiccharmschool:

I had not seen this photo set before! (Hmmm, maybe that version of Dracula will be the background noise/movie while I’m writing today.)

gothicrealm:

Gary Oldman as Dracula.

(Source: regulus-blacks, via calantheandthenightingale)

(Source: nickelcurry)

seancecafe:

“Dracula” film poster by Vania Zouravliov and Aaron Horkey.
(The most beautiful Dracula poster I’ve ever seen!)

(via thenizu)

calantheandthenightingale:

“I have crossed oceans of time to find you.”

Oh dear, I feel a rant coming on.  You have been warned.

I have a love/hate relationship with this film.  On one hand, the atmosphere and visuals are perfect, but, on the other hand, it really irks me that the film is called Bram Stoker’s Dracula even though so much of the film has little to nothing to do with Stoker’s novel.  Dracula was not a love story.  It was never a love story.  This film, however, feels the need to turn it into a love story, which is, quite frankly, very forced and unnecessary (especially if you’ve read the original novel).  Dracula never loved Mina, nor did she  have any romantic feelings for him; rather, he wanted to seduce and corrupt her as a form of revenge.  In the book, the scene where Dracula bites Mina is practically a rape scene, and, when she feels that she’s becoming a vampire, she’s feels both repulsed and bound to him— these conflicting emotions are what make their relationship interesting.  The romance in the film is just… boring.

What’s really sad, though, is that this version of Dracula is the one that comes closest to following the novel.  I get that people feel the need to change the original story when they adapt books for film, so that there’s something “new” for audiences to look forward to, but there’s a difference between adapting and completely rewriting.  It’d be nice to have at least one film that really goes above and beyond to bring the book to life— as Stoker imagined it.  Changing the plot and rewriting chunks of the original work don’t make your version more creative or original because altering source material is easy— it’s convenient and lazy; what’s difficult is being as faithful as possible to the original story while still making it your own (through music, costumes, scenery, etc.).

On the plus side, Van Helsing was delightful in this version:

Van Helsing: Jack. Come here. I know how deeply you loved her. That is why you must trust me and believe.
Doctor Jack Seward: Believe? How can I believe?
Van Helsing: I want you to bring me, before nightfall, a set of postmortem knives.
Doctor Jack Seward: An autopsy? On Lucy?
Van Helsing: No, no, no. Not exactly. I just want to cut off her head and take out her heart.

(Source: team-caroline)