#mina is arguably the true protagonist of the novel

[twistedtummies2]

Top 10 Portrayals of Jonathan Harker

On my previous list, I mentioned that while Abraham Van Helsing is the self-appointed leader of the protagonists in Bram Stoker’s Dracula, he’s actually not the main protagonist of the novel. I argued that Mina is the main character, and while I do still stand by that feeling, there is at least one other hero in the story who could qualify: Mina’s fiance (and later husband), Jonathan Harker.

Many people claim that Jonathan is a weak character, compared to Mina and Van Helsing. In fact, in a lot of adaptations, Jonathan’s role is significantly lessened, as he is considered less “important” than they are by many filmmakers and other creators. I don’t think this is entirely fair. If anything, alongside Mina, I would say Jonathan is the character who changes the most throughout the story: at the start of the book, Jonathan is a naive, perhaps overly-proper English gentleman; a young man who doesn’t understand the outside world he’s venturing into, and underestimates the danger he puts himself in. By the end of the novel, however, he’s one of the two characters directly responsible for Dracula’s death: Quincey Morris (who will NOT be getting a list, due to a lack of interpretations) strikes the first blow. Jonathan Harker then slashes the Count’s throat to make sure the vampire stays (double) dead. He goes from a weak, cowardly, overly passive figure to one of the most aggressive fighters in the story, as his experiences essentially help him to grow up. It’s worth pointing out that Jonathan is arguably also where the story of Dracula first started: according to urban legend (how true it is can be debated), Stoker first conceived of the concept for his novel in a nightmare, where he imagined himself surrounded by a trio of vampire women. Just as they were about to bite him, a powerful, masculine figure - another vampire - entered and stopped them. This, of course, was translated in the novel to Harker’s encounter with the Brides of Dracula. Jonathan can therefore be seen as a sort of possible writer’s surrogate in the story (perhaps alongside Van Helsing, since both he and Stoker share the same first name; “Bram” being short for “Abraham”). Whatever the origins of Harker, interpretations of his character - just like with Mina - tend to be hit or miss. He’s very seldom treated as the main protagonist in adaptations of the book, but he’s always present to some degree or another. With that in mind, here are My Top 10 Portrayals of Jonathan Harker!

10. George Colouris, from the Mercury Theater Radio Version.

I feel that Colouris is a bit older than I typically imagine Jonathan to be (at the time of the radio broadcast, he was almost 40), but his work in the radio production is still commendable. The medium allows Harker’s diary entries to take center-stage, as he serves as a sort of off-and-on narrator throughout the production.

9. John Van Eyssen, from the Hammer Horror Films.

As I said earlier, many versions of Harker lessen his role in some form or another: either excising his adventures in Castle Dracula, or else going the opposite direction and killing him off relatively early in the story. This version is a case of the latter: Jonathan only appears for the opening scenes of the first Hammer film, as he’s transformed into a vampire before the end of the first third, and then destroyed (offscreen, in this case) by Van Helsing. This version changes things up, however, as it’s revealed Harker isn’t all he seems, himself: instead of a simple property agent selling land to the Count, he’s Van Helsing’s apprentice, who goes to Castle Dracula to try and destroy Dracula (presumably under Van Helsing’s orders). Also, in this version he’s engaged to Lucy instead of Mina…weird.

8. Murray Brown, from the 1973 Film.

This film - made by Dan Curtis of “Dark Shadows” fame - is another example of Harker's role being largely reduced to his Transylvania scenes. Brown plays a somewhat more firm and willful Harker, whose strength still proves to be no match for the Count. He is ultimately turned into a vampire himself. Towards the end of the film, Van Helsing and Arthur Holmwood encounter Harker - now a starved, practical feral beast - and are forced to slay him. Poor fellow.

7. Trevor Eve, from the 1979 Film.

Unlike the previous two versions, this one excises Jonathan’s time at the Castle: this adaptation never actually leaves England, as it starts when Dracula arrives in Whitby Harbor from Transylvania. Normally I feel this is a problem, since it means much of the most interesting moments for Harker as a character are completely lost, but this film manages to find a compromise: a lot of the stuff typically reserved for the famous fortress is reserved for the equally decadent Carfax Abbey. As a result, we still get Jonathan visiting the Count, alone, in his dark and gloomy lair, but it plays out rather differently overall. I also have to commend the film in that it toys with a romantic daliance between the Mina character and Dracula, but doesn’t do so in a way that makes Harker’s own character look like an incompetent or boring boob in the process. (I’m looking at you, Francis Ford Coppola.)

6. Mickey Mouse, from Disney’s Dracula, Starring Mickey Mouse.

As I’ve said on previous lists, Disney has done this concept twice: first with a graphic novel, and second with a much slighter children’s storybook. In both cases, Mickey plays Jonathan, and…well…it’s MICKEY-FREAKING-MOUSE. Honestly, I don’t think I need to say more about why he ranks so highly; this is both absolutely bloody hilarious and yet so bizarrely fitting, as far as casting goes. XD

5. Gustav von Wangenheim, from Nosferatu.

In this silent classic, as many are doubtless aware, all of the major characters had their names changed in an attempt to dodge copyright issues, since Dracula was still an owned property at the time. (Spoiler Alert: it didn’t work…but that’s another story.) In the film, the Harker character is named “Thomas Hutter.” In this version, instead of being emboldened by his misadventures in Transylvania, Jonathan essentially goes through a different story arc altogether: he still starts off as a naive and rather foolhardy youth - impulsive and gullible - but once he returns home, instead of growing stronger, he remains in a sort of state of terror, too frightened to act as he simply tries to hold on to the comforts of home and move on from his experiences. He tries to deny the reality of the vampire's presence in his hometown. As a result, it’s his beloved Ellen (the Mina character) who ultimately pays the price, as she is the one who eventually makes the ultimate sacrifice to destroy Dracula, leaving her husband to grieve and fret alone. Pretty tragic, actually.

4. Bruno Ganz, from Nosferatu the Vampyre.

In the first remake of Nosferatu (there have been at least two since), Ganz’s Harker strays from both the novel AND the original film in his story arc, but his own tale is equally tragic when compared to the previous one. In the film, just like in the earlier Hammer and Dan Curtis productions, Jonathan is bitten by Dracula before his escape from the Castle. HOWEVER, instead of being turned into a vampire then and there, and being destroyed later on, Harker’s transformation is much more gradual: he goes home a broken, traumatized man…and it’s not till the end of the film he officially becomes a vampire, and manages to escape. As a result, the film has an even bleaker ending than the silent version: the Mina character dies, Dracula (a more sympathetic villain in this version) dies, Van Helsing is wrongfully imprisoned by the misunderstanding authorities…and Jonathan, now a bloodthirsty monster who needs to feed, escapes to do madness only knows what. Yeesh, and people thought the original book was gloomy…

3. Fred Williams, from the 1970 Film.

This Jess-Franco-directed, hyper-low-budget movie (starring Christopher Lee in a rare non-Hammer outing as the Count) attempted to present a more faithful version of the novel than any that came before it. It still takes several liberties (every version does), but to its credit, it does still retain a commendable amount of source material. In the film - entitled “Count Dracula” - Williams is dubbed by an uncredited actor; I don’t know who they were, but they deserve some kudos too. This interpretation of Harker was actually an inspiration to me when writing my own adaptation of Dracula, recently; that should say plenty about the esteem in which I hold him.

2. Tom Hiddleston, from the 2006 BBC Radio Version.

Yep! Loki himself has played Jonathan Harker; he actually got top billing in this radio version, which featured David Suchet as the Count. (Also, the image above is actually from Crimson Peak, because...well...radio.) There’s really not much to say here; Hiddleston’s Harker, even if only via audio, is a MAGNIFICENT interpretation, mostly due to the power of the actor behind it. I would genuinely still like to see him in the role, even though he is a bit on the older side, if they ever do a movie…or better yet, make him Dracula, himself! Either way works for me!

1. Bosco Hogan, from the 1977 BBC TV Film.

Once again, the 1977 TV production here - which is quite possibly the single most accurate to the book of any onscreen - takes top billing for the Harker family. Just as it gives us the single best Mina ever onscreen, I would argue it gives us the best Harker. Hogan’s Jonathan has the perfect arc, matching that of the book, with a bit of humor thrown in here and there, and the relationship he has with his young bride-to-be is honestly really well handled. There is no doubt the Harkers are the main characters in this rendition, and they are excellent protagonists to follow.

[spider-xan]

I have one more thing to say regarding the projection of modern gender politics onto the Harkers that's just not supported by the text or taking the contemporary context into account - see my previous post, re: Jonathan being over-idealized as progressive - before I move on to other topics, and I'm not going to go into as much detail right now and may re-visit this later, but - I love Mina, and she's a wonderful character and heroine who both rises above her author's biases and her time period AND is constrained by them in a very realistic, complex way, even by modern standards, but fun memes and character appreciation aside, it's really disheartening sometimes to see her very human and multi-layered character with a complex, fraught relationship with feminism in-universe and on a meta level flattened into some kind of flawless superwoman who is single-handedly going to save the day as the novel's only hero bc she is some kind of Exceptional Woman and stereotypical Strong Female Character TM who is a fearless warrior woman action hero and modern-day feminist stuck in the body of a Victorian woman who is going to slamdunk the men with FEMINISM while she also has to babysit them bc they're useless stupid babies who can't stand a strong, independent woman, etc.

Like, I'm being somewhat facetious and exaggerating for effect, and again, memes are fun, but this isn't actually a feminist reading bc it's ironically dehumanizing, does a disservice to her complex character, posits that she can't be truly heroic unless she's punching or shooting people like a traditional male hero (though yes, she should be included, I'm not arguing against that), gets into gender essentialist woman good man bad thinking that's not fair to any character or the text, and reinforces the idea that individualism is superior to collectivism - which completely goes against the surprisingly progressive, humanistic, and hopeful theme of the novel that teamwork and collective action saves the day for the heroes, in contrast to Dracula the ultimate individualist operating alone.

[maxwell-grant]

Might I please ask if you have an opinion of DRACULA? (Either the novel itself or the adaptations); having read both this novel and FRANKENSTEIN, I'm tempted to agree with the reviewer who wrote that one of these is a Classic and the other is actually Fun to read ... (-;

(Art by Cinemamind)

I completely understand the sentiment of "one's a classic and the other's fun to read" and I don't necessarily disagree with it. I don't read Frankenstein for fun, I read it because it's the book closest to me and it's heartbreaking to think about and it's got one of my favorite characters ever in it and it's got a stake in my soul I gotta renew every year. Dracula, however? Dracula is a blast and it boggles the mind as to how every adaptation can be so crushingly lesser in nearly every aspect. My hardcover edition with annotations is one of my most prized possessions.

It's interesting that people tend to talk about Frankenstein and Dracula like Frankenstein was cutting edge sci-fi while Dracula was archaic and folkloric, when it's really the other way around. Frankenstein is the story of an arrogant dipshit rejecting modern science and thinking to unearth outdated knowledge soon blossoming into a vicious cycle of savagery, where as Dracula is the story of an ancient predator adapting and trying to take over current society and fought by a ragtag team of upstanding citizens using modern tactics to stave him off and eventually fight him, desperately struggling to stay ahead of the curve as he wisens to their tactics.

This book was really ahead of it's time in so many ways. I could easily see excerpts of it, particularly the Demeter journals and Renfield's story, taking off as internet creepypastas or found footage horror films. Dracula's a story about a group of characters playing detective as they update their blog entries about the coming of an initially incomprehensible horror taking over their lives. It's a story that could work regardless of Victorian or vampire trappings, and we know this because Blair Witch Project and Marble Hornets are some of the biggest horror successes of the past decades, all of which follow the same general idea, except in Dracula, they don't just discover the true nature of the horror, they also start fighting back and ultimately destroy it.

Dracula's obviously a great villain, that goes without saying. I don't actually tend to take Dracula seriously much of the time because I'm very fond of comedy takes on Dracula and vampires, but that doesn't at all diminish his impact in the original book. He's barely in the novel for much of it which makes his every appearence Count, and the atmosphere as well as the many, many forms he can show up or be suggested at really help solidify what an incredible presence he can be.

He's the strange ruler in a foreign country, he's the kooky old man with weird customs, he's the creepy house owner tormenting a hapless guest, he's a barbarian who lives in nostalgia. He's the wind on your window, a dog on the street, a bat in your windshield, a storm on your ship. He's a predator in every way possible, he's a handsome aristocrat, he's a tragic victim of his own monstrous nature, he's a demon who threatens to consume all mankind, he's the fucker who assaulted your loved one and has to go down hard by machete right now.

Even if we just threw out the 124 years of Dracula's history out, we'd still have enough material in the book not just for a great villain, but dozens of great villains and characters who could take just about any of these traits and run with them. And still, the thing that really, really stuck out to me about Dracula wasn't him, it was the other characters

Art by Kiwi

Dracula's cast is so, so underrated, so unfortunately sidelined as a result of adaptations that only care about The Count and try to give him all the dramatic weight and characterization and sideline all the other characters as merely bit players. Stories that twist Jonathan into a useless fop or an active jerk on the idea that he's the "boring" one, that diminish Renfield's story into just being a hapless and insane goon of Dracula, that make Van Helsing the only character who's even capable of putting up a fight and make him a generic badass, that completely neglect Quincy Morris even though he's great and everyone who discovers him is aghast at discovering "holy shit there's a COWBOY in Dracula?" like yes, there is, and he's incredible and everyone should love him and everyone WOULD love him if only the adaptations remembered he exists.

Adaptations that completely sideline Mina when, and I can't stress this enough, she is the most competent character in the book, one of the greatest pop culture detectives, a wonderful and compassionate and incredibly strong and intelligent character and the main reason why they even managed to win against the Count in the first place, and arguably the closest thing the book even has to a protagonist or hero. I'm not gonna go too into it here but, even putting aside the sheer awfulness of adaptations that try and force a romance between The Count and Mina, seriously fuck off with that, why is it that pretty much every "official" adaptation has had considerably less feminist interpretations of Mina than the source material written in the 1880s? It's a complete travesty (and yes, I'm including LOEG Mina in this, anyone who likes the book and character could have done that concept better)

I enjoy aspects of Dracula adaptations, mostly regarding certain actors's takes on the characters like Bela Lugosi (the only saving grace of that movie, honestly, but rightfully considered the iconic performance), or Peter Cushing as Van Helsing. I very much enjoy the Dracula adaptation Orson Welles did because it at least tried to stay faithful to the book. But regardless of their individual quality, I don't have much to say about Dracula adaptations that try to adapt the book other than "WHY in christ aren't you just sticking to what's in the book? Do you not see how GREAT it is, all the great things about it that are just waiting to be rediscovered and loved by new audiences? STOP WHATEVER IT IS YOU'RE DOING WITH MINA FOR THE LOVE OF GOD-"

So yeah I definitely got thoughts on Dracula. Utterly adore the book but thinking about how much of it's greatness has been lost in the adaptations kinda makes me a little angry. Of course, this doesn't extend to adaptations that tell different stories or just put Dracula into existing stories or reinterpret it. I love Nosferatu and Castlevania Dracula and Hellsing Dracula and Billy & Mandy Dracula and Sesame Street Dracula. Dracula's basically become a sub-category of monster in it's own right and there's no such think as too many monsters, or too many Draculas

I'm very glad that Dracula's public domain because it means not only can he just show up anywhere, but it also means that just about anyone can pen their own Dracula stories. Still, it would be nice if the other great characters of Dracula got brought along for the ride on a couple of those.