#the Count (be he Dracula or Orlok) is so far the only famous vampire in film and the only one guaranteed to make money

[see-arcane]

I'm genuinely surprised we haven't really gotten a Carmilla adaptation that really leans hard into the fucked up psychosexual horror angle outside of some broadly not-good softcore porn flicks from the 70s' and maybe arguably to an extent The Moth Diaries.

Like, the source material just begs for that sort of reinterpretation, with Carmilla's obsessive vampiric yearning for Laura and Laura's own simultaneous repulsion and attraction towards Carmilla.

Doesn't surprise me too much, honestly

The most prolific and mainstream-preferred vampire stories center around a male vampire as the main antagonist/protagonist/love interest, with female vampires--however rich character-wise--only coming as attachments or secondary characters. Everybody wants a Dracula or a Lestat or a Spike taking up the screen, not a Carmilla or a Claudia or a Drusilla.

But I will say that I suspect this habit is coming from studio preference as much or more than actual audience desire. Dracula is always the safest bet when A Vampire Story hits the screen, because having the name 'Dracula' on it automatically makes it seem like printing free money in Hollywood's eyes. By the same token, whether it features another Dracula or not, male vampire leads have always gotten a big box office/viewership payday because of the mass appeal to

1) Escapist dark fantasy elements for the pining crowd and

2) Escapist power fantasy elements for those who want to BE the cool vampire wooing/stealing up a harem/Designated Girl to Target

The formula hasn't really been properly attempted with a female vampire lead outside a skinny handful of films, and those generally with a male human lead playing opposite. If there are good vampire lesbian films happening out there, they're simply not reaching the big screen or coming up on the home audience's radar because they're being done by teeny dedicated studios and indie creators. In order for future films and shows to gamble on Carmilla or even a lookalike to her story, studios have to be shown that it can be done for a Big Audience and make bank the way (grinding my teeth to dust) Coppola's fucking fanfiction did.

However, the only recent Carmilla film attempt I know of for theater audiences was the 2020 film:

And it was fine. Not great, not a bomb. Just fine. I didn't even know it existed until well after its skinny theater run. This thing had less promotion than The Last Voyage of the Demeter and that thing got utterly screwed when it came to pre-release hype.

That being said, I think the only thing that would get mass public interest brewing for a big budget psychological sensual horror Carmilla picture is...someone just putting that out and cramming it into theaters with full media pomp on their own. Say, on a level between Mike Flanagan and Guillermo del Toro kind of punch.

It has to be a passion project attached to a Big Name before it can get its foot in the door and encourage studios to follow the leader :(

[gravecinema]

Why What We Do in the Shadows is the Best Modern Vampire Movie -  07/20/2020

There have been many vampire movies made in the history of cinema. One of the most famous early iconic films of cinema is Nosferatu, made in 1917, which is amongst the earliest adaptations of Bram Stoker’s Dracula novel. The first truly groundbreaking and mainstream cinematic adaptation of his work though would occur in 1931 with the release of Dracula, by Universal Pictures and starring the great Bela Lugosi. This movie would kick off the Universal cinematic universe of monsters, as well as go on to inspire many other great vampire movies throughout the 20th Century.

After the turn of the millennium, truly great vampire movies started to become a rare and dying breed of film. There have been a few stand outs, but not many that have broken through to become a mainstream success like the great vampire movies of old. And no, Twilight does not count. Real vampire movies have since become mostly old fashioned and dropped out of the mainstream public consciousness. To bring the vampire back into the mainstream, it would take a vampire movie to be released that would bring a more modern sensibility and lore to vampires than from what had come before. Fortunately, such a movie would be released in 2014. That movie is What We Do in the Shadows.

Filmed in New Zealand and co-directed by the great Taika Waititi, What We Do in the Shadows is a truly inspired piece of filmmaking. Seen through the lens of a documentary film crew, the movie explores the life of a group of old and ancient vampire roommates all living together in modern day New Zealand. Each vampire has their own distinct personality and characteristics, and we get to see how they all try to learn how best to live with one another. Also, each of the main vampires represent a vampire from a previous famous vampire movie: Petyr’s appearance is similar to Count Orlok from Nosferatu, Deacon is punkish like one of the vampires in The Lost Boys, Vladislav is comparable to Gary Oldman's Dracula, Nick is reminiscent of Edward from Twilight, and Viago is like Louis from Interview with the Vampire.

Having the group of vampires representing earlier vampires of cinema gives the movie a sense of respect and even a celebration of the genre itself, all while telling its own story in a more modern setting. What We Do in the Shadows is clearly inspired by the television series The Office, which made the mockumentary a mainstream style of filmmaking and storytelling. Having a mockumentary based around a group of modern-day vampires was a brilliant choice, and it makes What We Do in the Shadows stand out more than any other modern vampire movie.

The movie even pays tribute to the age-old storytelling rivalry between vampires and werewolves. A rivalry made quite popular in the more recent Underworld and Twilight films. One of the most memorable scenes in the movie has the group of vampires meeting and confronting a pack of werewolves. They then proceed to smack talk each other like a group of children. This is one of the most entertaining moments in the film, and including supernatural creatures other than just vampires make the movie part of more fun world than just regular vampire movies.

These vampires also expand upon the concept of the human familiar most noticeably seen in the Blade films. The vampires have a human serve them as a type of butler or maid during the day and to help clean up after their victims, and in return they promise to eventually turn the familiar into becoming a vampire themselves. This plays like a metaphor of having your boss offer you a sweet promotion if you just work hard enough while doing everything that they say. We can even see their familiar Jackie get upset when someone else essentially gets that promotion when Nick gets turned into a vampire by Petyr.

Nick getting turned then gives us a story about what it’s like becoming a vampire in this world. A vampire in this world can’t eat human food, otherwise they’ll uncontrollably start to projectile vomit. These vampires can also fly and turn into bats if they wish. Many of the classic vampire tropes are used in this film, and every vampire is shown to also be capable of hypnosis. Even vampire hunters are real in this world, and Nick makes the mistake of unknowingly revealing that he is a vampire to one while trying to be cool.

This mistake will cost the vampires, as the vampire hunter tries to slay the vampires at their home, and this leads to the death of Petyr by sunlight. We then get a pretty comical scene of the police coming to investigate. The vampires use their hypnosis to make the human cops see only what they want them to see, and it makes for a pretty amusing scene. When it comes to human characters though, perhaps the most memorable one is their go-to computer guy, Stu.

Stu is probably to most normal and simple guy you can think of. He works in IT and the vampires have him help connect them to the outside world through the internet. Having the vampires learn how to use the internet for the first time is pretty damn hilarious. The eBay and Facebook jokes are some of the best in the movie. What’s really great about Stu is just how much the vampires grow to become fond of him. He quickly becomes their favorite human, and even go so far as to protect him from other vampires when they find out that he is most likely a virgin.

Having the vampires crave virgin blood more in humans is just another great use of a classic vampire trope. This movie is so well thought out in using the overall history of vampires in movies, and then using that history to craft its own narrative and story. That of vampires learning how to live together in the modern world. The concept of this film is so solid, that it even inspired a continuation of this world in a recent television adaptation.

The television series follows a documentary crew following another group of vampires in Staten Island, and it has to be my favorite show on TV right now. Most people are always weary of new adaptations or shows of great movies, but this show delivers and expands on the universe that the movie created in such a way that I believe it to be just as good, if not superior to the movie itself. It even has the vampires from the movie make cameos in a few of the episodes. The great success of the show just creates further proof that the movie has had the greatest impact on the vampire genre in the new millennium.

The great writing and production of What We Do in the Shadows has solidified itself as one of the new modern classics of the vampire genre. Its success will no doubt go on to inspire the next great generation of vampire movies. As an avid vampire fan, myself, I am greatly looking forward to what those movies will be, and when they will arrive. Until then, I have no doubt that What We Do in the Shadows will currently go on to widely be considered as the absolute best modern vampire movie.

[miragerules]

Well I am back with another list. A few days ago I post my list of the best current directors of all time, and now it is time for the best films by decade. Sadly I have not had the chance to view a ton of films from the 1920's or 1930's, so I am combining the two decades and here are The 15 Best Films of the 1920's or 1930's

1. All Quiet on the Western Front: Sadly I have not seen a ton of films from the 1930’s and especially the 1920’s, but Lewis Milestone’s anti-war masterpiece All Quiet on the Western Front is easily the best film of the 1920’s or 1930’s. The story follows a young German Paul Bäumer during the mists of WWI as he is indoctrinated to ignite Paul’s patriotic fire and a romanticizing view of the war. Director Milestone deftly navigates the poignant story by showing the futility of war, and that the soldier ground is always the loser. I believe All Quiet on the Western Front was one of the if not the first Anti-War films. There have been many different types of anti-war films since, but view few have come close to the level of Milestone’s film and even fewer have reached the same level as All Quiet on the Western Front. All Quiet on the Western Front is one of the best if not the best war films made, and simple one of the best films of all time.

2. Battleship Potemkin: Battleship Potemkin is based on a true story that happened in the Black Sea on of course the Russian Battleship Potemkin during the brief 1905 Russian Revolution that were obvious early warning signs of what was to come in the 1917. After the Russians humiliating defeat to Japan in the Russo-Japanese war virtual total loss the Russia’s Pacific fleets the moral in Russia was at a all-time low. Then with the majority of Russia’s experienced commanders being transferred to the Pacific it was a recipe for disaster. It is a rich story that could be easily made into a film, and is done so masterfully by Sergei Eisenstein. I know most have seen a least a scene of the film through homages by other directors and in other films like the Untouchables, Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith, The Godfather and countless other film and television shows as Battleship Potemkin’s Odessa Steps scene is one of the most famous scenes in film history. That scene is the best scene in Battleship Potemkin for many reasons, but Sergei Eisenstein’s masterpiece should be known for more than that in that Potemkin is a masterfully crafted and filmed movie with a great story. Battleship Potemkin is a film any film buff should see.

3. Nosferatu: Bela Lugosi’s 1931 Dracula is the more famous film based on Bram Stoker’s acclaimed novel that truly launched the character into popular culture along with the likes of Frankenstein, The Mummy, Werewolf and many other iconic characters, and deservedly so as Bela Lugosi did a terrifyingly masterful job portraying Dracula. Still with that said F.W. Murnau’s Nosferatu is the better “Film”. Murnau’s film makes a few deviations to the Stoker’s story with the story taking place in Germany, the people who get their blood drained do not come back to life, and Dracula or Count Orlok in the film cannot move in any kind of sunlight. Even with those deviations from Stoker’s novel Murnau’s does a wonderful job crafting a terrifying story and villain in Max Schreck who truly looks the part of a vampire. With Munrau’s use deft use of camera work and lighting and Max Schreck’s performance created one of the best horror films of all time.

4. Mutiny on the Bounty: Mutiny on the Bounty is loosely based on historical event. Though Frank Lloyd’s does take some liberties with historical events like making Captain Bligh look like a tyrant his film is still gripping adventure drama with an outstanding performance by Clark Gable and Charles Laughton.

5. Frankenstein: The 1930’s was certainly the decade that launched so many horror characters into popular culture with three making this list. The first being the first talking picture adaptation of Mary Shelley’s classic novel in Boris Karloff’s 1931 Frankenstein. Mary Shelly’s story was already powerful enough, but Karloff’s sympathetic yet terrifying performance takes the Frankenstein to a whole new level.

6. Stagecoach: Let me get this out of the way I am not a fan of John Wayne both professionally or as a person through his views of the world. There are only a handful of John Wayne’s I truly enjoyed and usually Wayne is the least of the reasons I like a film he is in. That is the same for Stagecoach as I give way for credit the brilliance of this western to John Ford’s brilliant directing, and rest of the cast that includes John Carradine, George Bancroft, and Claire Trevor. I do not think I would put Stagecoach in the top 10 westerns of all time, but definitely in the top 20.

7. Gone with the Wind: I am not sure what else is to say about Gone with the Wind as the film is the most famous and iconic film on this list. Gone with the Wind has not aged well in some people’s views when it comes to the portrayal of the south during the Civil War and Blacks and I can understand, but the film still is a great film. Gone with the Wind has a compelling story and memorable characters thanks to performances by Clark Gable, Olivia de Havilland, Leslie Howard, Vivien Leigh, and future Superman George Reeves. The set sequences are beautifully filmed especially the burning of Atlanta and the score it well done. Gone with the Wind has also delivered some of the most quotable lines in film history with one being one of the best lines in film history.

8. Dracula: I am not going to go into Dracula much as I briefly talked about the film during my talk about Nosferatu. Bela Lugosi’s Dracula is a masterful horror film that made Count Dracula one of the most iconic characters in popular culture and really launched the horror to another.

9. The Informer: Director John Fords 1935 Irish War for Independence drama. Though The Informer had at the time a little known cast and even more unknown cast at the time the actors performed well, and tragic tail of a down on his luck ex-IRA Irishman is extremely well written. It also helps that RKO pictures at the time, and is still one of the best film composers in Max Steiner composing the music for The Informer.

10. The Mummy: 1932’s The Mummy is the third and final monster/horror film on this list. While not on the level of the other three horror films on this list The Mummy is still a thrilling horror film with once again a power performance by the great Boris Karloff as the Mummy.

11. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington: The late Jimmy Stewart launched to stardom mainly through this political drama. Stewart stars as a young naïve politician Jefferson Smith trying to make a difference in his state and in the United States, but his slowly beat down by the corrupt system and his one man fight against it. There is a hopeful yet pessimistic view of politicians and the political system that is still very relevant today.

12. Blackmail: One of director Alfred Hitchcock’s earlier films, and I think the first British film with sound. Blackmail is a riveting thriller effortlessly created by Hitchcock’s screenplay and film technic. I would consider Blackmail one of Hitchcock’s best early films.

13. Metropolis: I usually am in the minority when it comes to modern critics of Metropolis, but I think it is one of the most overpraised films in history. Yes, for its time Metropolis is a visually outstanding, but so was Avatar, What Dreams May Come, Sucker Punch, and many other mediocre films. What is a better lasting legacy is the films message of caution against technology and the peoples growing reliance of technology on both man’s progress socially and psychology. I do think Metropolis is a good sci-fi film, but far from one of the best science fiction films in history.

14. Captain Blood: To be honest it was hard to fill this list especially the last few spots, but then I remembered the brief rise in Hollywood superstardom of Errol Flynn in the mid 1930’s to the mid 1940’s with two really good swashbuckling adventure films. Errol Flynn’s first starring role in Captain Blood is like the blockbuster of today as Captain Blood does have some great if not amazing set pieces and action sequences the story and performances are lacking.

15. The Adventures of Robin Hood: Errol Flynn was known for his charisma as a leading man and ladies’ man, which made Flynn the perfect choice for Robin of Locksley. This adaption of the Robin Hood is magnificently brilliant in story, set design and set pieces, and the action is thrilling. The chemistry between Flynn and Olivia de Havilland is palpable throughout the film. I will not say it is tragic as I know there are rumors of Errol Flynn’s night life with women which got him in trouble and rightly or wrongly ruined his reputation and perhaps Flynn’s career, but I will say that it is sad that Errol Flynn allowed his womanizing to basically ruin his career.

------------------------

The most overrated films of the 1920’s and 1930’s: The Wizard of Oz, King Kong, and Snow White and the Seven Dwarves.

[moviegroovies]

the lost boys + names

so if you’ve been following my lost boys obsession, you’ll have noticed me just absolutely gushing about so many things that really got me hooked into the movie’s clutches, but one thing i decided to save for its own post was my affection for the way the characters are named. 

in particular, the first pair of names that really jumped out at me were edgar and alan frog, for the obvious edgar allan poe reference reasons. i think those names are fitting insofar as the frog brothers are, as sam kind of points out, a little grimdark and morose (even though they’re right about the whole “vampires in santa carla” thing, they could probably stand to lighten up a little about it, right?), which is pretty much poe’s brand name. on a different level, given what little we see of their parents, it kind of makes me wonder if those are the boy’s given names; we see the talk about ex-hippies being hazardous to their children’s given names with michael “moonchild” emerson and star, but edgar allan poe wasn’t exactly famous for resonating with the hippie movement, either.

the tv tropes page for the lost boys acknowledges the meaningful name connotations latent in “lucy” and “max”: lucy, for the character lucy westenra, who was turned by dracula into a vampire (as was max’s plan for lucy emerson), and max, for max schreck, who played count orlok in nosferatu, a film mentioned by name in the lost boys. 

now, here’s the part where the post takes a turn for the “ok, you’re reaching,” so bear with me. honestly, none of the lost boy’s names jumped out at me in particular (as far as i know, none of them have any particularly meaningful connotations, they’re just, you know, names), except for david... but ONLY in conjuncture with star. now, it’s impossible to tell whether or not this was the intention of the writers, but the fact that there are two pretty major characters in the movie with the names “david” and “star,” especially when they’re said in the same line (when michael corners david on the boardwalk, he asks “where’s star, david”), invokes magen david, the star of david, pretty decisively. perhaps this is especially augmented by something my dad said when we were watching the lost boys together; when the boys went to collect star as she meant to go off with michael, he had a comment that went something like “oh yeah, i think she kind of belongs to them.” now, i’m obviously opposed on principle to the idea that girls can belong to guys in general, or that star actually belongs to the lost boys like an item in this specific case, but i don’t think the observation was that far off; she definitely feels that she has to go to david, specifically, when he comes calling, even though it’s pretty clear that she’d rather go get food with michael like he offered. this element of possessiveness kind of rounds out the association; literally, she’s the star of david. so what does that mean?

well, the star of david is obviously the modern symbol of judaism (worth noting here, i suppose, that star’s actress, jami gertz, is a jewish woman). however, as a symbol, it has no real backing in the torah, only really popping up in the last few hundred years as we know it now. the website my jewish learning offers a few explanations of possible meanings: franz rosenzweig wrote about it as the star of redemption, a theme which fits with star’s desire to undo what she’s done in giving up her humanity, while kabbalists used it as a symbol of protection against evil spirits, which can be read into her role in shielding michael from the lost boys, AND in her role in shielding laddie from the frog brothers’ attacks. no matter what the intention in these names were (and i fully acknowledge i might just be reading too much into what was never supposed to be this deep), i think these explanations are worth noting as insights into star’s motivations and her role in the movie.

in my previous posts, i talked a little bit about star’s name outside of the star of david bit, examining the conversation she had with michael where he suggested that her parents called her that because they were ex-hippies, like his, and came to the conclusion that it may be possible that her parents weren’t the ex-hippies, but rather, she was, meaning that star has been with the lost boys for a lot longer than most people think. basically, star’s name has a bunch of layers metatextually, and i don’t think that we would have gotten a whole conversation between the two of them about where her name came from if we weren’t supposed to think about that for a little bit. 

we stan a queen.

finally, and this one i’ll admit is REALLY off the shits, i want to examine the names michael and sam in connection with one another. my own personal bias is really shining through right here, and i want to get that out of the way first and foremost. michael, right now, is pretty much my favorite name, specifically because of my intense interest in angelology and, in particular, the archangel michael. naturally, when i realized that the lost boys had a michael as the main character, i was immediately on the lookout for anything that gave it a Meaningful Name(tm) status, and so when his brother was introduced as sam, i was kind of... excited, to say the least. you see, one relationship i’m really interested in, fictionally, is the sibling-esque bond that people like to examine between archangels, and in particular, the michael & lucifer relationship is my most favorite. the thing is, another name for lucifer that a lot of that type of media in particular uses is sammael... which, obviously, could easily shorten to “sam.” 

in the context of the movie, sam being the one connected to sammael, the fallen angel, the one who disobeyed god’s will and took the path forbidden from him, and michael being the one connected to, like, st. michael, the leader of god’s army, seems a bit... backward. obviously i’m stretching so hard i’ve dislocated my shoulder, but i think it might be interesting if that were on purpose; meaningful names that invoke the most famous angels, but then the characters marked with them go the opposite directions of their namesakes, and it becomes up to sam to bring michael back on the right path. 

...food for thought, i guess? let me know what you think, or if you have any other names from the movie that stuck out to you! this is my absolute favorite thing to analyze honestly. 

[aion-rsa]

What Kind of Dracula Can We Expect From the Sherlock Creators?

https://ift.tt/2LJG4jR

Will the Sherlock creators' take on Dracula make the Count a monster, gentleman or clown?

facebook

twitter

tumblr

Bram Stoker’s Dracula was not an instant hit in 1897 when it was first published, despite positive reviews. But the figure of the vampire himself has since become a cultural figure with a status few others have achieved. Consequently, there have been an enormous amount of stage and screen adaptations of the Dracula novel, or featuring the character throughout the 20th century and into the 21st. 

And now, Sherlock creators Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss have made their own adaptation of Stoker’s novel, starring Claes Bang as the eponymous bloodsucker. It got us wondering what kind of Dracula we might be in for this time. There are far too many iterations of Transylvania’s most famous citizen to produce an exhaustive list, but there are a few broad categories that adaptations of the character tend to fall into. Dracula the character and vampirism as a metaphor allows for all kinds of interpretations, from those who wish to emphasise his monstrosity, through his upper class status, to parodying the familiarity of the character.

The Monstrous Dracula

Famously, FW Murnau’s Nosferatu is an unauthorised adaptation of Stoker’s novel. Stoker’s estate refused the rights for the silent horror film. The film itself was nearly lost after a court ruled in the estate’s favour, ordering copies of the film to be destroyed.

https://www.denofgeek.com/us/movies/dracula/215286/the-bleeding-heart-of-dracula

Fortunately, some survived and gave to the world one of the most iconic versions of Count Dracula, named Count Orlok here in an attempt to dodge the thorny authorisation issue. Max Schreck’s appearance captures the inhuman and monstrous qualities of the character with his long, clawing nails and fangs. Murnau’s use of light and shadow to highlight Orlok’s grotesque profile is particularly effective and has become a visual touchstone for vampires on screen in its own right.

Not many adaptations have opted to take the solely monstrous approach for Dracula since, perhaps because Schreck is so recognisable, but also because another iconic take on the character was on its way.

The Gentleman Dracula

In 1931, Bela Lugosi would take on the role of Dracula in Tod Browning’s adaptation of Hamilton Dean and John L. Balderston’s stage play. His regal costume, widow’s peak, and slow-accented dialogue became synonymous with the character in pop culture almost instantly. Here was a new kind of monster, one that would seem charming one minute and capable of draining you dry in the next.

This version of Dracula definitely emphasised his aristocratic background over some of the more bestial descriptions that Stoker gives, but there’s always the sense of natural brutality behind Lugosi’s gentlemanly demeanour. Unfortunately, Lugosi would suffer from typecasting for the rest of his career, but his Dracula is arguably the definitive one and would become the template for many iterations in the future.

read more: Dracula vs. Frankenstein: Horror Movies Meet the Hippie Era

Christopher Lee’s Dracula for Hammer Horror would build on this characterisation, bringing a brooding sexuality to the character that has now been woven into the fabric of the character. Gary Oldman in Francis Ford Coppola’s 1994 adaptation is the closest we have to a mix of the grotesque and the gentleman in one performance.

Sticking closer to the book in terms of Dracula’s initial aged appearance and his slow return to youth, Oldman’s performance often feels like a blend of Schreck’s physicality with Lugosi’s sinister stillness and Lee’s attractiveness, allowing for the romantic antihero angle that Coppola pushes.

Watch Dracula (1931) on Amazon

The Comedy Dracula

In Dracula: Dead and Loving It, Mel Brooks takes many potshots at Francis Ford Coppola’s Dracula, as well as adopting Hammer’s familiar aesthetic. Leslie Nielsen rises from the coffin, pinboard straight, graceful right up until the point he smashes his head on the chandelier above his coffin. So arrives his iteration of Dracula, a vampire fooled at every turn by his own clumsiness and not-quite-good-enough hypnosis techniques Nielsen gleefully mimics Oldman and Lugosi in particular in both costume and style.

read more: 13 Essential Dracula Performances in Movies & TV

Though strictly playing a fictional version of Max Schreck playing Orlok, Willem Dafoe’s performance in the brilliantly-meta Shadow Of The Vampire is another example of the way in which the Dracula character on screen can be transformed by context. Shadow Of The Vampire is a fictionalised account of the filming of Nosferatu. Part horror movie, part cinematic satire, the film posits that Schreck was actually a vampire and his unusual appearance was his own. Dafoe’s performance apes Schreck’s movements beautifully and taps into the loneliness that other Dracula adaptations, such as Coppola’s, explore in the vampire character.

Other vampire parodies have used famous performances of Dracula as their basis even if not portraying the Count. Count von Count in Sesame Street apes Lugosi’s speech patterns while Petyr in What We Do In The Shadows is a brilliant visual nod to Schreck’s Orlok alongside plenty of other references to vampires on film. 

The TV Dracula

The various television versions of Dracula encompass all of the above types. There was the TV series starring Jonathan Rhys Meyers as the eponymous count, here posing as an American entrepreneur who enters into an uneasy alliance with Van Helsing (Thomas Kretschmann) to pursue a common foe. There’s the BBC version from a few years back, which gave us Marc Warren as Dracula in a slightly baffling piece of casting. There, he was around to help Lord Holmwood (Dan Stevens) out with a hereditary syphilis problem. Both versions present him as the gentleman type, ostensibly helping people but with his own agenda running alongside.

read more: Martin Freeman Mulls Sherlock Season 5 Possibility

The Buffy The Vampire Slayer episode, Buffy Vs Dracula, takes that titular concept and runs with it, having enormous fun with Dracula tropes throughout, from the count owing Spike money to Xander going full Dwight Frye Renfield. Dracula ends up “Eurotrashed.” Penny Dreadful would present the two sides of the Count, played by Christian Camargo. Characters from Stoker’s novel were present from the first season, but it wouldn’t be until the third that the vampire himself arrived. The first episode of the third season ended with Renfield coming face to face with Dracula, but the audience only sees Renfield as he collapses into a terrified scream. 

And now we have the new television series on the way. So what kind of Dracula are we going to get from Moffat and Gatiss? Given that they’ve been open about it being a “Sherlock-y” rendition of Dracula, but set in 1897, we think we’re looking at a Dracula that is both aristocratic and urbane. The brief glimpse we’ve had of Claes Bang’s Count in the trailer so far has a kind of sinister charm and politeness, likely as charismatic as he is dangerous, and always one step ahead of our human heroes. We shall have to tune in on New Year’s Day to find out for sure though...

The BBC/Netflix production of Dracula will air on BBC One in the UK on three consecutive nights, starting on Jan. 1. No word on when we should expect the three-part series to hit Netflix. You can read more about it here.

facebook

twitter

tumblr

Feature

Books

Becky Lea

Dec 6, 2019

Dracula

Sherlock

Steven Moffat

Mark Gatiss

BBC

Netflix

from Books https://ift.tt/2PlbXA8