In This Section
|
« Masterpiece Theatre
February 11, 2007: Dracula
Some weeks, Masterpiece Theatre makes it seem like there are only a handful of masterpieces the world over. How many classic novels are out there and available to adapt, yet Masterpiece chooses to do Dracula, again, as if it’s never been done before? Meanwhile, there are hundreds of amazing, as-yet-never-adapted samples of great literature in the world, just sitting around waiting for our attention.
That said, this version of Bram Stoker’s beloved favorite wasn’t too shabby. The count, played by Marc Warren (Band of Brothers), was portrayed as a relatively likable guy — old, hunched and with a bad dermatological disorder, true, but not all that creepy, and with not too overwhelming a sense of evil about him. Gary Oldman’s Dracula fairly reeked of evil; Warren’s merely needed a haircut and a manicure. (Definitely a manicure — oof.)
That’s until he arrived in England, of course. That crate, those bugs crawling through his eye sockets… never will I see topsoil the same again. As usual, this Masterpiece piece was impeccably cast, and ole Drac ended up being an unusually charming but equally evil version of everyone’s favorite hunter of blood. The poor, earnest-hearted Jonathan Harker was also perfectly cast: Rafe Spall sported such an easy grin and wide baby face that it was perfectly impossible not to root for him. Van Helsing was played by David Suchet, who bears, in a stupid spasm of predictability, a remarkable resemblance to Anthony Hopkins. Lusty Lucy was played by buxom Masterpiece stalwart Sophia Myles, while dear little Mina was played by big-eyed newcomer Stephanie Leonidas, who did a marvelous job handling Mina’s subtle transitioning between sweet innocent and tough-minded fighter.
Of course, this story being what it is, female sexuality was a big theme. While the men scurried around trying to protect their betrothed from ill-intentioned foreigners, the girls themselves, in classic Victorian morality, could only work to protect themselves — against themselves. Their own secret sexual needs and desires, that is. Poor Lucy succumbed the first chance she got, but sweet little faith-abiding Mina managed to hold out. This particular version of the story was faithful to the original and hardly strayed an inch from previous adaptations; its only fault in my mind was its breakneck pacing. Constrained by its built-in 90-minute time cap, this version had to move fast and fit a whole lotta story within a very short time allotment. It was easy enough to follow, and it managed to tie up each of its story lines in the end, but the film moved so fast that it seemed to assume that viewers had a good deal of previous familiarity with the story. A reasonable assumption in this day and age, to be sure, but it nevertheless left the viewer feeling a bit breathless and spent.
Nonetheless, it was beautifully shot and had the trademark naturalistic lighting of most Masterpiece movies: Sunlight rules the day, as dark and shadowy scenes rule the night. For example, how beautiful was Lucy and Arthur’s garden wedding?
|
TVGuide Links:
|
|
|
|
Feb 12, 2007 8:54 AM
|
|
It's hard to take this version of the classic seriously, when the head vamp looks like Beethoven.
|
|
Feb 12, 2007 10:11 AM
|
I liked it, but I like all things Dracula, I just can't help it. I do agree that it went way to fast, to bad it wasn't a mini.
I loved the coloring of this film, and I know people are going to complain about it. The blue tones around Dracula's castle, it was great at setting the mood. Poor Sophia Myles, I love her, should of had a bigger part. As for Stephanie Leonidas, I thought she did a good job. The only thing I saw her in before was 'MirrorMask'. As for Marc Warren, I loved his performance, very low key in a way. I have always thought that Gary Oldman was over the top as Dracula, much as I love him. The cast was very good, as always. Lucy and Arthur’s garden wedding did look beautiful, coloring, costumes. The costumes make and break these films sometimes, but the BBC always goes out.
Michelle, you bring up a good point. Why does the BBC or ITV for that matter, (which all get co-produced by WGBH Boston and give on Masterpiece Theatre, for anybody who's under a rock and didn't know that.) always make the same adaptions. As much as I loved 'Jane Eyre', did we really need another adaption, especially since the last one done was in 1997? I mean I looked forward to 'The Wind in the Willows', and I loved 'The Ruby in Smoke', something different for sure. That said, I guess I'll always watch. I'm looking forward to next season, we've got three new Jane Austin productions coming, hopefully. ITV's 'Mansfield Park' with Billie Piper, 'Northanger Abbey' and 'Persuasion' with Rupert Penry-Jones and Sally Hawkins. Keeping my fingers crossed. We haven't had a new 'Northanger Abbey' since the early 80's I think. Now if we could only get Anna Chancellor in one of these productions.
|
|
Feb 12, 2007 11:52 AM
|
Yeah, I did wonder why Masterpiece Theater decided to produce another Dracula adaptation. This story has been told many times over.
ladyofthelake -- thanks for letting us know they'll have an adaptation of Persuasion next season! It's my favorite Austen book. The only thing I liked from the 1995 adaptation was Ciaran Hinds, and I thought he looked a bit old to be Wentworth. I know Anne isn't supposed to be a beauty, but I hope they pretty her up like they did with the Jane Eyre adaptation.
|
|
Feb 12, 2007 12:31 PM
|
Faithful to the original? Excuse me, but I don't recall syphilis in the original. Dracula, not Arthur Homewood, is the initiator of the trip to London because his stock of victims is getting thin out there in Transylvania.
I'd like to see a version of Dracula that is truly faithful to the original, but it would have to be a 3 or 4 parter, not a 90 minute sprint like this was.
On the positive side I agree that the casting was perfect, especially Lucy. Sophia Myles played her exactly as I pictured her while reading the book.
But where, oh where, was Renfield?
|
|
Feb 12, 2007 12:49 PM
|
I agree. This adaptation was not at all faithful to the original, and syphilis was certainly not part of the plot. I don't mind a good re-imagining of a classic story, but this one was definitely NOT good.
I think that Dan Stevens (Holmwood) did a great job with the material he was given. I felt sorry for his character throughout, even though I thought Holmwood was being unforgivably stupid.
|
|
Feb 12, 2007 1:21 PM
|
|
The production background notes on the Masterpiece Theater page make a good case that fear of syphilus was strong in Victorian England, and likely an emotional undercurrent to the plot (blood, sexuality, death, and worse). Of course nothing along those lines would have been explicit, originally.
|
|
Feb 12, 2007 4:19 PM
|
Faithful?? This was one of the LEAST faithful versions of Dracula I've ever seen - even the big-budget Hollywood Coppola version was much more accurate. We're missing the 3 wives, Harker's out of the picture way early, the Texan isn't in it, Van Helsing looks more like Renfield, and Mina ends up with the DOC!!! (At first I thought I was a little crazy - did I really remember the book totally wrong? No - this version just took a lot of "liberties.") I thought it was going to be a two-parter when Lucy died with only 20 minutes to go, but no - they just sped through the whole second half (or the highly edited versions of the second half) in those last few minutes  . To me, it just made the story disjointed.
I'm glad some enjoyed the count - but I didn't find him particularly appealing. Dracula is supposed to be the ultimate "bad boy" - appealing, dark sensuality, even though you know he's evil. This count had none of that - just a look that screamed dirty grunge band more than "mysterious, ancient, Eastern European lord" - and yeah, that fingernail thing was just gross.
On the more positive side, the production itself was better than the past few. I'm one of the ones that's complained about the lighting and being able to see the darker scenes, but they did a good job of highlighting with greens and blues, so you could actually see what was going on in the "dark."
Even though next week is a rerun, I'm totally looking forward to Prime Suspect - I know it won't disappoint!
|
|
Feb 12, 2007 4:28 PM
|
|
|
