Bram Stoker's Dracula: Key Differences Between the 1992 Movie and the 1897 Book

Bram Stoker's Dracula, the 1897 Gothic novel that sparked an entire genre of vampire literature and film, has been adapted for the screen countless times over the past century. [1] One of the most notable adaptations is Francis Ford Coppola's 1992 film titled Bram Stoker's Dracula, which offers a unique interpretation of the classic story while staying faithful to certain elements of the original novel. [2] This article delves into the key differences between Bram Stoker's Dracula and the 1992 film adaptation, exploring the plot deviations, visual and stylistic choices, and the cultural impact of Coppola's vision. [2] Additionally, it examines how the film both honored and deviated from the source material, shedding light on the enduring legacy of Bram Stoker's Dracula and its influence on the vampire genre. [1]

Background on the Novel and Previous Adaptations

The Origins of Bram Stoker's Dracula

Bram Stoker's iconic novel "Dracula" was published in 1897, and its origins can be traced back to the author's meticulous research and preparation. [3] In the summer of 1890, the 45-year-old Stoker visited the Subscription Library in Whitby, England, where he requested a rare book – "The Accounts of Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia" by William Wilkinson. [3] He made notes from a specific section of the book, which provided him with crucial information for his novel. [3] Stoker's research extended beyond literature, as he visited the Whitby Museum to study maps and plan a route from London to a mountaintop in Romania, a location he had noted in his journal. [3] He also spoke with members of the Royal Coast Guard, who shared details about a shipwreck, the "Dmitri," which had run aground in Whitby Harbor, carrying a mysterious cargo of crates filled with earth. [3] These experiences, combined with a conversation with his friend Arminius Vambery at the Beefsteak Club of the Lyceum Theater in London, inspired Stoker to replace the name "Count Wampyr" with "Count Dracula" in his notes. [3]

Stoker's Intent: Fiction or Reality?

Interestingly, Bram Stoker did not intend for "Dracula" to be a work of fiction but rather a warning about a very real evil. [3] In the original preface, published in the Icelandic version "Makt Myrkanna," Stoker wrote: "I am quite convinced that there is no doubt whatever that the events here described really took place, however unbelievable and incomprehensible they might appear at first sight." [3] He claimed that many of the characters in his novel were real people, including his friends Jonathan Harker, his wife, and Dr. Seward. [3] However, Stoker's editor at Archibald Constable & Company, Otto Kyllman, rejected the manuscript, fearing that presenting such a story as true could cause mass panic in London, which was still recovering from the Whitechapel murders. [3] Kyllman insisted on changes, and when the novel was finally published on May 26, 1897, the first 101 pages had been cut, numerous alterations had been made, and the epilogue had been shortened, altering Dracula's ultimate fate and that of his castle. [3]

The Lost Manuscript and Clues

In the 1980s, the original "Dracula" manuscript, beginning on page 102, was discovered in a barn in rural northwestern Pennsylvania, raising questions about the content of the missing first 101 pages. [3] Stoker left breadcrumbs and clues in various sources, such as the translated first edition from Iceland titled "Makt Myrkranna," the short story "Dracula's Guest," his notes, journals, and other first editions worldwide. [3] Unable to tell his story as a whole, he spread it out, ensuring that it would never die but merely slumber, awaiting rediscovery. [3]

Previous Adaptations

While the focus of this article is on the 1992 film adaptation by Francis Ford Coppola, it is worth noting that "Dracula" has been adapted for the screen countless times over the past century. [1] Some notable adaptations include the 1931 film directed by Tod Browning and starring Bela Lugosi, the 1958 British film "Dracula" directed by Terence Fisher and starring Christopher Lee, and the 1979 film "Dracula" directed by John Badham and starring Frank Langella. [1]

Plot Differences in Coppola's Adaptation

Backstory of Dracula as Vlad the Impaler

One of the most significant deviations from Bram Stoker's original novel is the portrayal of Dracula's backstory as Vlad the Impaler, the 15th-century Wallachian Prince. [9] In the book, Dracula's origins are shrouded in mystery, with only subtle hints of his resemblance to the historical figure of Vlad the Impaler. [8] However, in Coppola's adaptation, the connection between Dracula and Vlad Tepes is explicitly established. [9] The film introduces Dracula as Vlad Draculea, a Romanian prince who renounces God and defiles a church after the tragic death of his beloved wife, Elisabeta. [9] Believing Vlad has perished in battle, Elisabeta commits suicide, prompting Vlad's descent into darkness and his transformation into the immortal vampire known as Dracula. [11] This backstory not only provides a compelling motivation for Dracula's actions but also humanizes him, portraying him as a fallen hero driven by heartbreak and a thirst for vengeance against God. [9]

Changes to Character Arcs

Coppola's adaptation also introduces significant changes to the character arcs of several key figures from the novel. [8] [10] In the book, Jonathan Harker escapes Dracula's castle after the vampire departs for England, while in the film, he is held captive by Dracula's vampire brides, who periodically drink his blood. [8] [10] Additionally, the character of Mina diverges from the novel, as Dracula leaves the decision to drink his blood up to her, rather than forcing her as in the book. [8] [10] Moreover, Mina's relationship with Dracula is drastically altered. In the novel, she harbors hatred towards Dracula for terrorizing her, remaining loyal to her husband. [8] [10] However, in the film, Mina falls in love with Dracula, believing him to be the reincarnation of his deceased wife, Elisabeta. [9] [11] This romantic subplot between Dracula and Mina serves as a central narrative thread in Coppola's adaptation, adding a layer of emotional complexity absent from the original novel. [9]

Romantic Subplot Between Dracula and Mina

The romantic subplot between Dracula and Mina is a significant departure from Bram Stoker's novel, where Dracula's motivations are primarily driven by a desire to spread his undead curse across England. [8] [10] In Coppola's film, Dracula's obsession with Mina stems from his belief that she is the reincarnation of his beloved wife, Elisabeta. [9] [11] This romantic angle not only humanizes Dracula but also adds a tragic dimension to his character. [9] His love for Mina is portrayed as genuine, yet tainted by his cursed existence as a vampire. [9] Mina, in turn, is torn between her love for Dracula and her loyalty to her husband, Jonathan Harker, creating a complex emotional dynamic. [8] [10] Ultimately, the romantic subplot culminates in a poignant scene where Mina must put Dracula out of his misery, adding a bittersweet conclusion to their ill-fated love story. [8] [10] This departure from the source material allowed Coppola to explore themes of love, sacrifice, and redemption, elevating the film beyond a mere horror narrative. [9]

Faithful Elements to the Novel

Use of Multiple Narrators

One of the key elements that Francis Ford Coppola's adaptation faithfully retained from Bram Stoker's original novel is the use of multiple narrators. [13] The book employed journal entries, letters, and newspaper clippings to narrate the story of Dracula, and Coppola paid homage to this technique by shifting protagonists throughout the movie. [13] In fact, most of the narrated diary entries featured in the film are taken word-for-word from the original text, further cementing the adaptation's loyalty to the source material. [13]

Inclusion of Minor Characters

Coppola and screenwriter James V. Hart made a conscious effort to include several minor characters from the novel that are typically omitted from screen adaptations. [13] [14] These characters, such as Arthur Holmwood and Quincey Morris – Lucy's suitors – were featured in the film, helping to maintain the romance-fueled theme that permeates Stoker's work. [13] [14] Their inclusion not only added depth to the narrative but also demonstrated Coppola's commitment to staying true to the novel's essence.

Specific Plot Points and Scenes

Beyond character inclusions, Coppola's adaptation also faithfully recreated specific plot points and scenes from the novel. One notable example is the fateful voyage aboard the Russian ship Demeter, during which the entire crew is gradually murdered, except for the captain. [13] [14] While this scene is often considered non-essential to the overall story, Coppola recognized its importance in setting the ominous and creepy tone that permeates both the novel and the film. [14] Another faithful element is the climactic showdown at Castle Dracula, where the vampire hunters confront Dracula and his Romani servants beneath the setting sun. [18] This scene, along with large passages of dialogue, was incorporated into Coppola's movie at the director's insistence, further underscoring his commitment to honoring Stoker's original vision. [18]

Visual and Stylistic Elements

Coppola's Cinematic Vision: Embracing Vintage Techniques

Set in 1897, Francis Ford Coppola wished to use the fledgling cinematic technology of that age to create a film that, if made in the early 1900s, would not look radically different. In fact, there is nothing in this film that postdates the 1920s. [19] One such tool that Coppola employed with distinction was the use of miniatures. By the early 1990s, miniatures were a dying art form, but Coppola embraced them for sequences such as the steam train cutting through the Carpathian Mountains, married to the red Transylvanian night sky at the beginning of the film, or the rapid, bird-like camera movements around Hillingham Estate as Dracula seeks out Lucy. [19] Yet Coppola was adamant about one thing: he was not using miniatures because they would look better; much to the contrary, he wished to create a deliberately artificial take on Victorian England – he did not aim to create a sense of the real but an artistic impression of it. [19]

1. Artistic Influences and Visual Style

• Coppola drew heavily upon the art of Edvard Munch, Frantisek Kupka, Jan Toorop, Alfred Kubin, Jean Delville, and Gustav Klimt, whose gothic, disturbed, and haunting images are evident throughout the film. [19]
• Many exterior shots and night shots were back-projected, meaning the foreground action took place in front of a translucent screen where a previously filmed sequence or image was projected from behind. [19]
• Numerous superimposed sequences, such as Dracula's eyes across the night sky in Transylvania and London, or the rats walking along the rafter upside down in Castle Dracula, are the product of double exposures, where one image is filmed first, and then the film stock is rolled back in the camera, and the second image is filmed over it. [19]

2. Stylized Depiction of Violence

• The fantastically creative section depicting Draculea at his most gruesome and bloodthirsty does so without displaying a single drop of blood, emphasizing the shock at the sheer volume of blood Draculea spills when defiling the church after the death of his beloved Elisabeta. [19]

Costume Design: A Character-Driven Approach

Coppola's attention to detail when making this film is also reflected in the sumptuous costume design. Believing the costumes to be as important, if not more so, than the sets, he intended the costumes to be a means of expressing character. [19]

1. Eiko Ishioka's Oscar-Winning Designs

• Designed by Eiko Ishioka, who won an Oscar for her efforts, the costumes are a perfect mix of period exactness and garish nightmare. [19]
• Ishioka's costumes, such as Draculea's muscle and sinew body armor, Count Dracula's crimson kimono-esque robe, or Lucy Westenra's bridal gown/death shroud, are overly stylized and embellished. [19]
• While lacking in practicality, the costumes make up for it in sheer beauty, prompting Coppola to shoot some scenes in a certain way to accommodate their movement or lack thereof, as in the case of Lucy's crypt. [19]

2. Antiquated Cinematography and Practical Effects

• As stated, the cinematography, prop work, and costuming are very old-fashioned and intriguing, giving the film a sense of antiquity and feeling proper to the time period it is set in. [20]
• Coppola refused to use computer-generated imagery throughout the film, meaning all the effects you see are other forms of camera tricks, such as using miniature scenes for wide shots of Dracula's castle and a scene of a train passing through a valley to Transylvania. [20]

3. Innovative Techniques and Practical Effects

• Towards the beginning of the film, Coppola uses shadow puppets to reenact the war Vlad the Impaler (Dracula pre-vampire transformation) took part in, and in another train scene, Jonathan is seen with a map of the Transylvania terrain placed on his face, achieved by projecting an image onto his face. [20]
• The monsters and ghouls in the movie exist due to the amazing makeup and prosthetic work of Greg Cannom, Michele Burke, and Matthew W. Mungle, with the first form of Dracula as an old man, complete with an intricate tall wig and knifelike fingernails, showcasing their skills from the beginning. [20]

4. Eiko Ishioka's Visionary Costumes

• Eiko Ishioka was the costume visionary for this movie, and each of her costumes is spectacular, draped with conceptual intent and heavy Japanese influence. [20]
• One of the most iconic costumes is the dark, multiple-part suit with a tall old-fashioned hat, dark makeup, and long hair that Dracula (Gary Oldman) wears when he first spots Mina (Winona Ryder). [20]
• Another iconic costume is the armor of Vlad the Impaler, which Ishioka designed by taking inspiration from fantasy armor, the anime tradition, human anatomy, and musculature. [20]
• The glorious dress Lucy wears in her casket, with its massive adornments such as the headpiece, large sleeve, and long train, goes against the Victorian era's norms of being properly buttoned, tucked, and corseted, potentially incorporating aspects and parts of drag culture. [20]

Critical Reception and Cultural Impact

Deviations from Stoker's Novel

Though widely accepted as one of the most accurate screen versions, much has been made of Coppola's film bearing Bram Stoker's name in the title, as this most certainly is not Bram Stoker's novel. [23] While the film carries all of the novel's locations, dramatic beats and main characters, most of which have never been included before (Jack Seward, Arthur Holmwood and Quincey Morris namely), it is fundamentally a different tale as told by Stoker. [23] In the source novel and in all film versions up until the 1970's, Dracula was a monstrous, motiveless killer, driven only by a lust for blood and immortality. [23] He derived a kind of sexual gratification from corrupting human beings and drinking their blood. [23] Coppola was fully sure that audiences were tired of that one-dimensional take on Dracula – he wished to tell a different story. [23] He saw Dracula not as a monster but as a romantic hero, a misunderstood character. [23]

Oldman's Towering Performance

While highlighting the changes Coppola brought to the character of Dracula, it should be noted that this film succeeds mainly on the back of Gary Oldman and his portrayal of the Count. [23] At the time Alan Jones, writing for the Radio Times said; "…as the tired count who has overdosed on immortality, Gary Oldman's towering performance holds centre stage and burns itself into the memory." [23]

A Love Letter to Cinema

Bram Stoker's Dracula is comprised of many things; it is a horror, a romance, a revenge film and a melodrama but above all else it should be read as a love letter to cinema. [23] Coppola, one of the greatest living American directors, crafted Bram Stoker's Dracula with a love that he has not been able to equal since, and displayed an energy he had not been able to capture since 1979's Apocalypse Now. [23] There is something undeniably special about Bram Stoker's Dracula and while the title is misleading, Francis Ford Coppola took the source material and used it as a template to tell his Dracula story, not the Dracula story. [23]

Evolving Portrayal of Vampires

Apart from minor changes that come from creators' love to play fast and loose with the rules of vampirism, the biggest difference I found was that Stoker's novel is in the horror genre. [24] While this seems like something blatantly obvious, it encompasses the major changes. [24] Unlike more recent interpretations, this Dracula was meant to scare and horrify only. [24] He wasn't supposed to draw sympathy or really even be a complex villain, simply a monster in the purest sense of the word. [24] At the time that Stoker wrote this novel, a monster to be feared and hated was what his audience wanted. [24] The world was changing in the late Victorian era. [24] Technological and scientific innovations, Jack the Ripper and the beginnings of the feminist movement left most people terrified of the unknown — the exact fear that Dracula embodies. [24] He's terrifying because of how little is revealed about him. [24] We know nothing of how he came to be a vampire, his personal history or his motivations; nearly everything is left up to our imaginations, resulting in a much scarier monster. [24] In recent adaptations, vampires are more often found in action-dramas or romances. [24] They're beautiful and strong but conflicted about their needs. [24] Some regret their decision, like Louis in "Interview with a Vampire," others subsist only on animal blood, like the Cullens from "Twilight," and most fight others of their species who refuse to change their murderous ways. [24] Vampires are no longer simple monsters because we no longer want simple villains. [24] We want internal conflict, questions of morality, depth! [24] We want to be able to see the good in even the most deplorable. [24] In a world filled with so much horror, audiences now want to be able to understand why someone would commit heinous acts. [24] People are more willing to accept those once deemed to be "other." [24] We realize that other does not equal monster. [24] Even though there are people in the world who demonize the unknown, you have to admit that the world is slowly becoming more accepting of those who are a bit different. [24] The evolution of vampires from murderous maniacs to semi-humans with an unfortunate nutritional need is symbolic of that. [24]

Conclusion

In the realm of cinematic adaptations, Francis Ford Coppola's "Bram Stoker's Dracula" stands as a remarkable achievement. While it deviates from the source material in significant ways, such as introducing Dracula's backstory as Vlad the Impaler and the romantic subplot between Dracula and Mina, the film pays homage to the novel's essence through its faithful use of multiple narrators, inclusion of minor characters, and recreation of specific plot points. Coppola's artistic vision, blending vintage techniques with visionary costume design, antiquated cinematography, and practical effects, further elevates the film's uniqueness and staying power. Ultimately, "Bram Stoker's Dracula" represents a love letter to cinema, a testament to Coppola's mastery as a filmmaker, and a compelling exploration of the evolving portrayal of vampires in popular culture. While not a direct translation of Stoker's novel, the film offers a fresh perspective on the iconic tale, inviting viewers to embrace the complexities and romantic undertones of Dracula's character. Its enduring impact and critical acclaim solidify its place as a cinematic milestone in the ever-evolving vampire genre.

FAQs

1. What are the notable differences between Bram Stoker's original Dracula novel and the 1992 film adaptation?

In the original 1897 book, the character Lucy is depicted as prim and proper, whereas the 1992 movie portrays her as more voracious. Additionally, the novel does not explain how Dracula became a vampire, but the film suggests it occurred after he won a war and lost his wife.

2. To what extent does the 1992 movie Dracula adhere to the original book?

While the 1992 film directed by Coppola does capture many aspects of Bram Stoker's Dracula, it is not entirely faithful to the source material. The movie successfully replicates the late 1800s setting and includes much of the book's content, but it takes creative liberties in its portrayal and details.

3. How similar is the Dracula movie to the book?

The Dracula movie shares several elements with the book, such as the basic plot structure and some key characters. However, of the many film adaptations, only one has included the entire group of characters that come together to hunt Dracula, as depicted in the novel.

4. What is the content and format of the 1897 Dracula novel?

Published in 1897, Bram Stoker's Dracula is an epistolary novel, meaning it unfolds through a series of letters, diary entries, and newspaper articles. The story begins with Jonathan Harker, a solicitor, traveling to Transylvania to meet Count Dracula, a nobleman. The novel does not focus on a single protagonist, offering multiple viewpoints through its unique narrative style.

References

• [1] - https://www.britannica.com/topic/Dracula-novel
• [2] - https://thepvacreativewritingreview.wordpress.com/2021/09/09/dracula-and-its-adaptations-by-vera-caldwell/
• [3] - https://time.com/5411826/bram-stoker-dracula-history/
• [4] - https://www.sparknotes.com/lit/dracula/context/historical/victorian-science-medicine/
• [5] - https://adaptations.fandom.com/wiki/Dracula
• [6] - https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/lgfshq/which_version_of_dracula_most_accurately_follows/
• [7] - https://alluringcreations.co.za/wp/new-literary-comparison-bram-stokers-dracula-vlad-impaler/
• [8] - https://screenrant.com/dracula-1992-movie-differences-bram-stoker-novel/
• [9] - https://headstuff.org/culture/literature/literature-on-film-part-1-francis-ford-coppolas-adaptation-of-bram-stokers-dracula/
• [10] - https://screenrant.com/dracula-1992-movie-differences-bram-stoker-novel/
• [11] - https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-think-about-Mina-and-Dracula-s-relationship-in-the-movie-Bram-Stoker-s-Dracula-Do-you-ship-them
• [13] - https://screenrant.com/dracula-1992-movie-differences-bram-stoker-novel/
• [14] - https://sumikosaulson.com/2015/04/10/does-francis-ford-coppolas-dracula-stay-true-to-bram-stokers-dracula/
• [15] - https://headstuff.org/culture/literature/literature-on-film-part-1-francis-ford-coppolas-adaptation-of-bram-stokers-dracula/
• [16] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BramStoker%27s_Dracula(1992_film)
• [17] - https://screenrant.com/dracula-1992-movie-differences-bram-stoker-novel/
• [18] - https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/bram-stoker-dracula-isnt-faithful-book-doesnt-matter/
• [19] - https://headstuff.org/culture/literature/literature-on-film-part-1-francis-ford-coppolas-adaptation-of-bram-stokers-dracula/
• [20] - https://www.thecompmagazine.com/vada-arndt-behind-bram-stokers-dracula%EF%BF%BC/
• [21] - https://www.reddit.com/r/moviecritic/comments/18jre1w/whats_your_thoughts_on_bram_stokers_dracula_1992/
• [22] - https://victordebonis.medium.com/bram-stokers-dracula-1992-review-c18c81134891
• [23] - https://headstuff.org/culture/literature/literature-on-film-part-1-francis-ford-coppolas-adaptation-of-bram-stokers-dracula/
• [24] - https://trinitonian.com/2019/09/05/the-cultural-importance-of-dracula/
• [25] - https://edubirdie.com/examples/dracula-by-bram-stoker-versus-coppolas-version-comparative-analysis/
• [26] - https://screenrant.com/dracula-1992-movie-differences-bram-stoker-novel/