See more at IMDbPro. Trailer Bram Stoker's Dracula. Clip Photos Top cast Edit. Gary Oldman Dracula as Dracula. Richard E. Grant Dr. Jack Seward as Dr. Jack Seward. Billy Campbell Quincey P. Morris as Quincey P. Morris as Bill Campbell. Tom Waits R. Renfield as R. Jay Robinson Mr. Hawkins as Mr. Hobson Hobbs as Hobbs.
Octavian Cadia Deacon as Deacon. Robert Getz Priest as Priest. Francis Ford Coppola. More like this. Watch options. Storyline Edit. This version of Dracula is closely based on Bram Stoker's classic novel. Young barrister Jonathan Harker is assigned to a gloomy village in the mists of eastern Europe.
He is captured and imprisoned by the undead vampire Dracula, who travels to London, inspired by a photograph of Harker's betrothed, Mina Murray. In Britain, Dracula begins a reign of seduction and terror, draining the life from Mina's closest friend, Lucy Westenra. Mina turns out to be a real heroine in this story.
She is very resourceful, and her methods are a great help in the process of understanding what Dracula is, and tracking him down. I felt for her when she was under his thrall, because her love for Jonathan was true, as well as her abhorrence of the evil of Dracula and how it had affected her. Those scenes added a psychological component to the horror element in this book. This book is not a thrill a minute book. It might be a horror story, but it's also a crime novel, in that the group composed of Drs.
Readers should approach this story with this in mind. There are some moments that are truly unnerving and scary, all the same, but they are used with good effect. I would be reading right along, and then something really scary would happen all of a sudden. When my heart rate went back to normal and I fell back into the procedural-type narrative, another creepy moment would occur.
Thus, my investment of diligent reading paid off, for those scary moments were quite suspenseful. Readers should also be aware that the characters tend to be along sentimental lines. They are good, decent people. They cry and feel sorrow. The men might be brave, but they are not afraid to break down and sob out their anguish. Each of them invest their heart and life into tracking and destroying the beast.
This might strike a modern reader as being too good to be true. But in the historical context, I didn't have trouble with it. I might expect different characterizations for a modern vampire novel.
I found that issues that I had with the recent movie adaptations of Dracula did not exist in this novel. Mina is not played as the good, innocent foil for the sexually adventurous and slightly wanton Lucy. Lucy is a sweet girl who was preyed on and destroyed by Dracula. Mina is not a fickle woman who would abandon her true love for the seductive wiles of the vampire Dracula. That always bothered me about the movies.
I didn't see why poor Lucy was deserving of what happened to her. Even if she had been a wanton, I couldn't say she deserved her demise at Dracula's hands. Reading about her decline, death and resurgence as a vampire was extremely difficult, not to mention the effect it had on the loved ones she left behind.
Additionally, I dislike how throwaway the love that Mina had for Jonathan is portrayed in the movies. I'm glad it was not this way in the book. Renfield is a character who has been played for laughs in many of the Dracula adaptations and knockoffs. In the original novel, he is a character to be pitied. He was seduced by Dracula, subsequently losing his reason. There are glimpses of his formerly formidable intellect and sanity, as well as a sense of right and wrong that shone through, causing me to feel sorry for him.
Particularly when he warns Seward not to keep him in the Asylum. If only Seward had listened. Seward and Van Helsing are physicians and men of science with profound respect for each other, but who tend to look at situations differently. Seward is very much a rationalist. He tries to approach Lucy's strange illness from a completely scientific perspective, yet Dr.
Van Helsing is a learned man who is trained in modern medical science as well as a pioneer in medicine , but gives credence toward the ancient beliefs, and whose knowledge is shored up by his faith in God. The struggle that Seward faces in having to accept that Lucy's demise is due to a powerful supernatural entity is evident as we read his journal entries.
Van Helsing is seen through the descriptions of the diary entries of Mina, Jonathan, and Seward. I found Van Helsing quite the character. Without a doubt, he's my favorite in this book, although I found some of his lines hard to read because of the fact that it is written as though English was his second language which it was.
He is a man of compassion, although with a tendency towards bluntness. I like that he's able to think his way out of difficult situations, but also relies on faith against his demonic enemy.
The movies tend to emasculate Jonathan, but he is a very strong character to have survived his imprisionment in Dracula's castle, with his body and his sanity intact. His conviction to protect Mina at all costs, despite knowing the depths of the power of his enemy speaks to me. He might not be a he-man, but he is definitely a worthy man mate for Mina. Arthur Holmwood is a noble, yet he is not protrayed as a prig.
He is very down to earth, and willing to do his part to destroy Dracula and to see justice done for his beloved Lucy. He definitely rose to the occasion, despite the seemingly insane ravings of Van Helsing about Un-dead creatures, and the need to drive a stake through the heart and cut off the head of his beloved.
Quincy Morris embodies the Texan spirit in the very best of ways. His devotion to Lucy and later Mina causes him to risk his life in the struggle against Dracula. Don't look for a sexy creature of the night in this book. Dracula is a horrid, evil beast. When he meets his demise, I didn't feel one iota of sympathy. I was cheering instead. It's refreshing to read about evil vamps without any charisma for once and this from a paranormal romance fanatic.
This book is a delicious work to have read. I'm glad I attempted it when I could fully appreciate its genius. I freely admit when I read it in high school, I wasn't ready for it.
It took me the better part of the week, but I found myself eager to keep reading, despite the somewhat antiquated language. I wanted to see how things would unfold. You might think, "Well Dracula is old hat. I've seen many vampire movies. It's all the same. You should read this book if you're a vampire fan. You will find a resonance that is lacking in most of the modern vampire fare, with its classic setting, genuine characters, and the tangible essence of the unearthly evil of the vampire.
And to think that Stoker wasn't quite as glutted on the rich milk of the vampire legends as us modern vamp fans are. Maybe that's why this book felt so authentic to me. Shelves: fiction , he-says , classics , horror , traditionally-published , favorites , irish-author , published No man knows till he experiences it, what it is to feel his own life-blood drawn away into the veins of the woman he loves.
I say "seems" because I swear I've read it before. However, that would have been ages ago. Or a byproduct of seeing 10 million different Dracula interpretations before the age of O So it was fresh and relatively new to me. I was surprised by the twists and turns. I thought I would be able to reasonably pre No man knows till he experiences it, what it is to feel his own life-blood drawn away into the veins of the woman he loves.
I thought I would be able to reasonably predict the whole plot - and I couldn't. Let's talk about major issues, because review space is limited and I believe everyone knows the basics of the plot. Evil vampire, blood-sucking fiend, lives in Transylvania, moves to London, and fucks with the wrong people. Did NOT know who he was fucking with, as Riddick would say.
LOL You know the drill. Besides having status updates - with many quotes continued in the comments, I had copious notes and also a running list of vocabulary words that I learned from Dracula. Sometimes I'd only read one or two pages in a day and just let them simmer inside me.
I've been thinking about Dracula non-stop for about 11 days now. It's been my constant companion these last 11 days. I didn't leave home without it! LOL I sometimes think we must be all mad and that we shall wake to sanity in strait-waistcoats. You knew I'd start with that, right? Non-stop explicit sexist bullshit. Yes, I understand that this was Please don't lecture me in the comments about presentism.
I was surprised the sexism was so very blatant. There is a lot of talk - by all characters, male and female, about "brave men" and "weak, poor women who are just frail creatures" who "can't stand strain" and should be shielded from the world and from the truth. Men are praised for being strong and brave and if a man is particularly brave, he's described as all man.
Let's talk about Mina Murray-Harker. Harker is better out of it. Things are quite bad enough for us, all men of the world, and who have been in many tight places for our time; but it is not place for a woman, and if she had remained in touch with the affair, it would in time infallibly have wrecked her.
She holds sexist myths and sexist beliefs very close to her heart. She even blames Eve and the "apple" for women's "inherently sinful nature" at one point!
I hate that shit. I could not resist the temptation of mystifying him a bit - I suppose it is some of the taste of the original apple that remains still in our mouths - so I handed him the shorthand diary.
Both Mina Murray-Harker and Lucy Westenra are complete angels: good, sweet, pure, kind, "motherly" beings whom men almost literally worship. Lucy gets three marriage proposals in one day, and even the men she rejects swear undying devotion and fealty to her.
Mina fares just the same. Every single male who comes into contact with these women prostrate themselves and declare their undying devotion. And not in a sexual way! There's a need to have a woman to protect and champion and care for. And she provides her services as a stenographer, a shoulder to cry on, and a cheerful and beautiful presence to boost the men's spirits. Now, you may think that this book is a sexist piece of shit, but I was actually surprised and impressed with Mina.
She's smart, capable, and features prominently in the book. Van Helsing praises her as having "a man's brain. Which brings me to another point. A very large subplot here is the interaction of Jonathan Harker and Mina. Once privy to Jonathan's every thought and experience, Mina's position shifts when the other men encourage Jonathan to stop talking to Mina about vampires and the work they're doing to hunt Dracula completely, leaving her in the dark and cutting her out of their once coed meetings.
Jonathan does it, convinced it's the right thing to do, although he feels inside that it's wrong somehow. This is the man who, just before proposing to Mina, states that there should be no secrets or hiding between spouses and gives her his journal so that she knows all.
But he does it - and is punished severely for it. After that, Mina once again resumes an active role in the groups activities - as it should be, her fighting by their side. Even though it may have been unintentional on Stoker's part, I was overall pleased with how things turned out, especially for a book written in Is this a feminist text?
It is not. I don't want to give you the wrong idea, it is NOT. But how about I file it in the 'not as bad as I thought it was going to be' category on the topic of feminism? You have Jonathan Harker - Solicitor who is the first in the novel to encounter Dracula.
I thought he was a complete ninny and think Mina could have done much better in picking a husband, but oh well. Quincey P. Morris - Texan. Very fond of guns and shooting things. If America can go on breeding men like that, she will be a power in the world indeed. John Seward - Psychologist who runs a mental asylum. Smarter and more badass than either Morris or Harker or Holmwood.
Practical and straightforward. I always thought Mina should have married him instead of that nitwit Jonathan Harker. Arthur Holmwood - Rich.
Engaged to Lucy Westenra. My life is hers, and I would give the last drop of blood in my body for her. An appetite like a cormorant. Welp, that's a new one. Arthur says I am getting fat. Arthur can go fuck himself. What is this, James Bond? Fuck that shit. Abraham Van Helsing - Badass name for a badass man. This was the only man I was interested in in the book.
Intelligent, ruthless, gets shit done - but is still a kind, loving and polite person. This is who I would be making eyes at if I were in London at the time. What is my point of listing all these men? So you can discuss whether they are a.
LOL No. I mean, obviously I am always going to discuss that. But, the reason I'm bringing up the men here is because of their close friendship. Holmwood, Morris and Seward served together in Korea, for crying out loud. Excuse me? Yeah, I know. It makes the book sound more like it's taking place in the s or s than the s, but that makes it all the better.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. The name's Plissken. Stoker making these men brothers-in-arms in more ways than one! People who have fought together have a unique bond and trust with each other, and I think that makes these men in particular teaming up again once more - all the more potent.
They unconsciously fall into their old rapport and positions, and, led by Van Helsing, make a stellar team. Mina says that perhaps we are the instruments of ultimate good. Thank God! How can women help loving men when they are so earnest, and so true, and so brave!
What can it not do when it is properly applied; and what might it do when basely used! I felt so thankful that Lord Godalming is rich, and that both he and Mr. Morris, who also has plenty of money, are willing to spend it so freely. For if they did not, our little expedition could not start, either so promptly or so well equipped, as it will within another hour.
Being brave and willing to die fighting vampires is one thing, but it's almost worthless without money for supplies, transportation, and constantly bribing people for information the way our heroes had to in this book. I'm so proud of Stoker for bringing this up. Good job! However, I did not find the bloodsucking in this novel to be erotic at all, and therefore was undisturbed by it.
I know that in this would be considered very erotic bloodsucking - but in , to a pretty jaded vampire-fiction-reader, not so much.
This was a relief to me, I was able to read the blood-sucking sections of the book without being too grossed out. It was more like animals feeding than anything sexual. However, this book DID surprise me by making me genuinely horrified and grossed out. But it wasn't the bloodsucking, it was the vampire killing. I have a real thing, apparently, against mutilating and desecrating dead bodies.
The scenes of "we're going to open up her coffin! We're going to stake her through the heart! Then chop off her head, cut out her heart, and stuff her mouth with garlic! It was very horrifying and gross to me. I felt like they were violating the corpses and violating the very sanctity of death by doing this. I was rather shocked, I had no idea I even thought sanctity of death was a belief of mine until they were gleefully beheading cadavers.
O Anyway, that was the true horror of the novel in my eyes. Not the vampires. Very frustrating. When the Brides approach the men seductively, the men are all over that. Jonathan is ready to strip down and party when the brides show up kneeling in front of him and licking their lips seductively, and Van Helsing himself is not unaffected. They totally want those women on some level. But if it's Lucy or Mina or a woman who is supposed to be their "pure wife and mother stereotype," the men react with revulsion and disgust when lustful tendencies are shown.
Good luck on Jonathan and Mina ever reproducing if Jonathan's reaction to Mina coming on to him is one of horror and revulsion. He probably only wants to have sex with all the lights off and missionary position, ten-thrusts-and-then-roll-off-her kind of thing. Probably with his eyes screwed shut the whole time.
Poor Mina. I told her not to marry that ninny! And Lucy, goodness gracious. She was a bit sexual even as a "pure maiden," fantasizing about marrying three men at a time and shit, thank goodness she view spoiler [died hide spoiler ] before having sex with Holmwood. I can't imagine she'd be happy in that marriage. He called her fat - what an asshole!
Stoker uses this word 12 times in this novel and it gets seriously annoying. Sometimes it's multiple times on the same page.
It's as if he doesn't know of another word to describe a sexual woman. Which is weird, because to me this more describes a certain body type than an attitude, but I looked it up in MW and it says that one meaning of the word is "giving pleasure to the senses," so I guess it works.
I am alone in the castle with those awful women. Mina is a woman, and there is naught in common. They are devils of the Pit! I shall not remain alone with them I'm always rather hesitant to pick up a book considered a classic and written over a hundred years ago, but Stoker delivers.
He uses a lot of modern wording and phrases, the book absolutely speeds along - it's never boring and he doesn't get bogged down describing the scenery for 10 pages. That being said, I learned a lot of new words reading this: it was a veritable treasure trove of vocabulary. Here's my list: Foreknowledge, missal, unpunctual, prepossessing, perforce, patronymic, saturnine, demoniac not demonic, demoniac!
He uses it 9 times - get used to seeing it! Look at how much richer my vocabulary is now! I am a rich woman! It is odd that a thing which I have been taught to regard with disfavour and as idolatrous should in a time of loneliness and trouble be of help.
Is that there is something in the essence of the thing itself, or that it is a medium, a tangible help, in conveying memories of sympathy and comfort? This book is strongly pro-Catholic and Catholic doctrine and beliefs are presented as the truth.
Notice Van Helsing's liberal use of the Host Wafers - he hands them out like candy. Holy water. Even noted Protestants like Harker are wearing crucifixes by the end of the novel. I don't think this is proselytizing, exactly, but there's definitely a strong Catholic flavor and undertone to the novel. Of course, Catholicism wins the day and provides Harker and his friends with the strength and tools to defeat evil, so ending the novel on a strong pro-Catholic note. Some people claim that this book is anti-Semitic - I don't feel that it is.
But one of the most enjoyable things about Dracula is that everyone reads the book differently and brings their own interpretations and experiences to the text. It's been claimed as anti-Semitic, queer, homophobic, sexual, anti-sex, feminist, anti-feminist, etc. Dracula and the people who fight him can be stand-ins for anything and anybody, apparently. Choose your own hot points after reading the novel. You can see I chose "feminist" and "pro-Catholic," but - much like the Bible - you can twist and turn the text until it says what you WANT it to say.
I mean, some of the things Dracula did in this novel were obviously just because he enjoys messing with Harker and tormenting him. They be nowt but air-blebs! They, an' all grims an'signs an' warnin's, be all invented by parsons an' illsome beuk-bodies an' railway touters to skeer an' scunner hafflin's, an' to get folks to do somethin' that they don't other incline to do. And what's even worse is that Stoker doesn't have to do it.
Van Helsing speaks in a very distinct and "foreign" type of English, and yet Stoker never resorts to breaking down his words into atrociously spelled ones. Here's an example of how Van Helsing speaks: "He throws no shadow; he make in the mirror no reflect He has the strength of many in his hand He can transform himself to wolf He can come in mist which he create He come on moonlight rays as elemental dust..
He become so small He can, when once he find his way, come out from anything or into anything, no matter how close it be bound or even fused up with fire I wish he'd done that for the working-class side characters!
I am so happy that I own a copy, it is going to be read and re-read over and over again, I can tell you that. I was so happy and pleased with this book - and it's so hit-or-miss with classics that I had no idea what to expect. I highly recommend this to anyone who has an interest in it.
Van Helsing, are you mad? Happy Halloween! How come that's never shown in any film?!?!?!?! This is a National Geographic feature on a Romanian people living in the Carpathians and in the Transylvanian Alps etc.
You can read about them, see pictures of them, and hear them sing. It will really give you a more vivid and nuanced picture of what Jonathan Harker is seeing and hearing while traveling through Transylvania. Make sure to check out the left side in order to access Photo Gallery and Multimedia where you can hear them singing! Also, Map.
View all 61 comments. Click here to watch a video review of this book on my channel, From Beginning to Bookend. Despite being hailed " the most famous figure of seductive evil " in literature, Count Dracula proves to be neither scary nor seductive. This was neither as bad as I assumed it would be or nor?
Much as I love receiving real mail, whether it's a letter, present, post card, or even just a book I ordered Shucks, for me? Thanks, me! This is especially true when a lot of what you're reading is the journals of a bunch of people you'd never even want to have passing conversations with, Dr. Van Helsing and Dr. Sewa This was neither as bad as I assumed it would be or nor? Seward being obvious exceptions. Regardless, this is one of those books that fall under my largely arbitrary and completely self-imposed "Must Read Before I'm Dead" list.
In the midst of being asphyxiated by Proustian self-reckoning, I decided to take a break from being challenged and read something light. You know, like a Gothic novel about an immortal Vlad Tepes and his baby-eating whore-beasts.
It's funny what pop culture'll do to ya. I'd heard over and over again that this was like the Book of Genesis for the whole Twilight romancing the undead thing that weirds me out anew with each internet-drenched day. A lovelorn Oldman, a sexually-repressed and reincarnated Ryder, absinth, slow-dancing in a castle with candles and string-music and shit, vampire nipple-sucking, orgasm-inducing illnesses, etc. Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. Turns out, the movie's entire romantic twist on the story was really just artistic license on roids, and all Mina is to Dracula is a leisurely Sunday brunch.
I don't mean to insinuate that I was disappointed by this difference between book and screen as, needless to say, I have yet find myself reaching for the 19th-century literary fiction shelf when I feeeeeel like maaakin' lurrrrve.
Still, I think it's a distinction which inquiring minds may appreciate knowing before committing to this occasionally exciting but largely sloggy story. The good parts were great, but the last ish pages-- appropriately set on a bunch of fucking boats just inching their way along the river--moved so slowly, became so tedious that I just felt like screaming "Christ Almighty, Dracula, would you just eat these fuckers already?
The first half is fun, though! Oh, and how dare you keep Tom Waits locked up in a cage. That's it, I'm calling your mother. View all 56 comments. Oct 29, J. Keely rated it liked it Shelves: novel , uk-and-ireland , reviewed , gothic , horror. Almost every author will fall into one of two camps: the active, and the reactive.
The active author looks at the world around them and decides to write about what they see. They sit down and think: "I'm going to write a story, the subtext of which will provide my analysis of Victorian sexual mores". They then construct the story around this theme, creating characters to show different aspects and constructing a plot which moves from general observations to specific insights.
Then there are the r Almost every author will fall into one of two camps: the active, and the reactive. Then there are the reactive authors. These tend to sit down to write a story without necessarily thinking about what the characters or story mean. Reactive authors will often still touch on the same themes as active authors, but instead of deliberate explorations, we get the author's gut reactions.
Since Stoker is a reactive author, we do not get a deliberate analysis of the New Woman: we don't get a view of how she came about, of what drives her or differentiates her, or of what she might mean for the future of sexual politics. Instead, we get the reactive view: a certain thrill in the sexual freedom she represents, but in the end, she is condemned for being frightening--she is too difficult to control, she does not fit in.
The reactive view is nebulous, switching back and forth, never getting to the heart of the matter. Stoker does not include the New Woman because he understands her, but because she troubles him. This applies equally to his other recurrent themes: foreign vs. British identity, homosexual and other non-familial desire, scientific innovation, and ancient mysticism.
He includes these things not because he has some insight to reveal to the reader, but because they are concepts he cannot cease bringing up. They are a part of his world, and so he depicts them.
These depictions shift and change with his reactions: homosexuality is first condemned, then pitied, then hinted at enticingly, then condemned again. It is one of many things which Stoker desires to speak about, to puzzle through, something which both intrigues and unsettles him, which he cannot help but return to whenever he considers humanity.
It is a habit formed by deep emotional connections and powerful memories. He is lost somewhere between the grotesque fall of his former friend Oscar Wilde and his lifelong worship of Wordsworth, whose celebration of homosexuality was an open secret.
Unlike Byron, Shelley, and Polidori, who inspired Stoker's tale of Gothic horror, Stoker is not certain what he thinks about the world he lives in. He does not have a philosophy or a voice, he is just a man trying to make it through a world which he cannot come to terms with.
It is not an ideal situation for his characters, who must shift with the movement of the tides. The only consistent personality is Van Helsing, who is too ridiculous and overblown to get lost in the text. The others all move from one extreme to the other: now subverting Victorian ways, now upholding them. The longer the story goes on, the more they become a collection of names, losing any distinct identity. That manuscript, now owned by Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen , begins on page This raises a question: what was on the first pages?
What was considered too real, too frightening, for publication? Bram Stoker left breadcrumbs; you need only know where to look. Some of those clues were discovered in a recently translated first edition of Dracula from Iceland titled Makt Myrkranna , or Power of Darkness. Within that first edition, Bram left not only his original preface intact, but parts of his original story — outside the reach of his U. Then there were his notes, his journals, other first editions worldwide.
Unable to tell his story as a whole, he spread it out where, much like his famous vampire, it never died, only slept, waited. Dacre Stoker is the great-grandnephew of Bram Stoker and the international bestselling co-author of Dracula: The Undead. He manages the Bram Stoker Estate. Together, they are the authors of the novel Dracul , available now, the research for which informed this piece.
The tower was not destroyed until Contact us at letters time. Abraham Stoker - the Irish writer who wrote the classic horror story 'Dracula' in By Dacre Stoker and J. Get our History Newsletter. Put today's news in context and see highlights from the archives. Please enter a valid email address. Please attempt to sign up again. Sign Up Now.
0コメント