Dracula by Bram Stoker illustrates a fearful character that has been manipulated in all kinds of perplexing ways through a range of mediums. Earlier adaptations between 1930-1970, Universal Productions conveyed Dracula as an irrefutably heinous creature, likewise, in Hammer Films (1950-1970) except with further implementations of violence and sex. As times have changed however, we witness Dracula change from a character of abjection and abhor to one with compassion, human becoming in Francis Ford Coppola’s film, Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992) and Genndy Tartakovsky’s film, Hotel of Transylvania (2012). However, a more recent Universal Production adaptation, Dracula Untold (2014) may prove otherwise. Overall, with influences of context, Count
…show more content…
That being, the production of Dracula’s character relied heavily on the director’s understanding of the novel and his/her duty to produce a suitable Dracula for his/her audience. Consequently, directors had to consider respecting values and customs and recognise the possibility of upsetting their audience with an over-the-top character. The 1930s had been a time where media was confined due to the dominance of religion and sensitivity within the audience. It explains why Universal Productions demonstrated Dracula as emotionless, merciless and essentially - dead. The notion of portraying him otherwise would have sparked frenzy in the church and for the production crew. In conjunction, the crucifix was a prominent prop in the early 1900 films since the notion of vampires was considered as the epitome of blasphemy. Hence, why it was represented as apotropaic and Dracula, unhuman. However, religion tying in with vampires was later disregarded in a modern appropriation, Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992). Coppola dismissed the vital biblical relationship between vampires and Christianity by incorporating a crucifix bursting into flames by Dracula’s hand accompanied with the dialogue: “Do not put your faith in such trinkets of deceit!” It is evident that religion is no longer as powerful as it was portrayed to be in the earlier films – reflective of the changed views of religion by 1992. As society evolves, the media has become more daring with what they show on the screen, that is to say, that the earlier adaptations of Dracula can act as the very baseline to the extents in which modern appropriations of Dracula
That being, the production of Dracula’s character relied heavily on the director’s understanding of the novel and his/her duty to produce a suitable Dracula for his/her audience. Consequently, directors had to consider respecting values and customs and recognise the possibility of upsetting their audience with an over-the-top character. The 1930s had been a time where media was confined due to the dominance of religion and sensitivity within the audience. It explains why Universal Productions demonstrated Dracula as emotionless, merciless and essentially - dead. The notion of portraying him otherwise would have sparked frenzy in the church and for the production crew. In conjunction, the crucifix was a prominent prop in the early 1900 films since the notion of vampires was considered as the epitome of blasphemy. Hence, why it was represented as apotropaic and Dracula, unhuman. However, religion tying in with vampires was later disregarded in a modern appropriation, Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992). Coppola dismissed the vital biblical relationship between vampires and Christianity by incorporating a crucifix bursting into flames by Dracula’s hand accompanied with the dialogue: “Do not put your faith in such trinkets of deceit!” It is evident that religion is no longer as powerful as it was portrayed to be in the earlier films – reflective of the changed views of religion by 1992. As society evolves, the media has become more daring with what they show on the screen, that is to say, that the earlier adaptations of Dracula can act as the very baseline to the extents in which modern appropriations of Dracula