However, there was another version of Bram Stoker’s Dracula that was significantly different from Nosferatu, and made by a well known company called Hammer Horror. Hammer Horror is an institution associated with the horror genre, as suggested by their name. They made lots of horror films in the fifties and sixties. Their tactic to make profit was to repeat the same stories with the same sets, actors and directors. Although this might sound monotonous and tedious, it actually worked and with that they made noticeable profit. Hammer Horror made one of the many interpretations of Bram Stoker’s Dracula. Unlike Murnau’s Nosferatu, Hammer Horror were able to obtain the rights to the original name for the legendary, recognized vampire: Dracula.
Hammer Horror’s version of Dracula was particularly different from Nosferatu. In Nosferatu, Dracula is portrayed as evil incarnate, a typical villain that feels no emotions and doesn’t have an emotional state. However, in Hammer Horror’s later version, Dracula has been through the process of anthropomorphosis because he has gone from a heartless animal with no feelings to a human-like being with an emotional state. Dracula is psychologically motivated; he is driven by the urge to get revenge for his dead wife which shows that he also feels sadness and has an emotional state like human beings. Despite the fact that he has an emotional state and is doubtlessly depressed, he is always dressed in black, which connotes iniquity and malice. He seeks revenge by getting at Jonathan Harker’s fiancée and turning her into a vampire which shows that although he might have an emotional state, he doesn’t think about his actions and always resorts to violence to solve his emotional problems. The mis-en-scene in the movie could represent the battle of good versus evil because in some cases, when Jonathan Harker and Dracula are both on stage together the lighting alternates from slightly lighter, to slightly darker each time the camera moves from Harker to Dracula’s face and as it alternates, the audience can feel the tension softening and hardening each time which could suggest both good and evil are trying to overcome the other; also the music changes when Dracula is about to perform an evil deed. There are also a number of diagetic sounds including creaking doors and floorboards, water running, and birds singing which suggest that Dracula’s mansion is having its own personal good versus evil battle. This version of Dracula would be more suited to a modern audience than Nosferatu, as it contains dialogue, and it contains real life situations when a person feels the urge to get even or to avenge something or someone. They would have responded with fear to this film, but also they could have sympathized with Dracula for his loss, but some might detest him because of his approach to the matter, eradicating the importance of his loss.
Similarly, the 1992 adaptation of Bram Stoker’s Dracula by Francis Ford Coppola has an equally complex representation of Dracula.
Francis Ford Coppola was born in 1939 in Detroit, USA, but he grew up in a New York suburb in a creative, supportive Italian-American family. His father was a composer and musician, while his mother had been an actress. Francis Ford Coppola graduated with a degree in drama from Hofstra University, and did graduate work at UCLA in filmmaking. He was training as assistant with filmmaker Roger Corman, working in such capacities as soundman, dialogue director, associate producer and, eventually, director of Dementia 13 (1963), Coppola’s first feature film.
In Francis Ford Coppola’s representation of Bram Stoker’s Dracula, he chose to portray a typically evil creature as a complicated, ominous yet sensitive individual. In this interpretation, Dracula apparently has human emotions; he is feeling what humans feel. He tried to suck Jonathan Harker’s fiancée’s blood but is overcome by emotions and memories of his dead wife, and spares her for the time being. He also has human urges, both physically and mentally. But despite how humanlike Dracula may seem in this version of Dracula, he is still surrounded by the obvious evidence that point to the evil part of his person .He is dressed in red and black robes which connote blood and sinister-like things. But his polite voice is used as a withdrawal from his unnatural aura. He has weathered and very pale skin which emphasizes the connotations of blood, and ghostlike hair that match the colour of his skin. Also, his ability to take on any form facilitates the fact that he is a sinister character. Also, the mis-on-scene on various occasions make Dracula seem even more sinister than normal. The music alternates, the lighting is dim on a close up shot which creates a sense of concealment and makes the viewer use their imagination. Despite this, Dracula’s distressed emotional state might make the viewer sympathise with him. This interpretation of Dracula by Francis Ford Coppola would be suitable for an even more modern audience than Nosferatu and Hammer Horror’s version. The viewers of this film will respond to it with a variety of emotions. They might have been frightened of Dracula because of his ability to transform and take on any form which might spark a sense of paranoia within their minds and make them think that anyone around them could be Dracula himself. But they might also sympathise with Dracula because of his traumatic loss, and might feel a connection with him as they might know how he feels, loosing a loved one. They could view him as a strong-willed and self-controlling villain because it is unlikely for a vampire to resist the urge to bite into fresh skin, especially when it is offered to them on a plate just as Jonathan Harker’s wife was to Dracula.
So why are those 3 representations of Bram Stoker’s Dracula so different? I think it’s due to the time when the movies were made. During the time when Nosferatu was made, the technology was terrible and nothing had been invented that could create a half-decent movie. But in Dracula (1952), technology had clearly developed which made it possible to create a movie including advanced special effects and costumes. Furthermore, in Francis Ford Coppola’s version in 1992, the technology had improved even more, making room for a movie that re-defines the quality and meaning of the movie: Dracula. Another reason why representations of Dracula changed overtime because people have come up with new ideas. I think this links in with the idea of what society are scared of, which is another reason why the representations of Dracula have changed overtime. This is because as society becomes scared of new things, then people have to come up with new ideas to satisfy the needs and wants of their audience.
I think that Francis Ford Coppola’s representation of Bram Stoker’s Dracula is the most effective because he portrayed a typically evil being with characteristically no emotions, as a self-controlling and strong willed individual. He turned a villain that is most likely to be a hated icon amongst most people, to something that could draw the feeling of kindness and consideration from the viewers’ hearts, eradicating the fact that he is a blood-sucking villain that deserves to have a stake pushed through his seemingly heartless chest.
