I don't understand the problem people have with rewrites of Dracula that humanize him. Yes, Dracula in the original book is a pure representation of evil. But like Carmilla he is a fictional and almost mythological figure at this stage who evolves with the times. The myth of the vampire has changed, so it is logical that Dracula himself follows this model. The book will still exist, so what's the problem ? The same goes for offering him a romance, whether or not it is with a rewriting of the character of Mina or an another invented female character, or sometimes a woman linked to the Van helsing lineage, or even Van helsing changed directly into a woman !
Even Jonathan himself for exemple in order to explore a homosexuality or bisexuality in the story of Dracula ! Strangely I always see fewer people revolting when Jonathan is placed as a romantic interest. I totally see where that's coming from, but the fact is that their relationship isn't good in the original material either.
As for the problem of Mina, a strong female character, apparently having her strong characteristics erased when she is made Dracula's lover... I don't agree.
After all, it all depends on how the thing is done. Yes, the Mina from the 1992 film is not the one from the book (which is far from being a flawless representation of a strong woman... Yes, for the time when the book was released, it works, but in our time modern era, there are flaws apparently, as with most works dating back a certain number of years), but she still remains a strong female character in her own way and morally ambiguous in this adaptation. It's just a different version. I particularly liked the version of Mina in the canceled series of 2013. These 3 versions of Mina are all strong women on different levels.
Don't make me say what I didn't say. I love the original version of Dracula, and I really hope one day to have a more or less faithful adaptation, but the rewritings of the characters of Dracula and Mina are not to be demonized. I also think that we will surely continue in the future to have versions where Mina and Dracula are associated together as lovers, as other times not. Maybe one day we'll even have a version with Dracula and Jonathan officially partnered as lovers. Who knows ? And everything will simply depend on the writing of the characters. On the other hand, yes, I am a little exasperated by the tendency to make Jonathan a character either bland or an asshole in certain adaptations. Give me the adorable Harker from the book for a change please... Anyway, these are my thoughts on the various adaptations of the Dracula myth !
67 notes
·
View notes
Dracula (2013) BTS Katie McGrath Screencaps + Lucy & Jayne Deleted Scene
Includes
- Featurettes
- Interview (YouTube)
- Lucy Westenra Deleted Scene
41 notes
·
View notes
heard you guys like dracula. which iteration of dracula are you quiz. warning not all results are made equally ♡
329 notes
·
View notes
His Father Twice Over?
Johnathan Rhys Meyers played Henry VIII in The Tudors (2007).
He also played the OG vampire Dracula on NBC'S Dracula (2013)
So...
Henry Fitzroy is the bastard son of Henry VIII and he is a vampire...
Does that make Johnathan Rhys Meyers his father twice over?
7 notes
·
View notes
Y’all…I have discovered a book that our fandom would enjoy. It’s called Reluctant Immortals by Gwendolyn Kiste and it’s about Lucy Westenra as the gay vampire we know she is but it takes place some hundred years after Dracula so Mina is dead :(
57 notes
·
View notes
when you say “2013 dracula” do you mean the tv series that was on amazon prime? (asking because i am intrigued + a Vampire Media Completionist)
I do, the NBC one. It was really terrible but occasionally hilarious.
Before answering this ask I went back to look at what I posted about the show while it was airing a decade ago and I couldn't make much sense of what I'd written, which I think says a lot about the plot. Most of what I remember is:
Dracula as fake Nikola Tesla
Mina who wants to be a doctor
Unreciprocated Lucy/Mina
It was really racist
9 notes
·
View notes
Dear Lady of the Manners, I saw the other anon's question about 2020 Netflix Dracula, and I am driven to curiosity about a different show, did you happen to watch the 2013 Dracula TV series starring Jonathan Rhys Meyers and if so what did you think of it?
AHAHAHAHAAH.
I watched the 1st episode and live-tweeted it. My older brother live-tweeted watching me watch it, because I had a LOT of absinthe over the course of that hour, and at one point was waving one of my copies of Dracula at the screen while sputtering incoherently.
It could have been a fun show if they hadn't tried to paste on Dracula. Steampunk + vampire nonsense? Sure, it would have been great! But when they tried to make it about Dracula, I Could Not Even With That.
43 notes
·
View notes
dracula (2013) ⚜︎ 1.06: "of monsters and men"
418 notes
·
View notes
Let's be clear. The 1992 Mina is different from the original Mina in the book, but she still follows the line of strong female character, albeit in a different way.
On the other hand, I'm going to immediately stop people's excuses about "She loves Dracula who raped and killed Lucy ?! How could she be a strong woman ?! She is definitely not !" So... it's just called being morally ambiguous. Mina herself recognizes in the story how awful it is !
Dracula is a monster in this film and that is never denied. We simply also give the monster more human aspects, with also a rather ambiguous statement on religion. But that's not the point, let's get back to Mina.
Honnestly, I think what also bothers many people in this adaptation is that Mina is not an irreproachable virtuous woman. Well yes, we cannot say that Mina accepting her love for a merciless killer and rapist of her best friend is very moral. It's the point. However, she is still aware that it is bad. She recognizes it.
On the other hand, I find it crazy that people, just because of this aspect, and because she is very different from the Mina of the book, this version of Mina is not a woman with strong aspects in her own way. It is, just in another, more discreet way.
Particularly through sexual liberation / taking charge of one's own sexuality. Seriously. I never see anyone talking about the fact that Mina clearly represents active and liberating sexuality in this adaptation. All that with a morally ambiguous ending since in the final ending of the film, Mina does not join anyone and remains alone, whereas the first alternative version had her return to her role as Harker's wife. But instead I just simply see that she is reduced to an uninteresting romantic interest. Isn't it rather you who reduces his character to that in fact ?
Mina in the NBC series version is also decreed as incapable of being a strong woman simply because she is also Dracula's lost love. Except... it's a bit sexist to say that in a rewriting of the Dracula myth, Mina loses any possibility of being a feminist female character if she becomes Dracula's lover ? This is completely stupid. Simply because it's another version ?!
Also, I hope that if you like Mina, you will also tolerate the versions where she is not married to Jonathan ?
And if you find the 1992 version of Mina revolting, well I don't dare imagine what you must think of the one in the 1931 adaptation where she appears ? Or there she is simply characterized as a weak and unconscious victim...
12 notes
·
View notes
it's time to play my favorite game called "is this a picture or a drawing" wherein i gaslight my friends into thinking it's an actual picture
ok bye gonna reread my dearest mina for whoever knows how many times already 🏃🏻♀️
28 notes
·
View notes