Count Dracula

Like most people on here I also thought this BBC version was the most faithful adaptation of Stoker's original novel. Granted, they have changed a few details; for example, Mina and Lucy are sisters, the characters of Quincy and Arthur have been amalgamated and Jonathan visits the Count at his castle in Bohemia rather than Transylvania, but these minor deviations aside, I think even Stoker himself would have said this version was fairly close to what he had in mind while writing his famous novel.

Being from the UK I have grown up with the BBC and the programmes it produced in the 1970's. Watching 'Count Dracula' as an adult on DVD was, in many ways, a very pleasant nostalgic journey back to my childhood. Yes, I agree the budget did impose certain restrictions on the production...fake bats and obvious stage sets instantly spring to mind.....along with the mix of video and film but, to me, instead of being negative points these so called 'flaws' all added to its charm. That said, it also had some genuinely outstanding points; it is truly creepy, fantastically acted, perfectly cast and and had excellent script. The undoubted highlight for me has to be the location filming in Whitby cemetery; the scenes of Lucy being attacked in the graveyard were actually filmed in the very graveyard that inspired Stoker when he was writing the novel back in the 1890's. Cut to Francis Ford Copploa's 1992 version....which also makes a claim to being a faithful adaptation of the novel... and it doesn't even mention Whitby at all.

As for Louis Joudan, in my opinion, he is simply the best ever Dracula; understated, sophisticated, menacing and arrogant. Both Lugosi and Oldman were good but they were a bit too camp and shouted their evil from the rooftops. Jourdan, on the other hand, whispered in your ear and chilled the very depths your soul without you even really knowing why. In a word, genius. Another role worth noting is Jack Shepherd as Renfield. Again, not a typical over the top portrayal of a madman in an asylum but rather a somewhat more complex character; a normal man tortured by very specific moments of madness. The scene when he begs Dr. Seward to release him is truly, truly magnificent.

I'll not hide the fact that I am a Dracula fan. I love Stoker's original novel and I love the Victorian Gothic ambiance that it contains. While the BBC's version doesn't quite match Coppola's film for atmosphere and special effects, it certainly makes up for it with its script, the quality of the acting and its faithfulness to the original novel. It has to be, without doubt, my single favourite version of the Dracula story.

Other than Louis Jordan's appearance,apart from his 'hairy palms',this is perhaps the most faithful adaption of Bram Stoker's novel. The acting is firstrate by all with a splendid turn by Frank Finlay as Van Hesling.The BBC's practice of filming exteriors and videotaping interiors is a bit disconcerting,but it's a minor annoyance. Infinitely superior to Coppola's MTV version

One of my favorite horror movies of all time. I saw this movie on PBS when it first premiered back in '77 or '78. I recorded it a couple of years later and have watched it almost every Halloween since. My kids have grown up with this as a tradition. Sometimes we skip a year or two but always come back to this classic.

For me the movie captures the essence of the book. Several of my favorite scenes are not necessarily the most important. In the opening while Jonathan is riding in the carriage and they pass the woman praying at the roadside shrine. Waiting all alone at the pass in the dead of night. The arrival of the Count's carriage. The late dinner with gold table service. The great scene of Jonathan shaving and the Count's sudden appearance unreflected in the mirror and his comment "The problem with mirrors is they don't show enough" as he nonchalantly drops the mirror out the window. Jonathan's growing horror as he begins to realize he's trapped. His escape to the decrepit chapel were he finds the blood stained vampires entranced in their coffins. The dreamy waltz like nightmares of Lucy's seduction. The rose pedals falling. Professor Van Helsling's scene where he's making cocoa; handing the first cup to his guest, joined by another he hands his next cup to him and then again until he's eventually made cocoa for everyone. The scene in the woods with Van Helsling, Mina and the three brides of Dracula (especially the terrorized horses bolting). The return to castle Dracula in the light of day.

Dracula is portrayed as both supernatural and human (never melodramatic or campy), very European, very Old World and of course, very tragic. He even is Biblical in his comments that "I make this world my domain" like Satan going to and fro, to and fro in the world.

For me great stories always have a feeling as if they were going on before we arrived and will continue after we leave. This story is like that. I feel as if the story does indeed go way back. And though it has a logical ending it seems as if it will go on. Truly a classic.

This English version of the classic Stoker novel played on PBS in the late '70's and was one of the better shows that I remember watching on public television at that time. It has a quality that gave it more substance than other versions that I have ever seen. Even the Copella "Dracula", which is centerpieced by a fabulous performance by Gary Oldman, does not have quite the depth that this one did. Like many "Dracula" versions, they have changed the story a bit, but have kept the essential feel of piece

It might be said that Louis Jourdan is miscast here, but I would only say that from the standpoint of age (Jourdan was nearly 60). The man has an aura and appeal that draw women in. Even in his 60's when he played the villain in "Octopussy", he was still sexy in a continental playboy sort of way. If he had been maybe ten or 20 years younger he would have been better.

Susan Penhaligon and Judy Bowker will probably be familiar due to the fact that at one point in time they were the English babes of the moment. While Penhaligon is a reasonable actress she wasn't able to rise above it like Jane Seymour. In this show, both give interesting performances. Bowker has a few great moments where her character struggles with the pull she feels for Dracula and her love for her husband.

The great, but underrated Frank Finlay does a fabulous job as Van Helsing.

PBS needs to bring this production back on video or DVD. It would be interesting to see it again. While the production is filmed in as the average BBC studio style, it still has appeal.

I have a comment for Author: kriitikko from Kirkkonummi, Finland. I will first use his comments and then respond.

"Ironically, the only performance not so faithful to Stoker, comes from Louis Jourdan as Dracula. This however is not a bad thing. Instead of copying Bela Lugosi or Christopher Lee, or playing Dracula more faithfully as a furious warlord (which Jack Palance had done few years earlier in another TV adaptation), Jourdan plays Dracula as calm, calculating demon who seduces his victims by offering them power and eternal life, but who is just coldly using them for his own advantages. In fact Jourdan portraits Dracula as a sort of Anti-Christ creature, who is looking for disciples and going against God. In one of the scenes Van Helsing raises his cross against Dracula and starts to enchant a prayer in Latin, only to receive an arrogant comment from the Count of how prayer always sounds more convincing in Latin. Jourdan may not be most faithful Dracula, but certainly one of the best, making Dracula seem far superior to humans." You are exactly correct. In the novel, Van Helsing states that because Dracula has what he attributes to a be mere "child's mind", that he is "slow to make haste". He uses the Latin term: Festina Lente, which means Hasten slowly or as Van Helsing puts it, "slow to make haste".

This however proves to be Dracula's ultimate downfall.

Though Van Helsing also warned Jonathan that "if he (Dracula) dared to use his full array of his powers, he would have been long beyond our (meaning the vampire hunters) reach".

Thus proving his point. And Dracula's arrogance about believing himself to be vastly superior to mere mortals. He thought himself to be so superior, that in the end they finally defeated him. Because he failed to prepare for the fact that humans in the late 19th Century were better able to combat him, than human contemporaries of his 15th Century.