Like Sherlock Holmes, Robin Hood, and Batman, Dracula is an iconic fictional character that seems to have a new adaptation every other year. He’s had over 200 films created about his conquests and been portrayed by some of the finest actors in the industry. Netflix collaborated with the BBC on its own series, co-written by Steven Moffat, who is mostly known for Doctor Who.
Over the course of three episodes, the series explores the story laid out in Bram Stoker’s horror masterpiece Dracula written in 1897, from Jonathan Harker’s arrival at Castle Dracula to the famous vampire’s eventual pilgrimage to London. Its strengths are rooted in its provocative imagery, strong acting, and modern horror techniques, while its failings are most salient when it tries to put too unique a “spin” on the timeless tale. Here are 5 things the series got right and 5 it could’ve done better.
GOT RIGHT: COUNT DRACULA
At 6'4", Claes Bang has the impressive stature to give Count Dracula an intimidating screen presence. But it’s the way he prowls the screen licking his chops that lets you know this is a role he’s sunk his teeth into. He captures Dracula’s inherent continental charm, as well as his ferocity.
Dracula is his most dangerous when he is presented as a combination of seductive and feral, and Bang never lets us forget his Dracula is an apex predator. The Netflix series is careful to include Dracula’s transformation from an old decrepit vampire to a young and powerful one, an event most adaptations gloss over.
COULD’VE DONE BETTER: THE TONE
Equal parts scary and comedic, Dracula at times doesn’t know what sort of series it wants to be. Count Dracula stalks the screen throwing out one-liners that wouldn’t go amiss in What We Do In The Shadows, a series which actively lampoons vampire stereotypes, while simultaneously demanding to be taken seriously.
Certain scenes will leave audiences laughing out loud, although it is not always clear whether that is intentional. There are certainly gags thrown in for fans of dark humor like Evil Dead, but they occasionally undermine the peril that the series spends so much time building up.
GOT RIGHT: THE HORROR
As vampire aficionados surely know, creatures of the night lend themselves very well to horror, though that isn’t always communicated by watching old Hammer Studios films. They contain dread and a sense of menace, but discerning horror audiences today don’t find them all that scary.
That’s where the injection of modern horror techniques really pays off in Dracula. There are the usual effective uses of dimly lit corridors and eerie music, but they are combined with jump scares and some truly gruesome imagery that turns what could have been a stuffy period piece into something truly terrifying.
COULD’VE DONE BETTER: THE PACING
The first episode in the series proceeds at a lope, fast enough to keep viewers entertained, but just slow enough to let them savor the details of the sets, cinematography, and story, all of which have been assembled with great care to highlight their source material.
The second episode, which takes place almost entirely on the ship Demeter, is where the problem of pacing comes in. All of the voracity and energy of the previous episode grinds to a halt when it should be amping up, as Dracula picks off passengers one by one. The third and final episode doesn’t even pretend to try to offer reliable storytelling and fails to capture the magic of the first.
GOT RIGHT: THE CASTING
No one can fault the series for its casting, which is spot on in almost every respect. Claes Bang makes a convincing Count Dracula, seeming to relish every chance he gets to chew the scenery. Dolly Wells is his perfect foil in Sister Agatha, an incredibly smart and competent nun who uses science and faith to hunt him.
John Heffernan as Jonathan Harker is given a lot more to work with than the character typically has had in previous screen adaptations, and the rest of the ensemble (which features a lot of young stars) each do what they can with uneven roles.
COULD’VE DONE BETTER: THE FINAL EPISODE
At the conclusion of episode two, it’s apparent Dracula is not in Kansas anymore. He’s in England, 123 years after the Demeter sank. He awakens from slumbering in his coffin at the bottom of the sea to find himself in a world of mobile phones, Door Dash, and social media. Selecting victims has never been easier!
Jonathan Harker never made it to England as he did in the novel, but the Jonathan Harker Foundation exists, and it is full of researchers that have been waiting for the moment when Dracula resurfaced. The vampire encounters a relative of Sister Agatha’s (who happens to look exactly like her), who apparently knows how to kill him for good. It’s uneven, with red herrings thrown in at inopportune times, and would have done well to just follow the source material than have a big “twist.”
GOT RIGHT: THE SET DESIGN/CINEMATOGRAPHY
There’s no denying that Dracula looks beautiful. Every lush frame of the series is impressive, the sort of decaying opulence one would expect from a story that focuses on sensual gluttony. Count Dracula’s castle is appropriately cavernous, filled with clues to his origins.
The imagery is strong and visceral, featuring bright fountains of blood, swarms of flies, and religious iconography. They create moments that are provocative without words and become a feast for the eyes. The lighting is also a key component and doesn’t lose its potency even in the different time periods.
COULD’VE DONE BETTER: MINA MURRAY
In the novel and in other adaptations, Mina Murray has always played an important role in the story of Count Dracula. As Jonathan Harker’s fiance, she is both a central character and the object of ardor. In Francis Ford Coppola’s version of the story, Dracula pursues her because she resembles his former wife when he was mortal.
Mina is featured only in the first episode and is dismissed by Dracula as a figure of no importance. Her legacy continues, as audiences come to find out she started the Jonathan Harker Foundation to track Dracula’s movements through the centuries and discover a means to destroy him.
GOT RIGHT: BLOOD IS LIVES/VAMPIRE FEEDING
At the heart of any vampire story is blood. It’s their primary sustenance, but in Count Dracula’s case, it also tells an amazing story. He is a connoisseur, who feeds on particular people’s “flavor,” and in doing so, he acquires their memories and even the occasional physical mannerism.
It stands to reason that Count Dracula would live such an extraordinarily long life without being outwitted and killed because he pays attention to the blood of his victims. He learns from his prey and adapts, because “blood is lives,” and he savors every drop.
COULD’VE DONE BETTER: LUCY WESTENRA
In this adaptation, Lucy Westenra is not best friends with Mina (she wouldn’t have known her). She’s engaged to Quincey Morris, not Lord Arthur Holmwood, and while Jack Seward does love her, and helps in killing her once she becomes the Bloofer Lady, it’s her connection to Dracula that is the biggest detour for the character.
She’s tied to his greatest weakness - her 2020 apathy means she has no fear of death, which as it turns out is his secret shame. Which would be credible, except in the same episode, she’s actually very terrified of being burned alive, which seems to be exactly what Dracula wants. Her grating personality is such that most viewers will want her dead.
