Connect with us

Editorials

“Blood is Lives”: How BBC and Netflix’s “Dracula” Reflects and Subverts a Century-Long Legacy

Published

on

Dracula may be my favorite story ever told. There are sections of the book that are infuriating, to be sure. Not only do we sometimes have to hear people say how greater men are than women at all things, but the female characters are usually the ones saying it. But when it comes to crafting atmosphere, dread and a terrific ensemble cast of characters, Bram Stoker’s Dracula is second to none. You’d think, then, that I would be protective of adaptations; but if anything, it’s the absolute opposite.

Dracula is nearly tied for the single most adapted fictional character in history with Sherlock Holmes. It’s been done to death, sure, but it’s also a story that’s already been told and retold a thousand different ways, so there’s really no wrong way to do it. Whatever new Dracula adaptations come out at this point—and we’ve surely not seen the last of them—it’s incredibly unlikely that they’re going to be better than the greats or worse than Dracula’s Guest. No matter the liberties that are taken, I’d like to think we’re used to it and that these characters can be deconstructed and reassembled in any number of ways.

For BBC and Netflix’s Dracula, let’s start at the beginning. We’re introduced to the protagonist of the first part of the novel, Jonathan Harker, who has arrived at a convent in Hungary looking extremely unwell after his imprisonment in Castle Dracula. The nuns press him for information about what happens to him and he tells them his story as he starts to remember it. The nuns are Sister Agatha, later revealed to be this series’ Van Helsing, and Mina, who was called in by the sisters to see her fiancée and hopefully jog his memory. This sounds off book, and a lot of people have said it is, but it really isn’t. In fact, this whole framing device was one of my favorite things about the series right out of the gate. Jonathan’s time with the nuns, in which he spends months of recovery after his initial horrors at Castle Dracula, is one of the most overlooked portions of the novel and barely ever makes it into any adaptations when it is so worth exploring. This is such a smart approach to telling the story because these are questions that the nuns must have asked him when he first arrived. Even Sister Agatha, though she actually turns out to be our Van Helsing here, is a real character in the book, and not simply invented for the series as I’ve seen many viewers suggest.

Things actually start out incredibly traditional. Jonathan Harker is sent to Castle Dracula where he is to sell property to an enigmatic old Count, slowly realizing that he is being kept prisoner and that the Count never intends him to leave. My favorite thing about this first episode, though, is that it gets less and less and less traditional as it goes on. This is absolutely an episode that starts with Harker and Old Man Dracula and makes you think it’s the story you know, until it isn’t. When it starts to take those unexpected turns, that’s when the show really starts having fun with itself. But even those moments aren’t coming from nowhere, such as the vampire begging for Jonathan’s help lifted from Horror of Dracula.

The back half of that first episode is the most imaginative and fun as Dracula makes his way to the convent, totally uncharted territory now, tossing any notions of what we know to expect from the novel out the window. The nuns are prepared for him, and seeing so many nuns trained for vampire slaying—just in case, too, as none of them have ever actually seen a vampire before—is an incredible moment. Once Dracula and Agatha come face to face, that’s when the backbone of the show is finally established, as these two characters are really the one concrete commonality between the three episodes.

With Jonathan dead and basically out of the picture after the end of that first episode, two of the most prominent key players in this story are off the board. That’s good in the sense that it’s unexpected, but also unfortunate for the fact that this was up to this point one of the adaptations to do best by Jonathan, by far. The weight of his trauma at Castle Dracula and how it informs his character is crucial to his arc, but rarely ever makes it into the movies, usually because those so often seek a romance between Mina and the Count. In that scenario, Jonathan is always the boring preppy boyfriend who can’t hold a candle to her more enigmatic, dark, powerful vampire lover. To see Mina discarded like this is way more of a surprise (and a disappointment) because she’s always the heroine of this story; except of course in some adaptations where she’s name-swapped with Lucy.

The second episode of the series, though, is once again a total fan wish fulfillment. And it’s a wish fulfillment of an entirely different kind. For nearly twenty years, there have been several attempts made to get the film The Last Voyage of Demeter off the ground. Directors like Neil Marshall, David Slade and Marcus Nispel have been attached to it at various points; currently, André Øvredal is attached to direct. The film has long been set to be based on a single chapter in Dracula, completely centered on the doomed Russian freighter transporting the Count from Romania to London. Fans have been excited to see this movie for so long, but it still hasn’t yet come to pass. The decision to have this second episode of this series, keeping in mind that each episode is feature length, completely take place aboard the ship means we kind of finally get to see The Last Voyage of Demeter in some form after all this time. It’s not a big budget studio movie, but it is basically a movie about Dracula picking off the crew of that ill-fated ship en route to London.

Placing Agatha on that boat leads to many changes, as she knows the vampire and what he is capable of and is determined to stop him to save as many people as she can. The biggest change here, and the most sensible one, is the fate of the ship. Infamously, in the novel and most adaptations, the last crew member ties himself to the wheel before he dies to ensure the ship reaches port, because it is his duty. Here, that’s the last thing anyone wants to happen, so it makes every kind of sense for Agatha to offer the alternative that everyone go down with the ship to ensure that the monster is destroyed, because this ship cannot reach port under any circumstances. That then leads us into the controversial twist that seems to be almost universally despised.

BBC Dracula

Before we get there, though, there’s one last bit of fan service in episode two that absolutely has to be addressed and that’s the inclusion of Lord Ruthven. Soft-spoken, mourning the loss of his wife—as she was, after all, his best friend—and at odds with his lover, there’s a self-interest to him that wins out in this survival situation and he effectively becomes a proto-Renfield by the episode’s end, which is a clever nod to his literary history. Lord Ruthven is not actually a character from Dracula, but is incredibly important to the DNA of Dracula all the same. Ruthven originates from the John Polidori short story “The Vampyre,” originally conceived during the same famously fateful Villa Diodati ghost story contest that led Mary Shelley to write Frankenstein. The vampire Ruthven, cruel and vain and manipulative, was based largely on Polidori’s unrequited love for Lord Byron. Which is ironic, as the rest of Polidori’s story was largely ripped off from Byron’s unnamed “Fragment of a Novel.” While we don’t see Ruthven become a vampire, his inclusion is a welcome reference to literary history and the building blocks of this whole story. Little moments like these were particular highlights of the series for me, such as also seeing the Count refer to himself as being from Wallachia, which was the province that the historical Vlad III Dracula was actually Prince of, not Transylvania. They’re totally inconsequential details, but great fun to pick up on throughout the show.

And then we come to the end of the second episode, where everyone’s good faith in this series went completely out the window. Dracula walks onto land and then he is caught in a helicopter spotlight, because it is now revealed that it’s been 123 years since the Demeter went down and he was trapped in his coffin at the bottom of the ocean. From here, the rest of the series plays out in the present day.

I’ve seen plenty of comments, tweets, Facebook posts to know that people absolutely hate this moment and, as a result, mostly seem to hate the third episode as a whole. I do not. There are certainly things I don’t love about it, but this particular decision that made everyone so mad is actually something I’ve been wanting to see for a long time. I love being transported to a different time and place whenever I read Dracula. I love seeing the Victorian costumes and locations of so many different versions on screen. But if more adaptations want to stay true to the core of the book, no matter what else they change, then more adaptations should be modern.

Dracula is fundamentally about on old world folkloric monster being unleashed on the modern world. It was published in 1897, right on the cusp of the 20th century, and Stoker was extremely aware of that. There’s almost a degree of fetishizing modernity in the text; everything from phonographs to the concept of the “New Woman” are either frequently used in the narrative or are discussed by the characters. Just as many modern techniques are used in the fight against Dracula as old world traditions. Before Lucy dies, Van Helsing tries to save her with a blood transfusion, a technique which would not be popularized until a few years later, nearly making Dracula a science fiction novel.

BBC Dracula

With that in mind, it makes absolutely perfect sense for the London section of the novel, where the more modern aspects of the story have always come into play, to be set in the present. It’s refreshing. It completely fits, not only in the context of the series, as it is fundamentally rooted in the entire concept of Dracula as a whole. At first, I was bummed that the final episode would have no Sister Agatha, but the show found a way to reconcile that in a way that made sense within its own internal mythology. The way “blood is lives” had been repeated over and over by Dracula, one would hope it would have some larger context, and this is it; to connect Agatha and her descendant into one body. There are still far less convoluted ways to bring her back, though. I mean, this is a vampire show. The guy could have just bitten her.

We’re also treated to modern takes on central characters to the book like Jack Seward, Lucy Westenra, and Quincey Morris. That last one is exciting because Quincey is notorious for being kept out of adaptations, despite literally being the character to deliver the killing blow to the Count in the book. Quincey’s two main characteristics (courting Lucy and being from Texas) are kept intact while other details are changed: he’s definitely more of a prick, for example, than he ever was in the book. But for the most part, he’s just sidelined. Seward is mostly the same as he’s ever been, in love with Lucy and hoping that just being in love without saying or acting on it will get him what he wants. If anything, Seward gets off too easy. There’s a semi-common theme in Gatiss and Moffat’s work of nice guys being rewarded just for being there. But honestly, I was just waiting (as I always have been with this character, really) for someone to just sit him down and give him the “You can’t make it happen just because you want it to” speech from Pretty in Pink.

Lucy, though, is where the third episode shines. This character has been reinterpreted more than perhaps any other in the book, because despite the fact that she has several letters and diary entries written from her perspective, the book rarely gives Lucy her own voice. She’s constantly building up the men around her and is a perennial plot victim. BBC’s Dracula is not the first to make Lucy an independent free spirit—Coppola’s film did that pretty famously—but it does do something new by giving her so much agency. Most explicitly, there’s the fact that she’s a willing victim of the Count this time. She wants this and it’s her decision, though it doesn’t go the way she (or Dracula) expects. I will admit that it’s not great for the first Lucy who isn’t white to also be the first to see her beauty as a curse she can’t bear to live with, but what I do love is the fact that she gets to comment on the toll of being so constantly adored, which she’s never really gotten to do, and the ways she both does and doesn’t let that objectification define her. That’s been integral to this character from the beginning and was very smartly played with here.

BBC Dracula

The series is full of these smart inversions of the mythology, of the story we think we know, taking unexpected liberties that more often than not make sense, while also being unexpectedly faithful to the source material in other areas. To be honest, the show’s internal mythology—save for the power of the blood—worked much less for me than the clever retelling and updating of the familiar tale. The Harker Institute was a nice way to keep Jonathan’s name going into the third act, but it felt very derivative of—of all things—Dracula 2000. The bits of Dracula’s imprisonment worked largely due to Claes Bang’s witty and electrifying performance, which in general lies somewhere between Frank Langella and Duncan Regehr, so you know it’s great. This section still gave off some uncomfortable echoes of the Dark Universe, in particular the Prodigium organization established in 2017’s The Mummy. That, alongside the attempts to explore the meaning behind these vampire traditions, did not work nearly as well for me as other elements. Any time a film or series sets out to do that, it almost always just comes off as pretentious and much sillier than it meant to be. It’s always funny that so many vampire stories don’t question why the central character is a walking corpse who needs to drink blood, but have to seek explanations for why he’s afraid of the sun, because, you know, that’s hokey.

Still, there’s so much to recommend and I think the series does stick its landing, particularly thanks to the mutually assured destruction between Dracula and Agatha Van Helsing. Claes Bang and Dolly Wells might have the best chemistry and rivalry since the days of Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing. In fact, it’s because of that that I was so excited, possibly even giddy, to see a direct callback to the legendary ending of Horror of Dracula during their final confrontation. That’s where Netflix and BBC’s Dracula shines: in the way it comments on, updates and ultimately respects both a literary and cinematic legacy that has sustained for over a hundred and twenty years.

Editorials

What’s Wrong with My Baby!? Larry Cohen’s ‘It’s Alive’ at 50

Published

on

Netflix It's Alive

Soon after the New Hollywood generation took over the entertainment industry, they started having children. And more than any filmmakers that came before—they were terrified. Rosemary’s Baby (1968), The Exorcist (1973), The Omen (1976), Eraserhead (1977), The Brood (1979), The Shining (1980), Possession (1981), and many others all deal, at least in part, with the fears of becoming or being a parent. What if my child turns out to be a monster? is corrupted by some evil force? or turns out to be the fucking Antichrist? What if I screw them up somehow, or can’t help them, or even go insane and try to kill them? Horror has always been at its best when exploring relatable fears through extreme circumstances. A prime example of this is Larry Cohen’s 1974 monster-baby movie It’s Alive, which explores the not only the rollercoaster of emotions that any parent experiences when confronted with the difficulties of raising a child, but long-standing questions of who or what is at fault when something goes horribly wrong.

Cohen begins making his underlying points early in the film as Frank Davis (John P. Ryan) discusses the state of the world with a group of expectant fathers in a hospital waiting room. They discuss the “overabundance of lead” in foods and the environment, smog, and pesticides that only serve to produce roaches that are “bigger, stronger, and harder to kill.” Frank comments that this is “quite a world to bring a kid into.” This has long been a discussion point among people when trying to decide whether to have kids or not. I’ve had many conversations with friends who have said they feel it’s irresponsible to bring children into such a violent, broken, and dangerous world, and I certainly don’t begrudge them this. My wife and I did decide to have children but that doesn’t mean that it’s been easy.

Immediately following this scene comes It’s Alive’s most famous sequence in which Frank’s wife Lenore (Sharon Farrell) is the only person left alive in her delivery room, the doctors clawed and bitten to death by her mutant baby, which has escaped. “What does my baby look like!? What’s wrong with my baby!?” she screams as nurses wheel her frantically into a recovery room. The evening that had begun with such joy and excitement at the birth of their second child turned into a nightmare. This is tough for me to write, but on some level, I can relate to this whiplash of emotion. When my second child was born, they came about five weeks early. I’ll use the pronouns “they/them” for privacy reasons when referring to my kids. Our oldest was still very young and went to stay with my parents and we sped off to the hospital where my wife was taken into an operating room for an emergency c-section. I was able to carry our newborn into the NICU (natal intensive care unit) where I was assured that this was routine for all premature births. The nurses assured me there was nothing to worry about and the baby looked big and healthy. I headed to where my wife was taken to recover to grab a few winks assuming that everything was fine. Well, when I awoke, I headed back over to the NICU to find that my child was not where I left them. The nurse found me and told me that the baby’s lungs were underdeveloped, and they had to put them in a special room connected to oxygen tubes and wires to monitor their vitals.

It’s difficult to express the fear that overwhelmed me in those moments. Everything turned out okay, but it took a while and I’m convinced to this day that their anxiety struggles spring from these first weeks of life. As our children grew, we learned that two of the three were on the spectrum and that anxiety, depression, ADHD, and OCD were also playing a part in their lives. Parents, at least speaking for myself, can’t help but blame themselves for the struggles their children face. The “if only” questions creep in and easily overcome the voices that assure us that it really has nothing to do with us. In the film, Lenore says, “maybe it’s all the pills I’ve been taking that brought this on.” Frank muses aloud about how he used to think that Frankenstein was the monster, but when he got older realized he was the one that made the monster. The aptly named Frank is wondering if his baby’s mutation is his fault, if he created the monster that is terrorizing Los Angeles. I have made plenty of “if only” statements about myself over the years. “If only I hadn’t had to work so much, if only I had been around more when they were little.” Mothers may ask themselves, “did I have a drink, too much coffee, or a cigarette before I knew I was pregnant? Was I too stressed out during the pregnancy?” In other words, most parents can’t help but wonder if it’s all their fault.

At one point in the film, Frank goes to the elementary school where his baby has been sighted and is escorted through the halls by police. He overhears someone comment about “screwed up genes,” which brings about age-old questions of nature vs. nurture. Despite the voices around him from doctors and detectives that say, “we know this isn’t your fault,” Frank can’t help but think it is, and that the people who try to tell him it isn’t really think it’s his fault too. There is no doubt that there is a hereditary element to the kinds of mental illness struggles that my children and I deal with. But, and it’s a bit but, good parenting goes a long way in helping children deal with these struggles. Kids need to know they’re not alone, a good parent can provide that, perhaps especially parents that can relate to the same kinds of struggles. The question of nature vs. nurture will likely never be entirely answered but I think there’s more than a good chance that “both/and” is the case. Around the midpoint of the film, Frank agrees to disown the child and sign it over for medical experimentation if caught or killed. Lenore and the older son Chris (Daniel Holzman) seek to nurture and teach the baby, feeling that it is not a monster, but a member of the family.

It’s Alive takes these ideas to an even greater degree in the fact that the Davis Baby really is a monster, a mutant with claws and fangs that murders and eats people. The late ’60s and early ’70s also saw the rise in mass murderers and serial killers which heightened the nature vs. nurture debate. Obviously, these people were not literal monsters but human beings that came from human parents, but something had gone horribly wrong. Often the upbringing of these killers clearly led in part to their antisocial behavior, but this isn’t always the case. It’s Alive asks “what if a ‘monster’ comes from a good home?” In this case is it society, environmental factors, or is it the lead, smog, and pesticides? It is almost impossible to know, but the ending of the film underscores an uncomfortable truth—even monsters have parents.

As the film enters its third act, Frank joins the hunt for his child through the Los Angeles sewers and into the L.A. River. He is armed with a rifle and ready to kill on sight, having divorced himself from any relationship to the child. Then Frank finds his baby crying in the sewers and his fatherly instincts take over. With tears in his eyes, he speaks words of comfort and wraps his son in his coat. He holds him close, pats and rocks him, and whispers that everything is going to be okay. People often wonder how the parents of those who perform heinous acts can sit in court, shed tears, and defend them. I think it’s a complex issue. I’m sure that these parents know that their child has done something evil, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are still their baby. Your child is a piece of yourself formed into a whole new human being. Disowning them would be like cutting off a limb, no matter what they may have done. It doesn’t erase an evil act, far from it, but I can understand the pain of a parent in that situation. I think It’s Alive does an exceptional job placing its audience in that situation.

Despite the serious issues and ideas being examined in the film, It’s Alive is far from a dour affair. At heart, it is still a monster movie and filled with a sense of fun and a great deal of pitch-black humor. In one of its more memorable moments, a milkman is sucked into the rear compartment of his truck as red blood mingles with the white milk from smashed bottles leaking out the back of the truck and streaming down the street. Just after Frank agrees to join the hunt for his baby, the film cuts to the back of an ice cream truck with the words “STOP CHILDREN” emblazoned on it. It’s a movie filled with great kills, a mutant baby—created by make-up effects master Rick Baker early in his career, and plenty of action—and all in a PG rated movie! I’m telling you, the ’70s were wild. It just also happens to have some thoughtful ideas behind it as well.

Which was Larry Cohen’s specialty. Cohen made all kinds of movies, but his most enduring have been his horror films and all of them tackle the social issues and fears of the time they were made. God Told Me To (1976), Q: The Winged Serpent (1982), and The Stuff (1985) are all great examples of his socially aware, low-budget, exploitation filmmaking with a brain and It’s Alive certainly fits right in with that group. Cohen would go on to write and direct two sequels, It Lives Again (aka It’s Alive 2) in 1978 and It’s Alive III: Island of the Alive in 1987 and is credited as a co-writer on the 2008 remake. All these films explore the ideas of parental responsibility in light of the various concerns of the times they were made including abortion rights and AIDS.

Fifty years after It’s Alive was initially released, it has only become more relevant in the ensuing years. Fears surrounding parenthood have been with us since the beginning of time but as the years pass the reasons for these fears only seem to become more and more profound. In today’s world the conversation of the fathers in the waiting room could be expanded to hormones and genetic modifications in food, terrorism, climate change, school and other mass shootings, and other threats that were unknown or at least less of a concern fifty years ago. Perhaps the fearmongering conspiracy theories about chemtrails and vaccines would be mentioned as well, though in a more satirical fashion, as fears some expectant parents encounter while endlessly doomscrolling Facebook or Twitter. Speaking for myself, despite the struggles, the fears, and the sadness that sometimes comes with having children, it’s been worth it. The joys ultimately outweigh all of that, but I understand the terror too. Becoming a parent is no easy choice, nor should it be. But as I look back, I can say that I’m glad we made the choice we did.

I wonder if Frank and Lenore can say the same thing.

Continue Reading