Netflix’s Dracula from someone who knows the story
Sofia Gallus
Netflix has got a new series, and it’s about the king of the night.
On Jan. 1, “Dracula,” a show broken down into three episodes, each an hour and a half long, was released on the streaming platform and people had feelings. Of course, vampire shows and movies are abundant, to say the least, and the story of Dracula has been used time and time again, but, even with only three episodes, this new show was a lot to process. Seeing as the show’s creators are the same from the hit BBC show “Sherlock,” it is fitting that it follows a similar structure. Dracula always remains one step ahead of the audience. The easiest way to keep up is if you know the original story of Dracula, but it’s not necessary to enjoy the series.
The show does a pretty good job of laying out the plot for those who may have never heard the original stories. However, “Dracula” truly becomes a marvel when you do understand the many hints and nods to classic vampire literature thrown into the mix by the show’s creators. The original story of Dracula was written by Bram Stoker and published in 1897. Vampire stories, however, existed in literature far before Bram Stoker’s account. In 1816, a short work of prose called “The Vampyre” by John William Polidori was written for friendly competition between a small group of writers. Polidori’s account of vampires did not actually involve Dracula, but instead the charming and devious Lord Ruthven.
The new series follows Count Dracula, a timeless (both figuratively and literally, since, you know, immortality) mythological figure and his plans to move from Transylvania and conquer England. For this review, the series will be broken down by episode and evaluated over how closely its based on Bram Stoker’s tale while also bringing new things to the table.
The first episode: This is the Dracula fans wanted.
The first episode contains nods to other famous vampire stories, as the exterior of Count Dracula’s castle was the same castle used in the 1922 vampire film “Nosferatu.” Despite the allusions, there were some slight changes in character as well. In the show, Dracula feeds on both men and women, something that isn’t true in the original “Dracula,” but has become widely common in vampire stories today. Dracula, while always thought of as a charismatic character, is given a sophisticated charm in the show that is meant to mask his true hideous nature and his (blood) drinking problem. Perhaps the biggest change to the story is that Van Helsing is working as a nun. While this is a major change in retrospect to the original “Dracula,” it was not the first time Van Helsing has been portrayed as a woman. The episode also covers some popular vampire powers, such as being able to shapeshift, growing long fangs and inhuman strength and agility. The visual effects in this episode are arguably the best in the series, albeit perhaps a bit too theatrical. While the first episode made some changes, it only enhanced the originality of the show and offered a more in-depth rendition of Stoker’s book while throwing in little easter eggs to other famous vampire literature and film.
The second episode: Less calculated, more chaos.
The second episode is where things become complicated, in terms of relating back to the original stories. Dracula sets out on a Russian ship headed to England. Onboard the ship with him is a doctor named Dr. Sharma, which is perhaps a vague reference to author Jessica Alter’s book, “Man and Brother.” Lord Ruthven and his new wife are also on board and are a reference to Polidori’s original vampire character. While the episode remains consistent with Stoker’s story, it only does so in the most basic sense. The character relations and events that happen on board are completely fictional and original to the show. While the nods to Stoker and Polidori are enjoyable, the characters are given a slightly more in-depth personality than they were originally given. This episode is also not only when Dracula starts to seem less calculated and more crazy, but when the transition to present-day happens, which felt forced and rushed.
The third episode: Dracula likes raves, apparently.
This review won’t contain spoilers for the end of the series, but the third episode goes quickly downhill in quality and clarity. The visual effects take a complete turn, as if the show’s creators flipped on a psychedelic switch or had wasted all of their editing budget on the first two episodes. Bright green and pink lights are edited over scenes. Moving cars are warped for no reason. Every time Dracula feeds, the audience is shown some sort of strange fantasy in a pool of blood that didn’t appear in the previous episodes. The third episode only remains tied to Bram Stoker’s story by its location and some of the characters. Additionally, it seems as though all the storylines that built up characters’ individual goals and morals were torn down within an hour timespan. Dracula’s motivation to conquer England and spread vampirism seemingly vanished. Van Helsing, now a scientist and the great-great niece of the original Van Helsing, makes decisions that no scientist would ever make.
Final Thoughts
Netflix’s “Dracula” had a promising start, but fell short of being the clever and modernized Dracula it claimed to be. While the show had many good elements, such as the originality and depth brought to characters and the hints to original vampire literature and film, it did not transition to modern time smoothly. It almost felt like it was a different show. Whether or not “Dracula” is worth a watch truly depends on what you like, but if you’re expecting the whole show to be as alluring and clever as the first episode, it might be best to lower your expect
