Thoughts on NBC's Dracula 2013
Before I succumb to work or to sleep---because my head is aching and I feel nauseated somehow, all I know is I am sickly at the moment---I need to get this off my head first.
An accidental flick of the channel to DIVA on the local cable tv at home made me discover NBC's Dracula. NBC seems to have a knack of reinventing the classics, first it was Sherlock Holmes. Now, the producers, the team assembled are apparently feasting on the Bram Stoker classic. Sad to say, it's not exactly the best, my mind says it's a pretty messed up series from the reinvented characters onwards. But is there any way at all it can be rectified? Nope, none at all. This is all up to the creative minds behind the tv series. But like others who have been admittedly hooked into it no matter how bad it is...I'll just go on and say, like the rest, that I am keeping tabs on the series because 'it's so bad (and messed up) that it's (actually) good'. The series is reminiscent of the early seasons of HBO's True Blood in sexiness, I'm leaving it at that.
Apparently, what I caught on DIVA was the second episode. There are about 4 episodes released as of the moment and the 5th one is yet to air two weeks from now, if I recall correctly. Dracula is on a short hiatus.
Plotwise, NBC's Dracula seems to have conformed to the canon established by earlier film and tv adaptations of the novel where Mina Murray is the reincarnation of Dracula's dead wife. Notable for this trend is Coppola's 1992 Bram Stoker's Dracula with Keanu Reeves as Jonathan Harker. There, Mina was Elisabetta in her past life. My memory of the film is unclear and in shambles but I do remember watching it back then. Since I have yet to read the book at that time, there was no way I could form a coherent opinion of the movie. There was nothing original to base it on. Also, I do have Nosferatu on my mind though no move done to acquire a copy of it.
But really, why am I writing about Dracula? I cannot, for the life of me it seems, miss the chance at poking (fun or whatever) or take a look at some things they did to the Stoker classic for television viewers. Book-to-tv series or book-to-film, there are always bound to be changes, minor or major. Tweakings courtesy of the creative minded staff behind every film or tv series adaptations of classic novels.
Having read the book some time last year and re-reading or scanning through it again today---it's all because of NBC's Dracula, I swear---I fell in love with it and with the way Stoker wrote it. It is one of my favorite horror tales of all time. It actually gave a shape to the concept of vampires and vampirism that's far from the sparkly vegan---is there such a thing, really?---vampire some other author created and trended. What actually defined the novel for me was the tone. It's stereotypical gothic horror that starts light then goes dark in the middle then life-changing towards the end.
So...the changes. I tweeted this earlier today: Mina Murray is an assistant schoolmistress not a medical student/practitioner and Jonathan Harker is a solicitor---some sort of lawyer who may work hand in hand with the barrister but mostly works on legalities for clients as in the case of properties, etc---not a journalist. This is book canon vs. 2013 Dracula tv series on NBC.
In the new series, Wilhelmina (her full name) Murray is under the tutelage of Van Helsing it seems and is attending his classes in university. Jonathan, meanwhile, is a journalist for The Inquisitor. The one thing the series got right: they're both young and attractive (especially Jonathan; Oliver "Ollie" Jackson-Cohen is mighty good looking...err...fine...I mean...handsome). The thing is these two lived a simple, average life in the novel. They aren't the socialites NBC's reinvention of Stoker's Dracula makes them out to be. It surprises, sometimes shocks me still to see Lucy and Mina drown their troubles away at a club with opium or meth or heroine---whatever recreational drug of that time period NBC thought out---and just be careless wealthy carefree young women. It made prim, proper, practical and reserved Mina Murray a distant image.Well, it's NBC and it's up to their team however they want to add a healthy (exaggerated actually because it is in massive amounts and not exactly moderated) dash of intrigue and the then-high society life in the series. Needless to say, I think all this pomp was made to make the new Dracula series palatable to many who loved the Stoker classic. I actually think this tactic failed them and made Dracula a headache to watch however entertaining some aspects of it is.
Let's not even try to understand Lucy Westenra though I kind of hoped she'd be girlier and prettier, the belle of the city whatever place they are setting 2013 Dracula tv series on. Mina and Lucy seem on equal footing in terms of beauty or appeal. They got the blonde and fair part right, though.
Random insert: Jonathan Harker is my main Dracula bias as per the novel though I am still saddened how there is very little in pop culture about this guy. I think he's just as good a hero as Abraham Van Helsing so I'm not so keen on the Mina Murray hype and the Mina Murray nee Harker x Count Dracula pairing in pop culture. Japan is so fond of Mina x Dracula it's actually quite...unnerving. Well...stereotypical me. I love and mostly dote on the dependable and it's a plus if they're good looking, boring types: Jonathan Harker, exactly. I'm that boring and normal and predictable. And about Jonathan, my mind just cannot comprehend ambitious journalist for The Inquisitor to be honest. He seems more detached and impersonal on most things in the novel I actually thought he'd be just as formal, detached and personal in the series not...super ambitious. Sherlock Holmes-y but with issues. Lots of issues and hysterics mostly when it came to Count Dracula and Mina. Not to forget his benefactor, Peter Hawkins.
Next, we are treated to an American industrialist Count Dracula who now goes by the name Alexander Grayson. Uhmn...American...really? Last time I recall, Count Dracula was Transylvanian and of the Szekelys race or group. Technically Hungarian. Romanian, if we trace his roots back to Vlad the Impaler (Vlad Tepes) if we're going down the road from where some of his attributes were based on. Though I do like Jonathan Rhys Meyers' acting, I'm not sure about the looks or the characterization because an American Count Dracula? It's the first I've heard of it especially for something adapted from the Stoker classic. And that is after Anne Rice's Lestat and even Joss Whedon's pop-ified vampire icon Angelus/Angel. I'm so used to the book I think I can't find it in my heart to appreciate the American slang and accent Alexander speaks in that I actually have to stifle giggles when he speaks. It is an accent misplaced in a sea of characters with the British accent. Looks...he's not exactly as really good looking as Ollie, and this is all really a matter of taste or personal preference, but he'll do as he is one of the top actors nowadays.
Renfield just became saner and bigger. I don't mind his color as he is black (racists might otherwise and decide that he is better off played by a white actor), I'll take Renfield any way I can pre-insanity but wow...bigger that he's almost imposing as Dracula's all around butler like Alfred is to Bruce Wayne. Okay, he is more imposing and scarier-looking compared to Alfred. I'll leave it at that. Me thinks they were trying to pull for a tame-looking but tough in body build Renfield.
The vampire hunters have also become some sort of conniving secret society complete with bizarre-o rituals they've become as whack as how Dan Brown made the Priory of Zion out to be on The Da Vinci Code. Of course, Abraham Van Helsing is part of this secretive group along with a blonde voluptuous female, Lady Jane who is having an affair with the American(ized) Count. She probably doesn't know she's sleeping with the Count himself. She just knows him as Alexander Grayson, the American industrialist. Question remains: what is this vampire hunters' association's end-goal and what exactly is the Count to them? The abominable foe perhaps or do they perceive the Count to play a large role in changing how the nation or the whole world works? The way I see it, politics is being mixed up in this series and it only served to make things messier than intriguing and easy to follow. I'm beginning to think this series will do nothing but give me a headache at the end of every episode with every question left unanswered as it progresses on. Although I am not foreign to complex plots, this just takes the cake because seriously, I am not exactly expecting Lost-level of mystery on this thing. It is a classic that although has a ton of layers is actually quite easy to understand once you know where the author got ideas from for heaven's sake! It's not supposed to give viewers a throbbing headache after every episode!
There are absent characters or characters that have yet to appear: Dr. John Seward, Quincey Morris and Arthur Godalming. Or I might have just missed them as I seem to be eternally stuck on the first episode. I think it is too much to ask for the whole vampire hunting group the book has plus Jonathan Harker...NBC will go whatever way they can with this series either way. It's their call.
So...in a nutshell, you have NBC's interpretation of Stoker's famous Dracula that's somehow in the right time period with a bit of the typical contemporary and proven timeless elements---drugs, sex and rock'n'roll (rather operas and theatre plays)---to it in the form of a television series. Or at least that's how it looks aesthetically.
Despite the changes that I noted, I'd still really like to think it is one of the better series on television today following the lazy screenplay writing for Once Upon a Time which prompted me to give up on it and inconsistencies on Glee's plot and even American Horror Story---along with the string of blatant rape culture glorification on AHS and more (The Games of Thrones---but mostly in the books. ha.). It's Dracula, Bates Motel or nothing at this time. I'm watching nothing else.
Oh and eyecandy because I seriously hope this OTP is in the incoming 5th episode:
Because nothing says Bram Stoker Dracula eternal and canon OTP than Mina Murray (eventually to become Harker) and Jonathan Harker in bed. All I've seen so far are kisses. Sweet but nothing this extreme...yet. Spoken like a true fangirl. Ha. I prefer critic in reality, however.
Side note: I'm probably going to start rooting for Jessica de Grouw and Oliver Jackson-Cohen now for some reason. There's a photo of them kissing somewhere. Lovely real life couple if it hasn't happened yet...or has it already? (Doesn't take away my crush on Ollie, however. The second Ollie I find attractive after a certain Pettigrew. Harmless crush. Nothing wrong with admiring someone with looks and charm is there? Haha.)
*****
And in other news, last Friday, armed with premiere tickets gifted by the cable we subscribe to at home, it was movie date night with all four members of the family. Yep. Exactly. Me, dad, mum and the not-so-little (now) brother. It was...drumroll please...Hunger Games: Catching Fire (Hunger Games 2). It's my first as I have shunned the penned trilogy and the movie adaptation for so long now despite the hype. I continue to shun it...erm...them. I'm never good with following trends among young adults and teens, that which comprises the general audience, but I do try since I've established that I'm into pop-culture. Read: NOT A HIPSTER, exactly so let's not go that long, dark road. (But in all honesty, I think hipster is a misused brand to most people when all we're acting on is personal preference or individual distinctive tastes. What is that label, even?!)
There's a reason why I do not jump the Hunger Games fandom bandwagon until now and it's Battle Royale. Even when all I've seen of Battle Royale are the stills---I have yet to read the book which I now have in ebook format (hurrah!) and have yet to see the movie---I've formed an early opinion of Hunger Games that it is patterned closely to the Koushun Takami classic. I actually have an inkling as to what format or plot device both works run on however crude it may be. Let's get into that once I've actually gone through Battle Royale's book and movie and The Hunger Game's trilogy in both film and novel format. Hmn...that'll be not until a long while. It takes time for a certain work, written or adapted into film and tv, to sink into my mind and it takes even longer before I can consider any of them favorites.
kg*
An accidental flick of the channel to DIVA on the local cable tv at home made me discover NBC's Dracula. NBC seems to have a knack of reinventing the classics, first it was Sherlock Holmes. Now, the producers, the team assembled are apparently feasting on the Bram Stoker classic. Sad to say, it's not exactly the best, my mind says it's a pretty messed up series from the reinvented characters onwards. But is there any way at all it can be rectified? Nope, none at all. This is all up to the creative minds behind the tv series. But like others who have been admittedly hooked into it no matter how bad it is...I'll just go on and say, like the rest, that I am keeping tabs on the series because 'it's so bad (and messed up) that it's (actually) good'. The series is reminiscent of the early seasons of HBO's True Blood in sexiness, I'm leaving it at that.
Apparently, what I caught on DIVA was the second episode. There are about 4 episodes released as of the moment and the 5th one is yet to air two weeks from now, if I recall correctly. Dracula is on a short hiatus.
Plotwise, NBC's Dracula seems to have conformed to the canon established by earlier film and tv adaptations of the novel where Mina Murray is the reincarnation of Dracula's dead wife. Notable for this trend is Coppola's 1992 Bram Stoker's Dracula with Keanu Reeves as Jonathan Harker. There, Mina was Elisabetta in her past life. My memory of the film is unclear and in shambles but I do remember watching it back then. Since I have yet to read the book at that time, there was no way I could form a coherent opinion of the movie. There was nothing original to base it on. Also, I do have Nosferatu on my mind though no move done to acquire a copy of it.
But really, why am I writing about Dracula? I cannot, for the life of me it seems, miss the chance at poking (fun or whatever) or take a look at some things they did to the Stoker classic for television viewers. Book-to-tv series or book-to-film, there are always bound to be changes, minor or major. Tweakings courtesy of the creative minded staff behind every film or tv series adaptations of classic novels.
Having read the book some time last year and re-reading or scanning through it again today---it's all because of NBC's Dracula, I swear---I fell in love with it and with the way Stoker wrote it. It is one of my favorite horror tales of all time. It actually gave a shape to the concept of vampires and vampirism that's far from the sparkly vegan---is there such a thing, really?---vampire some other author created and trended. What actually defined the novel for me was the tone. It's stereotypical gothic horror that starts light then goes dark in the middle then life-changing towards the end.
So...the changes. I tweeted this earlier today: Mina Murray is an assistant schoolmistress not a medical student/practitioner and Jonathan Harker is a solicitor---some sort of lawyer who may work hand in hand with the barrister but mostly works on legalities for clients as in the case of properties, etc---not a journalist. This is book canon vs. 2013 Dracula tv series on NBC.
In the new series, Wilhelmina (her full name) Murray is under the tutelage of Van Helsing it seems and is attending his classes in university. Jonathan, meanwhile, is a journalist for The Inquisitor. The one thing the series got right: they're both young and attractive (especially Jonathan; Oliver "Ollie" Jackson-Cohen is mighty good looking...err...fine...I mean...handsome). The thing is these two lived a simple, average life in the novel. They aren't the socialites NBC's reinvention of Stoker's Dracula makes them out to be. It surprises, sometimes shocks me still to see Lucy and Mina drown their troubles away at a club with opium or meth or heroine---whatever recreational drug of that time period NBC thought out---and just be careless wealthy carefree young women. It made prim, proper, practical and reserved Mina Murray a distant image.Well, it's NBC and it's up to their team however they want to add a healthy (exaggerated actually because it is in massive amounts and not exactly moderated) dash of intrigue and the then-high society life in the series. Needless to say, I think all this pomp was made to make the new Dracula series palatable to many who loved the Stoker classic. I actually think this tactic failed them and made Dracula a headache to watch however entertaining some aspects of it is.
Let's not even try to understand Lucy Westenra though I kind of hoped she'd be girlier and prettier, the belle of the city whatever place they are setting 2013 Dracula tv series on. Mina and Lucy seem on equal footing in terms of beauty or appeal. They got the blonde and fair part right, though.
Random insert: Jonathan Harker is my main Dracula bias as per the novel though I am still saddened how there is very little in pop culture about this guy. I think he's just as good a hero as Abraham Van Helsing so I'm not so keen on the Mina Murray hype and the Mina Murray nee Harker x Count Dracula pairing in pop culture. Japan is so fond of Mina x Dracula it's actually quite...unnerving. Well...stereotypical me. I love and mostly dote on the dependable and it's a plus if they're good looking, boring types: Jonathan Harker, exactly. I'm that boring and normal and predictable. And about Jonathan, my mind just cannot comprehend ambitious journalist for The Inquisitor to be honest. He seems more detached and impersonal on most things in the novel I actually thought he'd be just as formal, detached and personal in the series not...super ambitious. Sherlock Holmes-y but with issues. Lots of issues and hysterics mostly when it came to Count Dracula and Mina. Not to forget his benefactor, Peter Hawkins.
Next, we are treated to an American industrialist Count Dracula who now goes by the name Alexander Grayson. Uhmn...American...really? Last time I recall, Count Dracula was Transylvanian and of the Szekelys race or group. Technically Hungarian. Romanian, if we trace his roots back to Vlad the Impaler (Vlad Tepes) if we're going down the road from where some of his attributes were based on. Though I do like Jonathan Rhys Meyers' acting, I'm not sure about the looks or the characterization because an American Count Dracula? It's the first I've heard of it especially for something adapted from the Stoker classic. And that is after Anne Rice's Lestat and even Joss Whedon's pop-ified vampire icon Angelus/Angel. I'm so used to the book I think I can't find it in my heart to appreciate the American slang and accent Alexander speaks in that I actually have to stifle giggles when he speaks. It is an accent misplaced in a sea of characters with the British accent. Looks...he's not exactly as really good looking as Ollie, and this is all really a matter of taste or personal preference, but he'll do as he is one of the top actors nowadays.
Renfield just became saner and bigger. I don't mind his color as he is black (racists might otherwise and decide that he is better off played by a white actor), I'll take Renfield any way I can pre-insanity but wow...bigger that he's almost imposing as Dracula's all around butler like Alfred is to Bruce Wayne. Okay, he is more imposing and scarier-looking compared to Alfred. I'll leave it at that. Me thinks they were trying to pull for a tame-looking but tough in body build Renfield.
The vampire hunters have also become some sort of conniving secret society complete with bizarre-o rituals they've become as whack as how Dan Brown made the Priory of Zion out to be on The Da Vinci Code. Of course, Abraham Van Helsing is part of this secretive group along with a blonde voluptuous female, Lady Jane who is having an affair with the American(ized) Count. She probably doesn't know she's sleeping with the Count himself. She just knows him as Alexander Grayson, the American industrialist. Question remains: what is this vampire hunters' association's end-goal and what exactly is the Count to them? The abominable foe perhaps or do they perceive the Count to play a large role in changing how the nation or the whole world works? The way I see it, politics is being mixed up in this series and it only served to make things messier than intriguing and easy to follow. I'm beginning to think this series will do nothing but give me a headache at the end of every episode with every question left unanswered as it progresses on. Although I am not foreign to complex plots, this just takes the cake because seriously, I am not exactly expecting Lost-level of mystery on this thing. It is a classic that although has a ton of layers is actually quite easy to understand once you know where the author got ideas from for heaven's sake! It's not supposed to give viewers a throbbing headache after every episode!
There are absent characters or characters that have yet to appear: Dr. John Seward, Quincey Morris and Arthur Godalming. Or I might have just missed them as I seem to be eternally stuck on the first episode. I think it is too much to ask for the whole vampire hunting group the book has plus Jonathan Harker...NBC will go whatever way they can with this series either way. It's their call.
So...in a nutshell, you have NBC's interpretation of Stoker's famous Dracula that's somehow in the right time period with a bit of the typical contemporary and proven timeless elements---drugs, sex and rock'n'roll (rather operas and theatre plays)---to it in the form of a television series. Or at least that's how it looks aesthetically.
Despite the changes that I noted, I'd still really like to think it is one of the better series on television today following the lazy screenplay writing for Once Upon a Time which prompted me to give up on it and inconsistencies on Glee's plot and even American Horror Story---along with the string of blatant rape culture glorification on AHS and more (The Games of Thrones---but mostly in the books. ha.). It's Dracula, Bates Motel or nothing at this time. I'm watching nothing else.
Oh and eyecandy because I seriously hope this OTP is in the incoming 5th episode:
Because nothing says Bram Stoker Dracula eternal and canon OTP than Mina Murray (eventually to become Harker) and Jonathan Harker in bed. All I've seen so far are kisses. Sweet but nothing this extreme...yet. Spoken like a true fangirl. Ha. I prefer critic in reality, however.
Side note: I'm probably going to start rooting for Jessica de Grouw and Oliver Jackson-Cohen now for some reason. There's a photo of them kissing somewhere. Lovely real life couple if it hasn't happened yet...or has it already? (Doesn't take away my crush on Ollie, however. The second Ollie I find attractive after a certain Pettigrew. Harmless crush. Nothing wrong with admiring someone with looks and charm is there? Haha.)
*****
And in other news, last Friday, armed with premiere tickets gifted by the cable we subscribe to at home, it was movie date night with all four members of the family. Yep. Exactly. Me, dad, mum and the not-so-little (now) brother. It was...drumroll please...Hunger Games: Catching Fire (Hunger Games 2). It's my first as I have shunned the penned trilogy and the movie adaptation for so long now despite the hype. I continue to shun it...erm...them. I'm never good with following trends among young adults and teens, that which comprises the general audience, but I do try since I've established that I'm into pop-culture. Read: NOT A HIPSTER, exactly so let's not go that long, dark road. (But in all honesty, I think hipster is a misused brand to most people when all we're acting on is personal preference or individual distinctive tastes. What is that label, even?!)
There's a reason why I do not jump the Hunger Games fandom bandwagon until now and it's Battle Royale. Even when all I've seen of Battle Royale are the stills---I have yet to read the book which I now have in ebook format (hurrah!) and have yet to see the movie---I've formed an early opinion of Hunger Games that it is patterned closely to the Koushun Takami classic. I actually have an inkling as to what format or plot device both works run on however crude it may be. Let's get into that once I've actually gone through Battle Royale's book and movie and The Hunger Game's trilogy in both film and novel format. Hmn...that'll be not until a long while. It takes time for a certain work, written or adapted into film and tv, to sink into my mind and it takes even longer before I can consider any of them favorites.
kg*