#an alternate theory is that a bunch of women saw Bela Lugosi in the 1920s play prior to the universal film and thought 'oh damn'

[cascadiums]

I promise you the eroticism in Dracula adaptations is not always a bad thing. some creators are bad at using it effectively and some I'm sure are just creeps, but it isn't automatically gratuitous or fetishising. there is grounds for it in the novel and a sexless adaptation avoids some really interesting elements.

the way vampires feed is intimate, which is part of what makes it so frightening; when Jonathan encounters the Brides, the fact that he's attracted to them is distressing (the fact that they're women being sexually assertive at all would be disturbing in a Victorian setting). there is also an association between blood and sex in Victorian culture that heightens the whole thing. the predator is sexy and that is bad news for the prey. the Count's transition from ancient hairy-handed bastard to rejuvenated enthralling bastard correlates with his growing power. and, avoiding spoilers, he isn't the only character to become more dangerous as their sexuality is hightened.

for Stoker, the explicitly erotic tends to signpost evil. it's corruption and temptation and everything else you would expect of a monster that is combatted with Christian iconography. if you watch a version of Dracula and find yourself thinking "this is a really fucked up power dynamic to eroticise" then that tracks pretty well with the novel.

but adaptations are responses to a text, right? they're a dialogue between two distinct moments through the way a narrative is re-told. the adaptation comments on its own context and on that of the source material.

so what does that mean in a version of Dracula where the relationship between the vampire and victim is sexualised and even romanticised? it could be that it's removing a perceived layer of victorian restraint and shame from desire, or trying to translate how risque the novel was for a contemporary audience when the goalposts for scandal have been moved. it could be that, in that moment, it was an effective way to give Lucy more agency and control, giving her character the freedom to want. it could be an attempt to reframe the story in a more sex-positive context where attraction = evil doesn't make as much sense. or maybe it's just a schlocky monster movie that favours anything shocking.

like I say, it's not always done effectively, and I understand the aversion. Dracula covers a hell of a lot of themes, and it's a shame that only sexuality ever seems to pull focus in re-tellings, but the Dracula-Makes-Everyone-Swoon versions are still a worthwhile part of the conversation. personally, I don't like the Coppola version for the way it handles the theme, and I never managed to get through the 2020 BBC version because "did you have sexual intercourse with Count Dracula" sent me into hysterics. the Hammer Dracula series, however, is deeply silly, campy and full of sex, and I honestly love it.

#dracula daily #adaptations #an alternate theory is that a bunch of women saw Bela Lugosi in the 1920s play prior to the universal film and thought 'oh damn' #and things proliferated from there