Tumgik
#count dracula (1977)
picklepie888 · 8 months
Text
417 notes · View notes
renfieldmyfriend · 10 months
Text
Tumblr media
sorry the quality’s so shit i just. HAD to make a gif of this
168 notes · View notes
ubyr-babaj · 10 months
Text
Posting the 1977 night visit scene yet again because I have nothing to do with my life and I love these men.
106 notes · View notes
spacetrauma · 6 months
Text
i recently watched count dracula 1977, and oh my god. the scene where renfield gets petted through the bars?!?! and the scene where he rolls around on the floor for 2 minutes?!? holy shit i didn't expect it to be this good.
62 notes · View notes
multiocular-mushroom · 6 months
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
Repostober Day 14: an Inktober series from a couple years ago with my favourite horror movies at the time <3
Tumblr media Tumblr media
32 notes · View notes
myfanfictiongarden · 8 months
Text
Just realised something…. back at the castle, the three Brides want “kisses” and blood from Jonathan, he only half conscious and helpless at their mercy. Meanwhile, the three Suitors will give half conscious Lucy their own blood willingly just to keep her alive and well, only one of them can expect a kiss as a reward.
27 notes · View notes
contentabnormal · 2 months
Text
Tumblr media
Louis Jourdan as Dracula in Count Dracula (1977)
Watercolors on Paper, 8.5" x 11", 2024
By Josh Ryals
16 notes · View notes
Text
Reminder: There actually is a very faithful adaptation if Dracula.
Count Dracula (1977) made by the BBC does merge two of Lucy’s suitors, but it other wise it is true to the original novel.
When I was 9 I read Dracula for the first time and it became one if my favorite books, and at about the same age I watched this version for the first time. I always got super grumpy over it getting left out of lists of adaptations. It took me a decade to watch another Hammer film after “experts” claimed their version was the most faithful, I was so irritated when I saw it.**
It became a tradition for my father and I to watch this BBC version on Halloween night, and I even got a region free DVD player originally just because video tape wore out and the only DVDs were R2. ***
I am biased, obviously, after watching it every Halloween for decades, but I do recommend it to anyone fed up with the adaptations distorting the novel.
** I do enjoy the Hammer version, and even the Coppola miss titled one, but as a little girl I had very strong feelings about faithfulness. I guess I’ve kind if accepted that filmmakers don’t usually go for faithful with any book. I just wish they wouldn’t promote themselves as faithful!
***It has been released in R1 since, BUT the DVDs have a high failure rate. After having to buy it three times after R1 discs failed I have just gone back to my old R2 DVD.
68 notes · View notes
autolenaphilia · 1 year
Text
Count Dracula (1977)
The 1977 BBC tv film Count Dracula might be the best adaptation of Stoker’s novel.
Other adaptations like the 1931, 1958 and 1992 films might have claims to be better as films, but as adaptations they largely ignore the novel in various ways. The 1992 film adapts perhaps a lot of scenes from the novel, but in its storyline, it is more of an adaptation of The Mummy from 1932 than of Stoker’s book. And the 1931 and 1958 films called Dracula are rightfully regarded as peaks of vampire horror movies, but are very unfaithful to the novel.
The 1977 BBC film however is remarkably faithful, with Gerald Savory’s script taking a lot of dialogue straight from the book. There are changes of course, the largest of which is probably the removal of Arthur Holmwood, whose character is instead merged into Quincey, to save time and simplify the film’s character list. There are others changes, like how Mina and Lucy are sisters, and Dracula looks the same throughout and has no moustache.
Yet the 1977 film is probably the film adaptation most based in the book. The film’s length of 2 and a half hours helps in conveying the scope of the book. This faithfulness is to its advantage, as the novel’s characters are usually more interesting than the pop cultural versions of them.
Renfield in this movie is probably the best movie version of the character. It spends time on making him a complex and sympathetic character. It gives him a genuine character arc, where he falls under Dracula’s spell but out of care for Mina rebels against Dracula’s hold on him and pays the ultimate price. Actor Jack Shepard’s portrayal is excellent. Most movie versions cut the character or just make Renfield a creepy bug-eating weirdo, and the 1977 version, by taking more of the character from the novel makes him actually interesting.
The acting and the rather faithful to the novel portrayal of the characters is this version’s greatest strength.
Irish actor Bosco Hogan as Jonathan Harker has an unfortunately 1970s hairstyle, but manages to create a close to definitive performance as Harker. He manages to convey this dynamic character’s whole register, from charming naivety at the story’s start, to haggard traumatized suffering to the fiery determined Jonathan of the story finale.
Frank Finlay as Van Helsing is another definitive portrayal. He truly feels like the Van Helsing of the book, silly fake Dutch accent and all.
Judi Bowker as Mina Harker is also close to definitive. She portrays Mina as a woman who is compassionate and kind yet her kindness is also a strength of spirit, which enables her to resist Dracula’s vampirism. She gets to save Jonathan by shooting his attacker in the film’s climax.
I also like Susan Penhaligon as Lucy Westenra, who conveys a likeable Lucy, and you do feel for her when she is victimized and turned into a monster by Dracula.
Richard Barnes as Quincey has a terrible American cowboy accent, it’s the epitome of an English actor trying to have an American accent. But like with Van Helsing its awfulness feels oddly accurate to how Stoker wrote it, as funny as that sounds. He is a goofy character because of that terrible cowboy accent, almost comic relief, although it’s nice to have Quincey in a Dracula adaptation for once. He is usually left out of adaptations, because the cowboy in a gothic horror feels out of place. Here Arthur has been merged into Quincey, which if anything is the opposite of how most adaptations do it, usually cutting Quincey and keeping Arthur if he is around.
Louis Jourdan as Dracula is an interesting take on the character. Jourdan goes for a suave and handsome Dracula, compared to the book, he doesn’t even de-age into attractiveness. I’m not attracted to men, but I can sense his charisma. And this well-spoken and handsome Dracula probably is attractive to a lot of people. I can barely believe that Jourdan was in his mid 50s when the film was made, he looks at least 15 years younger.
Yet it works, because underneath the charm Jourdan’s Dracula is fundamentally the same character as the book Dracula. He is not a sympathetic misunderstood Byronic hero. Underneath his handsome and suave exterior he is the same monster, selfish and destructive. Jourdan manages to convey a genuine air of menace even when he is being soft-spoken and suave. He exudes a threatening air of complete confidence when he speaks, like he is just playing with his food by having an erudite conversation with his future victim. He can charm and seduce people, but only to destroy them. It’s good acting by Jourdan and a great take on the character.
The film is a tv movie, and it certainly looks cheap compared to some theatrical productions. It’s visibly 70s British tv. The sets really do look like sets, and the switch to video for location shoots is obvious. This movie is uploaded to youtube a lot and youtube compression makes it look absolutely terrible, yet even my dvd copy does show its age and origin.
Yet Philip Saville’s direction is intelligent and tries to do some visually interesting things. There are some nice shots that add to the gothic atmosphere. And there is an attempt to do new things with the TV format, like a POV shaky cam shot, which was probably unusual for TV in 1977. Some of its experiments do fail, like the negative images used to convey the supernatural of Dracula’s power. But the film tries to be visually interesting within the limitations of 70s TV
Overall Count Dracula is a success. It is not the most visually exciting adaptation, but it tries its best within the budget limitations. The overall faithfulness to the novel of the script and the high level of the acting means the characters are more compelling than most pop culture versions of Dracula. Again, there might be better films based on Dracula, but this is probably the best actual adaptation.
34 notes · View notes
nsabuzz · 4 months
Text
Which Dracula Film Version Is Most Accurate To The Book
Tumblr media
Christopher Lee played Dracula's role 10 times, did you know in which movie he delivers his careers' best performance? It is Count Dracula directed by Jesús Franco
3 notes · View notes
October is for being nostalgic
(click for better quality)
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
31 notes · View notes
femmefatalegoth · 2 years
Text
Welp, I found it. An adaptation that treats Renfield right. Count Dracula 1977.
Treats him respectfully as a mentally ill man rather than a grotesque? Check.
Gets across his moral ambiguity? Check.
Pays full attention to his inner struggles, character arc and growth? Check.
Very well acted? Check.
Gives him a real connection and chemistry with someone? Check.
The miniseries isn’t perfect, but they really nailed it here.
65 notes · View notes
ubyr-babaj · 5 months
Text
"Coppola's Dracula was the first Dracula who fucked"
Have you considered:
Tumblr media
19 notes · View notes
multiocular-mushroom · 7 months
Text
Tumblr media
Repostober Day 2: Dracula's Body Shop
aka Dracfield from the 1977 version in a very niche meme
16 notes · View notes
picklepie888 · 1 year
Text
Just got finished watching Count Dracula (1977).
Tumblr media
12 notes · View notes
scribe-of-monsters · 1 year
Text
I started watching Count Dracula 1977!! I've seen about half of it so far and it is very good, I think it does a good job being book accurate without feeling soulless
My thoughts thus far (with screenshots):
Tumblr media
First I just think this image of the cast list is hilarious. All the actors are pretty good though, particularly Jack Shepherd and Louis Jordan, I appreciate them
Tumblr media
They use this filter multiple times. I do not like it but it's funny
Tumblr media
Jonathan looking at the brides is simply a mood. He just looks disappointed honestly
Tumblr media
They replaced the wolf pack with one (1) dog. The dog is very cute I like him
Tumblr media
Not to be dramatic but I would die for Renfield.
Tumblr media
Dracula T-pose
Tumblr media
Quincey is in this movie!! And he has a terrible southern accent!! Majestic
Tumblr media
👁️👁️
Tumblr media
The filters in the movie are truly something special. Also I love how they have like a stock magic wand sound effect playing every time Drac is on screen.
15 notes · View notes