Putting New Life in Dracula

If you are looking for a version faithful to the original, this is not it. Story elements and characters are cut and changed significantly. This is partly to streamline the story down to an acceptable length for a radio production, but also to enable a change in focus.

The original Dracula is a male-centric story; despite still following the expected conflict, this version shifts the spotlight to the female characters, giving them more backstory, presence, and connection to each other. Sexual, gender, and class anxieties threaded below the surface are made more explicit and explored at the forefront of the drama. Dracula is still a story of Good versus Evil, but the nature of both are suddenly less clear. Evil is more insidiously common, and Good more of a difficult, and occasionally thorny, path to follow.


I really enjoyed this version of Dracula as a short exploration of the story's underside. Seeing a more woman-centric version is uncommon enough to make it interesting, but it is also done well enough to keep my attention focused. There are a few loose threads I wish had been attended to, such as a character introduced into the story and left abruptly hanging, and Dracula himself was hardly fleshed out at all, but the production was still strong. Definitely recommend to fans.

11 people found this helpful

It's not the most faithful adaption out there...

What would have made Dracula better?

If you're just interested in hearing David Suchet play Dracula or a young Tom Hiddleston play Jonathan Harker, then you'll probably enjoy this. But if you're looking for a good Dracula adaptation, I'd say give this a pass. It's a heavily abridged adaptation and a lot of the changes suck the life out of the story (pun intended).

What do you think the narrator could have done better?

I enjoyed David Suchet as Dracula. He plays the count as barely able to hide his cruelty behind his facade of civility, always a good choice. Hiddleston is a serviceable (though forgettable, yes, I said it) Jonathan Harker. None of the other actors are particularly memorable or compelling in this short drama. But probably what offends me the most about this adaptation is that they decided to cut Quincy Morris. I don't care that he is the most disposable character in this story, they deprived me of a ridiculous Texan accent!

If you could play editor, what scene or scenes would you have cut from Dracula?

It's less what I would cut and more what I would add back in. They cut out Jonathan Harker's emotional trauma from his stay with Dracula, presenting him as perfectly fine after he reunites with Mina halfway through the story. (He even indicates he's down for some sexy times!) This lessens the horror of his stay with Dracula. I also have mixed feelings about Dr. Seward leveling up from rejected suitor to beloved fiancé in this adaptation. It better connects his mental hospital to the greater story, but it also removes some of the internal conflict from the character. However I would cut the maid's subplot... That was weird, am I right?

Any additional comments?

If you're looking for a more faithful radio adaptation of Dracula, I recommend Classic BBC Radio's Dracula with Frederick Jaeger, Phyllis Logan, Bernard Holley and assorted cast. Not only is it more true to the source material, but they actually include Quincy Morris - exaggerated Texan accent and all!

13 people found this helpful

Poorly abbreviated

Was not a fan of this retelling, will stick to the classic from now on.

I appreciate how the author melded some characters and relationships for the sake of brevity, however I think too much of the story was lost.

2 people found this helpful

Dracula

David Suchet is absolutely chilling as Dracula and Tom Hiddleston is brilliant as Jonathan Barker. An engaging adaptation of the great classic. I will listen over and over!

2 people found this helpful

An okay adaptation

What did you like best about Dracula? What did you like least?

The best thing about this recording is David Suchet's performance as Dracula! That's really saying something considering I'm a hardcore hiddlestoner! suchet steals every scene he's in. The worst thing about this recording is that it is an adaptation and not the actual Bram Stoker book. It is very severely adapted and abridged.

What could Bram Stoker have done to make this a more enjoyable book for you?

Nothing! This is a severely adapted dramatization by somebody else. He didn't write it!

Did the narration match the pace of the story?

Yes.

Could you see Dracula being made into a movie or a TV series? Who should the stars be?

No, because this is just a very commercialized version of the original book. Except for Suchet's and Hiddleston's performances the story is lifeless.

Any additional comments?

It's okay as a radio adaptation. Just be aware that's what it is!

5 people found this helpful

Good performance, very different from the original

David Suchet is excellent as Dracula - he nails the movement from being creepy to being appealing, from beguiling to repulsive, from kindly to deadly. However, the narrative differs so much from the source material, and is so truncated, that this doesn’t really feel like Stoker’s Dracula (in my opinion). This feels like a pilot episode, made as a proof of concept, that knew it had so much more of a story to tell if only they’d green-light the production. I really wanted it to include the continent-wide hunt for Dracula that makes up so much of the original novel, driven by the desire to save Mina’s soul before it’s too late. For me, that’s where so much of the drama and energy and urgency of Dracula lies, and this doesn’t quite get there in its framing the story around the events in Whitby with Lucy and Mina.

Finally, Tom Hiddleston is well cast as Jonathan Harker, and, for me, the dialogue between Dracula and Harker in Transylvania is pretty much the highlight of this adaptation.

Can I recommend this? Not whole-heartedly, but with some caveats being known, I’d say you should check it out and see what you think.

1 person found this helpful

amazing

i love this mainly becauee of tom. But over all it was very Good! Lucy was good, and Mina was less whiny than others

1 person found this helpful

Disappointing

I love David Suchet and could listen to him read anything. This overdramatized adaptation just wasn’t very good. I was pretty disappointed.

1 person found this helpful

They made it a lifetime channel for women, story.

It is centered, a great deal, around the two sisters who by their acting and uninteresting, repetitive conversations, is a pity. If you start in the middle of part one you'll be happier. The second part has much less of them conversing, so it is easier to listen to and all of the other actor's are stellar.

The scenes with David Suchet and Tom Hiddleston are terrific. Scary and creepy and Tom Hiddleston and his angst. Also, the maid is great, but sadly I have to skip through her parts because they are all mainly conversations with the worse of the two main actresses.

This arrangment is a waste. There are way better versions on Audibale. Listen to the Sample of this version, you will hear how bad it is for yourself.

Very condensed

David Suchet sounds more like Poirot than like Count Dracula. The story is very summarized and can only be understood if you previously read the longer version. I enjoyed the female characterizations. A bit weak for me.