Regular price: $10.65
Buy Now with 1 Credit
Buy Now for $10.65
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!
5 of 5 people found this review helpful
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.
3 of 3 people found this review helpful
I enjoyed the story, although, felt the adaptation to be a little short and wanting. Not for those who have already read the original Bram Stoker masterpiece. Could listen to Tom Hiddleston all day!
2 of 2 people found this review helpful
I wasnt sure if I'd like this as it's an adaption rather than the traditional full book audio. However it's Atmospheric and well paced, the actors are excellent and it retains the flavour of the original. I thought it was a good length too, listened in one sitting.
2 of 2 people found this review helpful