Let me backtrack a little: When the play Dracula was revived on Boadway in the 1970's (with Langella), they were using basically the same script that had been used in 1927 with Bela Lugosi. It was very dated, to say the least, and perhaps Langella's different type of portrayal made for a better theatrical experience. At least - even though it was the same script - nobody could accuse him of imitating Lugosi's "oily, dangerous foreigner" portrayal (which was a popular villainous stereotype back then).

Now, as far as the movie version: The script for the film bore precious little relation to the stage play. And, given such opulent period settings, Langella's Count looked a bit out of place and almost anachronistic. I don't know if I'd go so far as to call him a "pretty boy", but he just didn't seem to fit somehow. What really bothered me more was how the writers seemed to totally disregard key elements of the novel. It was a wise move not to film the stage play; but a shamefully wasted opportunity in that there wasn't more fidelity to what Stoker wrote.



Now, as far as Fright Night and Chris Sarandon: I think I accepted his characterization more because the film had a modern setting and he just seemed to "fit" better. Since he wasn't playing "Dracula", I could view the character within the context of an original film with no real preconceptions - which, I will admit - I always will have when watching yet another adaptation of the original Stoker novel. I think most people who see Dracula expect to see certain things. Watching Fright Night, I was more like a clean slate.

And yes, I though Sarandon was most effective in Dog Day Afternoon!



While Bram Stoker's Dracula did have several elements that came right from the novel - and had not usually been filmed before - there were many deviations that I felt were unnecessary and detrimental. Since I don't want to spoil it for you, I'll just say that I hope you can get around to reading the novel. It's told in the form of diaries, journals, etc., and is very Victorian in style. (After all, it was written in 1897!)

Signor V.