DRACULA (non-musical) - Favorite?

[Broadway Bob*]

Posted: 10/24/12 at 8:37am

My theater group is putting DRACULA on our new season ballot for our members to vote on, but we're currently exploring ALL the different versions that exist to choose the one we like best. We are wanting a NON-musical version that takes the subject seriously (not one of the comedies or parodies that exist) and is possibly somewhat (or a LOT) scary. (And maybe a little sexy.)

So which version is your favorite?!? Do you think it's possible to scare an audience with today's jaded, "seen it all," audiences?

[TrpleThreat89]

Posted: 10/24/12 at 1:21pm

Look at the version by Steven Dietz. Closely follows Stoker's novel, and is quite sensual. Saw it at VCU about 5 years ago.

[PatrickDennis92]

Posted: 10/24/12 at 2:14pm

What kind of theatre group is it?

[Wilmingtom]

Posted: 10/24/12 at 2:45pm

The Deane-Balderston adaptation is everything you want. Seeing Langella in it remains one of my fondest theatergoing memories.

[Broadway Bob*]

Posted: 10/24/12 at 3:11pm

Thanks!!! Keep them coming!

Wilmingtom - how does the movie compare to seeing it onstage?

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 10/24/12 at 4:47pm

I'm not Wilmington, but I thought there was no comparison whatsoever. The version of the play that Langella did has a sense of humor that doesn't translate well to film. It was fun and funny, without ever quite veering into camp, and scary and moving, too. We went back several times, taking our children and my mother.

It wasn't "serious" in the sense of Eugene O'Neill, but it also wasn't a spoof. I agree with Wilmington that it was unforgettably brilliant. It's hard for me to imagine a better adaptation.

[darquegk]

Posted: 10/24/12 at 4:55pm

The Langella is a re(ghost)written version of the classic 1930s version, right? With scenes in Draculas castle and other locations, instead of being more or less bound to the drawing room of th eoriginal, yes.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 10/24/12 at 5:07pm

I've never seen the 1930s movie, but IIRC, the Deane/Balderston (Langella) version has scenes in a drawing room, a bedroom and the underground vault where Dracula spends his days, hidden from the sunshine. I'm sure the last act is in the vault, because the set was magnificent.

Edward Gorey's production design was all in black and white, with just a small touch of red (a rose, say, or a glass of wine) in each scene. It was really quite beautiful.

And, yes, Frank Langella was very, very sexy.
Updated On: 10/24/12 at 05:07 PM

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 10/24/12 at 5:11pm

Yes, it's basically a more elaborate take on the late 1920s original stage version (which was a big inspiration for the Lugosi movie, although I always find that film really underwhelming compared to Nosferatur or, for good or bad, Coppola's version--it suffers like early talkies, and unlike Frankenstein, by feeling really static and for lack of a better word, "stagey").

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 10/24/12 at 5:59pm

Eric (or anyone reading), what would you call the style of the Deane/Balderston version? It isn't full-on camp or parody, but it isn't pure melodrama either. It has a post-modern, almost tongue-in-cheek, sense of humor, yet it is equally sexy and moving.

(I should confess I haven't read the script, so I'm not able to separate the words alone from the production on Broadway.)


Updated On: 10/24/12 at 05:59 PM

[Emmaloucbway]

Posted: 10/25/12 at 6:27am

My school is doing the Dietz version. It's very faithful to the original classic novel, and probably the best to perform.

[singtopher]

Posted: 10/25/12 at 4:19pm

I did the Deitz version in college. It's good, but somewhat long winded and can drag on. We made some cuts and managed to get it under 3 hours.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 10/25/12 at 4:58pm

Gaveston, that's an interesting question, and one I can't really answer. I've seen the film version, with Langella, that came out in 1979 which was based on the revival--I remember it being very good, but it's been a long time since I saw it--and I read a copy of the play which I believe was based on the 1930s revival which may have been revised from the 1928 production (it obviously was a popular title on Broadway at the time). I have to say, I've never found Langella sexy, but I could see him being more so on stage, and he is charismatic on film (Granted, some of this may be from reading his awful memoirs which seem togo on and on about how he's the sexiest creature to have ever walked the Earth).

I *do* get what you mean, and I think that tone is in the original play (not so much in the Lugosi adaptation of it)--but it's hard to put my finger on it. I suspect it was more present in the 70s revival (which, while I can't find any credits as to who made the changes, was obviously opened up some)--and Gorey's gorgeous looking designs and use of colour, which are fairly stylized may play into that too.

Incidentally, Wiki says that all current prints of the film were re-coloured by its director, John Badham. He had originally wanted to film it virtually colourless, to reflect Gorey's designs on stage, but the studio objected and until the re-coloring in the 90s, it had a highly saturated palette.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 10/25/12 at 4:59pm

There's an edition of the Balderston and Deane (St. Martin's Press) which gives you both the original Deane version plus the Broadway revision done with Balderston. It's worth having a look at.

Also, there was a really good off-Bway version a while back called, I think, "The Passion of Dracula." (I never saw it, only read the script years ago, so who knows if it holds up.) I recall it being a sort of cross between the novel and the Balderston and Deane; less drawing-room than the latter.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 10/25/12 at 5:07pm

I played Renfield a good long time (and 30 pounds) ago. It was the Deane-Balderston version. It certainly could be played as camp...or high melodrama. But, I think it works best when you accpet the Gothic nature of it, have a bit of a sense of humor and go for broke. I loved playing Renfield cause we went full-on batSH*T and each entrance scared the hell out of the audience. The Dracula stuff will probably never be truly scary anymore. It's what's expected. It's best to explore the sensual with that character, and leave the scares to the unhinged lunatic that runs around. It's some of the most fun I've ever had in my life.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 10/25/12 at 5:50pm

Robbie, in the Deane-Balderston version on Broadway, Renfield was the over-the-top character and wonderfully so. Dracula was more seducer than serial killer, which was smart because--as Eric points out above--we all know what a vampire does; there's really no suspense in that department. But long before TWILIGHT, that version of DRACULA was the first I saw where I wanted to be a victim!

*UNNECESSARY SPOILER ALERT*

The "scariest" moment was probably Dracula's death. Langella was magnificent and turned it into one of the great death scenes.

[trentsketch]

Posted: 10/25/12 at 6:30pm

The Deane/Balderston version gets the tone right. It's all about the seduction of Lucy and her transformation from sweet young woman to insatiable predator. There's tons of room for special effects. The script calls for bats on wires to fly through the theater onto the stage and theremin music mixed with howls to echo through the night.

It does play fast and loose with the text of the book. The rules of Mina and Lucy are swapped. Renfield is the scene stealing role and the Jonathan and Dracula are much more polarized as hero and villain.

The final scene does take place in Dracula's vault. The show can be staged mostly in the parlor if you need to minimize set changes. You just need to use lighting cues and a small, easy to move bed for the scenes in Mina's chambers.

This is the version that will make your audience scream. It is very powerful if you stick to the script. There are tons of stage directions that really make a difference in how the dialogue plays. It's a challenging show, but worth the struggle. I mean, this is the version of the story they used to make the classic Universal picture; the better reviewed Mexican version is even scarier for staying closet to the script.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 10/25/12 at 7:53pm

I've always intended to see the Spanish language version they filmed simultaneously with Lugosi's. As you say, nearly everyone seems to find it superior. (One edition of Lugosi's has the option to play it with Phillip Glass' recent score added--which, while I'm extremely mixed on Glass' movie work--does add a lot of atmosphere--the original one is almost completely silent, score wise).

[ooblogway]

Posted: 10/25/12 at 9:44pm

For the adventurous, I recommend the Mac Wellman version - originally produced at Soho Rep in 1994.

A preview of the scrip is available at the link below...
Script preview of Mac Wellman's DRACULA