In 1897, Bram Stoker introduced the world to his most famous character, a vampiric Count, in his Gothic horror novel Dracula. Since that day, there have been more film adaptations than one can keep track of, some that are still heavily lauded, and others we simply don’t speak of. This article will focus on two of the most famous iterations, Bela Lugosi’s portrayal of the iconic monster in Dracula (1931), and Gary Oldman’s more on-the-nose depiction in Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992).
In the 1931 version of the story, Bela Lugosi plays the illustrious Count, using his powers of intimidation and hypnosis to lure young Mina into eternal servitude. Despite the film’s loose interpretation of the novel, Bela Lugosi IS Dracula. Even hearing the word “vampire” brings to mind an image of Bela himself. Despite its age, Lugosi’s portrayal of the creature still manages to be eerie and unsettling, especially considering the fact that the actor himself was buried in the full Dracula costume. This film is very atmospheric. Its dark and spooky castle setting, iconic sound design, and simplistic take on period clothing make it a lot of fun. Not surprisingly, this particular film is my personal favorite adaptation of the novel as well as my favorite representation of the monster himself.
If we were handing out Frightday awards for most accurate translation of the original novel, Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992) would take home the grand prize. Despite expounding upon the romantic nature of the relationship between Mina and The Count far more so than the novel did, this film plays out almost exactly like the book reads. It is also the most visually stunning depiction of the story. The elaborate, Gothic set and costume design are truly remarkable, and make you feel as though you’ve stepped into the novel itself. It also boasts a fabulous cast, including Gary Oldman as Dracula, Keanu Reeves as Jonathan Harker, Winona Ryder as Mina, Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing, and Cary Elwes as Lord Arthur Holmwood. Tread lightly, however, as this version is not for the faint of heart. Unlike its predecessor, this film contains some disturbing gore and creature effects, which can be fun for the more strong-stomached fans of the story.
Despite their differences, neither of these films is necessarily “better” than the other. The differences of interpretation make it easier to enjoy both films for what they are rather than trying to compare them. Personally, I will always prefer Bela Lugosi’s portrayal of the monster over Gary Oldman’s. The 1931 film brings back memories of countless Halloweens eating candy on the couch with my dad enjoying a Hollywood horror classics marathon. However, no other version of Dracula can or will ever capture that same feeling of the novel coming to life better than Francis Ford Coppola’s exquisite 1992 creation.