Adapt This Book: Dracula

Adaptations are tricky business, particularly when you tackle the classics. There's just no way to meet everyone's expectations. If you adhere too slavishly to the source material, you risk creating something turgid and lifeless; it's impossible to shoehorn in every part of the novel without having things drag on and on and on.

The other extreme, which I personally find far more frustrating, is the case of the writer who seems to have perhaps skimmed the text, then pillaged it for whatever bits and pieces he found most interesting, creating a largely new story and slapping on the old, well-known title.

Why, hello, Dracula.

Say what you will about Francis Ford Coppola's 1992 adaptation of Dracula, and I know it has its fans, but a good adaptation it ain't. I'm not here to root out every problem with that film, but if you need a quick demonstration of the overall issue, take a look at that tagline on the poster above: "Love Never Dies." Anyone who's ever read Bram Stoker's novel should be seeing a big ole red flag right about now.

What's curious is not that this film in particular is a poor adaptation. It's that Dracula, written over a century ago, has seemingly never been faithfully adapted.  It's a good book--I reread it recently just to make sure I wasn't misremembering my own fondness for the story. While there are some parts you could glide past or shorten for simplicity's sake, I don't see why filmmakers over the years have felt it necessary to create almost entirely new stories around Stoker's characters. In today's vampire-happy culture, I think we are ready for a proper Dracula adaptation. And guess what: I've found our cast!

Warning: I'm assuming basic familiarity with the plot and characters of Dracula, so spoilers ahoy! (If you're unfamiliar with the plot but hell bent on reading ahead, Wikipedia sums it up nicely.)

Dracula: Johnny Depp
Here's the thing with Dracula, the character: in the book, he's pretty beastly--unibrow, hair on his palms, etc. On the other hand, you need him to be able to work some sex appeal, because of that whole vampires=sex thing. Johnny Depp is a perfect fit. I don't think you'd have trouble tracking down plenty of ladies & gents who find him attractive, but the man himself seems to glory in looking as weird as possible at every opportunity (ever seen him on the red carpet? Or in The Libertine?) Johnny would be a compelling Dracula. (Bonus: Since he's set to film Dark Shadows, he'll already be doing his vampire homework.)

Jonathan Harker: Orlando Bloom

Okay, I'm going to 'fess up now. When Robin and I were talking this idea over, Johnny Depp came to mind very quickly and, perhaps naturally, the first actors we considered for other roles had a Johnny connection. Specifically, you'll see that we're a bit Pirates of the Caribbean heavy. I don't think it's bad, necessarily, but I suppose it could put some people off. Anyway, Jonathan Harker is noble and good and gets a few sweet action scenes; I think Orlando can handle the role with ease. (I'll be honest: Keanu Reeves did a perfectly serviceable job in this role in the '92 adaptation, which leads me to believe that you don't need the world's best actor in the part--and I know Orlando, unlike Keanu, will nail the accent.)

 Mina Murray: Keira Knightley
This is the role Winona Ryder played in the '92 adaptation, and I think you can see a through-line here, though Keira seems to slip more naturally into period films than Winona ever has. Keira could portray Mina's innocence as well as her intelligence and inner strength. Indeed, I think Mina has the potential to kick a little more ass than she does in the novel, and Keira could certainly handle that as well.

Also, she kind of looks like a vampire already. Pretty girl, but she has some sharp teeth.

Lucy Westenra: Abbie Cornish

For Lucy, you require an actress who can both pull off her rather sweet and bubbly nature as well as a far darker side. The '92 film really emphasized Lucy as a coquette, but in the book she just happens to have three suitors. Now, granted, they all ask for her hand in marriage on the same day, so I suppose you could assume she was the kind of girl who would lead three guys on, but given the era you might also assume that she's just a good catch. Abbie Cornish is definitely pretty enough to be the center of all that attention, and she's a good enough actress (judging from her work in Bright Star, which I loved) that I think she could tackle the duality in the role of Lucy.

Arthur Holmwood: Matthew Goode
Arthur's a bit of a tricky role to cast because there's just not that much to the part. He needs to love Lucy a lot, and then be quite stricken when she dies. He gets a potential showstopper of a scene in her tomb, so you need a good actor in there, but he just doesn't have a lot of personality. Basically I was looking for an actor who was handsome in a sort of conventional way and one who seemed like he would fit into a 19th century world. Matthew Goode popped to mind, but I also considered Stephen Campbell Moore and Hugh Dancy. Possibly I should have gone with someone fairer, as there are a lot of dark-haired men in this film, but....I like dark-haired men. So...oh well.

Dr. John Seward: Richard Armitage
As Dr. Seward is one of Lucy's unsuccessful suitors, and he spends a fair amount of his time trying to puzzle out the enigmatic crazypants that is Renfield, I figured someone brooding was called for in this role. I mean, consider how Seward channels his unrequited love for Lucy into his doomed attempt to save her. Definitely some brooding.  I soon thought of Richard Armitage--North and South, Robin Hood... fans of British television know that Armitage can do some quality brooding.  Armitage is slightly older than Goode (7 years, actually), but it's close enough that I think that you would have no problem buying the two--and Quincey Morris, see below--as friends and contemporaries. Also, if Seward were cast too young, I think he'd look a bit absurd as the chief of the asylum. You get the impression that he's relatively young for the position, but not, like, Doogie Howser.

 Van Helsing: Geoffrey Rush
 It was surprisingly hard to find a picture of Geoffrey Rush that I felt gave off that Van Helsing sense of intelligence, mystery, and a touch of madness. I can imagine him doing the role easily, though. And yes, we're back (just briefly) to Pirates casting. I don't have a lot to say about this casting, because I just think it is so clearly awesome. Ha.

Quincey Morris: Taylor Kitsch
Quincey Morris is another character who is oddly difficult to cast. He's Texan, so I had to consider the accent; Kitsch I know can do a decent one from Friday Night Lights, even if he occasionally slips into Canadian. He needs to be roughly the same age as Arthur Holmwood, also. I was surprised to discover how few American actors I could think of around the age of 30 who seemed suitable for the part. Kitsch is two years younger than Goode and actually seems younger still--probably because of Friday Night Lights--but I think if you dress him up right and he acts the part, he wouldn't seem out of place. My ideal casting would be Timothy Olyphant about ten years ago, but what are you going to do?

Renfield: David Tennant
First off, I love this picture, because David Tennant looks totally crazy, which is perfect. Now, granted, in the novel Renfield has a good twenty years on Tennant, but I think this would be a fine place to shake things up a little (your mileage may vary, of course). I think there's something to be said for making Seward and Renfield about the same age--it would shift their dynamic in a compelling direction. (No, I'm not talking about HoYay. Well, maybe.) It's similar to how Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie were cast as Jeeves and Wooster, even though in the books Jeeves is supposed to be considerably older. It turned out that having them be contemporaries made their relationship even more interesting. ANYway, Tennant can certainly do crazy (exhibit: everything. Okay, Harry Potter and Hamlet, for starters), but I don't think Renfield would be too much of a retread. Certainly it's a good showcase for some Acting, what with the zoophagia (yum, flies!) and the violence and the sudden lucidity when Mina visits. Tennant is much in demand in imaginary casting these days (I've seen him posited as the next Riddler, the Incredible Hulk, and as Legolas's father in The Hobbit) and I am happy to add to his imaginary CV.

Okay, Hollywood, I cast the whole movie for you. Now snag a director who can do a suspenseful period piece (off the top of my head...Marc Forster, maybe?) and get a screenwriter who's actually read the book and we might be in business!