Adapting Dracula (Why Epistolary is a Four Letter Word)

Today we talk about what I love best:
Little known works. Adapting.
So I have been working on a number of projects.
One of them is Turn of the Screw by Henry James.

(He looks surprised to be here too)

Now, I have attempted some devised work out of whole cloth before.
I have tried what I term experimental theatre.
I have never tried my hand at adaptation.
Because too often it looks like this:

And not like this:

Or this:

Point being:

There is a way to do adaptations. And a way not to do adaptations.

So adaptations have always been a thorny, sticking place for me.
Recently, I saw a production of Dracula at Taproot Theatre.

Fun? I know!
The performances were masterful.
The script was wonderful.
Themes developed/explored

• sacrifice
• devotion
• good vs. evil

The character of Mina had a spine-tingling monologue about the nature of sacrifice that produced chills in the whole audience.

Mina's character was surprisingly forthright and domineering, which is a wonderful change of pace.

Dracula's characterization did not tip over into the caricature that plagues so many productions. 

van Helsing was superb in his affectionate, father-figure role.

So all in all a very fun filled night.

So why wasn't I floored?

Why didn't I love it?!

I think it was the adaptation.

It wasn't effective.

The script lifted pieces of text directly out of the book and the actors spoke them, much like the style of reader's theatre or radio drama as they enacted what they spoke.

This created a remarkable tension in the awakening of Dracula and the travel sequences. 

The opening was also particularly effective with passing of time and the devolution of Harker.

But, in "action" scenes where the primary motivator is spectacle, blood and gore, lengthy prose spoken at pace to get to the stabby bits feels clunky.

Why do it?

Well, it is a choice. 

And like I said, very effective.

At times.

So why doesn't it work all of the time?

I look to the original text.

Dracula is an epistolary novel.

So we have:

• A novel written by Bram Stoker
• In said novel we have a number of documents (I like to say artifacts)
• These documents are compiled to give an account of Dracula, the vampire
• These documents come from many sources, most of them primary characters in the action and the plot

So the question is: 

What does this do? Why does it work so well as a novel? 

Because a novel is an artifact!
Therefore, it makes sense as a medium for letters.
Therefore, the story is possible (however, unlikely).
Possibly many times removed, but still, an accurate account of factual events.

This is a sticky point.
We may need a modern parallel.
Have you heard of this little number?

 You should, it was one of the biggest phenomenons in movie history.
All because they added a couple words before the trailer:

This story is based on true events.

That is all it took.
And the audiences went wild.
People flocked to this movie.

Before the film was released, the three main actors were listed as "missing, presumed dead" on the IMDb.

It was fun!
People wanted to believe!
And why? Because they could.
This was a film compiled from clippings of a "found" student film.
It was "possible" if not necessarily "real".
Dracula works in its medium because of this effect.
It is "possible" if not necessarily "real" as a novel.

Now, theatre is an immediate medium.
We see everything.
Our imaginations are bound up with real bodies really doing things onstage immediately in front of us.
Therefore, what we love about Dracula (i.e. the urban legend nature of it) is lost onstage because it is happening in front of us.
Who ever heard of an urban legend in the present tense?
Theatrical performance can span thousands of millions of years, but it is always in present tense.

So how does an adaptation work?
Well by transferring a story from one medium to another, concessions have to be made.
Most often concessions are made regarding time (Just mention Tom Bombadil to Alec Barbour and see what happens).
However, there are stories that are suited to multiple mediums or are readily adaptable.
A novel like Lord of the Rings is well suited to a trilogy: 3 books=3 movies
A novel like The Hobbit is not well suited to a trilogy: 3/4 book < 3 movies.

My personal favorite is anyone who says a "faithful adaptation"
What I think they mean is taking verbatim from the book.
My favorite adaptation of Dracula:

Exempting Keanu Reeves: Bram Stoker's Dracula.
This thing is visually a feast

Ladies *tips hat*

And Gary Oldman's performance is just masterful.

The best part about the adaptation is it was wonderfully done: meaning there was almost no lifted text.
All of the scenes involved dialogue and not a character recounting what they had already done or were currently doing in front of us.

Another of my favorite adaptations:

You guessed it: The Muppet's Christmas Carol.
In this case they embraced the narrative style by having Gonzo portray the aptly named narrator character: Charles Dickens

For your viewing pleasure:

Perfection. Oh and this:

Christmas Carol is probably one of the best stories of all time.
Why?
Because it works in any medium.
It has worked as reader theatre, radio drama, theatre, film, television, etc.
There is nothing to which it does not lend itself.
It is the most popular show of all time.
It needs its own special category when calculating what show is most produced in theatre seasons!
What makes it such a good story for adaptation? And why do I love the Muppets so?

Well for one, Muppets.
But, two, I think because of what Gonzo's character Charlie Dickens illustrates so masterfully:
It is a description of events as they happen.
It is an exploration of a life with flashes and glimpses of the past and future.
It is fantastical.
All of these elements are present or possible in every medium!
It just plain works!

This is not to say all present tense or "happening" stories are universally successful in all mediums.
Take a look at this steaming pile:

Hold onto your butts.
I actually don't mind Hunger Games.
I think they are a fairly well made series that features some not so subtle social commentary.
And the movies are really good as well.
The problem is they are not very effective.
Why?
Well what makes the books work so well is the isolation of Katniss Everdeen.
First person, present tense makes it a very limited story view.
We only know the world through the lens of Katniss.
Literally.
Entirely.
So why don't the movies work as well?
Because they didn't put a camera inside Jennifer Lawrence's head.

Insert picture here. (I wish I could find this picture!)

Therefore, we get to watch and see the social interactions outside of her.
It lends a sense of objectivity to the whole thing.
To change pace and flavor, we even get exposition from the commentators

And who didn't fucking love these guys?
They provided necessary exposition that we couldn't get directly from Katniss.
They made the film work!
But, they also pulled away from the isolation and desolation that is Katniss's story.
Therefore, what made the story work in the medium also detracted from what made it meaningful: Katniss's struggle to understand the world she lives in.