promethia does tv wrong: Dracula
9 Jan 2020 09:42 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
promethia_tenkSo, I'm on my final week of work hell *cries*, I'm running on fumes, living on hot dogs, and Doctor Who is finally back and is actually good again. And yet I am on my third viewing of Moff and Gatiss' Dracula because I need Steven Moffat's writing like I need oxygen.
Of course Tumblr hates it, lol.
Is it Moff's strongest work? Heck no. I'd call it solidly uneven. There are writers who can make truly dark content sing, but I don't think Moff is one of them (Gatiss might be; I don't know enough of his writing outside Who). I think Moff doesn't quite know how to focus properly when he doesn't have a redemptive element to build around. That said, there was something sickly satisfying about watching him roll out every one of his magical alchemy tropes and systematically destroy them because, look, sometimes caring about something hard enough just doesn't fix things.
I've actually read Dracula, like it a lot, was looking forward to a relatively faithful adaptation. I rather thought, going into this, that the novel already had a ton of elements that seemed right in Moffat's usual wheelhouse. This wasn't a faithful adaption, however, so much as our intrepid writers ransacking the book for parts and then diving cheerfully off the deep end. I was fine with this once the initial shock wore off.
What they did write, however, was basically Hannibal with Dracula trappings. From the shift in focus to a central, mutually obsessive relationship, to Dracula smugly dropping vampire puns into conversation with unsuspecting humans, to the opening credits which, frankly, are a complete rip-off/homage. Was it as good as Hannibal? Of course not, but few things are.
Claes Bang is an immensely watchable Dracula. Just endless fun. I have a huge annoyance with most modern vampire stories (the 'vegan vampires,' I call them). Reading Dracula was massively refreshing because here was a vampire of an whole different sort: entirely monstrous, deeply inhuman, and perhaps most importantly, a shadowy, unknowable figure. Most often glimpsed out of the corner of your eye rather than hogging the spotlight . . . So the show got the monstrous part right, at least. I'm not mad about it: this Dracula is stupidly entertaining and is basically Hannibal, as I said before. Still, I await the truly faithful Dracula adaptation of my dreams that omits Dracula himself as much as possible.
I'm not going to argue with anybody that episode three wasn't a hot mess: by far the worst of the three. However, this definitely goes a long, long way towards making me like it anyway (warning: actual spoilers and hard-core Moff-style metaphors). Watching episode one again with this in mind and knowledge of where it's all going is fantastic.
Everything I've just said scarcely matters, however, because omg, Sister Agatha. omgomgomogmomgomomgomgomgomg I love her so much. Nobody writes like Moffat. Nobody. Oh god, she's so great, I can't.
Anyways, Tumblr hated it. If any body knows the location of some thoughtful, substantive, mostly positive writing on the subject, please, please point me towards it.
Of course Tumblr hates it, lol.
Is it Moff's strongest work? Heck no. I'd call it solidly uneven. There are writers who can make truly dark content sing, but I don't think Moff is one of them (Gatiss might be; I don't know enough of his writing outside Who). I think Moff doesn't quite know how to focus properly when he doesn't have a redemptive element to build around. That said, there was something sickly satisfying about watching him roll out every one of his magical alchemy tropes and systematically destroy them because, look, sometimes caring about something hard enough just doesn't fix things.
I've actually read Dracula, like it a lot, was looking forward to a relatively faithful adaptation. I rather thought, going into this, that the novel already had a ton of elements that seemed right in Moffat's usual wheelhouse. This wasn't a faithful adaption, however, so much as our intrepid writers ransacking the book for parts and then diving cheerfully off the deep end. I was fine with this once the initial shock wore off.
What they did write, however, was basically Hannibal with Dracula trappings. From the shift in focus to a central, mutually obsessive relationship, to Dracula smugly dropping vampire puns into conversation with unsuspecting humans, to the opening credits which, frankly, are a complete rip-off/homage. Was it as good as Hannibal? Of course not, but few things are.
Claes Bang is an immensely watchable Dracula. Just endless fun. I have a huge annoyance with most modern vampire stories (the 'vegan vampires,' I call them). Reading Dracula was massively refreshing because here was a vampire of an whole different sort: entirely monstrous, deeply inhuman, and perhaps most importantly, a shadowy, unknowable figure. Most often glimpsed out of the corner of your eye rather than hogging the spotlight . . . So the show got the monstrous part right, at least. I'm not mad about it: this Dracula is stupidly entertaining and is basically Hannibal, as I said before. Still, I await the truly faithful Dracula adaptation of my dreams that omits Dracula himself as much as possible.
I'm not going to argue with anybody that episode three wasn't a hot mess: by far the worst of the three. However, this definitely goes a long, long way towards making me like it anyway (warning: actual spoilers and hard-core Moff-style metaphors). Watching episode one again with this in mind and knowledge of where it's all going is fantastic.
Everything I've just said scarcely matters, however, because omg, Sister Agatha. omgomgomogmomgomomgomgomgomg I love her so much. Nobody writes like Moffat. Nobody. Oh god, she's so great, I can't.
Anyways, Tumblr hated it. If any body knows the location of some thoughtful, substantive, mostly positive writing on the subject, please, please point me towards it.
(no subject)
Date: 17 Jan 2020 12:14 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17 Jan 2020 12:48 pm (UTC)I'll admit, I think Jekyll is basically perfect and was rather hoping to feel similarly about Dracula. But no: it's all more complicated. That said, I've never actually read Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, so maybe I'd not think so well of that if I had.
Like you, I'm still waiting for a faithful adaptation (apparently the BBC 1970s series was very faithful according to Gatiss's documentary on Dracula adaptations?).
Indeed. The pocasts I linked elisi to above (which are fabulous if you enjoy listening to Moff and Gatiss blather) he mentions it as well. I guess I'll have to seek it out sometime.
As I haven't watched Hannibal, I missed all the references, haha.
I'm not entirely certain if they're strong enough that I can say definitively that they are references, but the overlap is mighty strong. The credits, though, those are just shameless: https://youtu.be/FVbWCv49_Xo
I think the second episode was probably the strongest?
I tend to agree. Just as a piece of television I think it's the most solidly watchable. But on rewatch I find that episodes one and three both have a lot more going on underneath and two is mostly entertainment.
The third was definitely a mess (really seems like there should have been four episodes, not three).
That's an interesting suggestion I've not seen anybody else make. Everybody just tends to write the whole thing off after the second episode. I mostly just wonder how Moff and Gatiss didn't realize that asking an audience to invest in a whole new set of characters in the last third was a bad idea, so maybe giving the modern crew an equal amount of screen time to the Victorian one would fix that? That said, I have to wonder if Jack and Lucy really have enough going for them as characters to support any more story about them. Zoe, though, definitely could have benefitted from getting the time to be fleshed out as her own person, because I don't think she's uninteresting, but why replace a sparkier version of a character with a more insipid one who's only going to lose by comparison and, indeed, basically gets erased by the story itself? I'd totally watch an episode that focused on Dracula being held by the Harker foundation and having lots of sparky clashes of wits with Zoe, though (speaking of Hannibal-esque touches . . . )
(no subject)
Date: 17 Jan 2020 06:09 pm (UTC)That's true, but it also has the most chess and that barnstorming ending. 8D
That's an interesting suggestion I've not seen anybody else make. Everybody just tends to write the whole thing off after the second episode. I mostly just wonder how Moff and Gatiss didn't realize that asking an audience to invest in a whole new set of characters in the last third was a bad idea, so maybe giving the modern crew an equal amount of screen time to the Victorian one would fix that?
Exactly. As I said to elisi, if you're going to introduce new characters, you need to give them some time to develop, or what's the point in having them? *looks pointedly at Chibnall Who*
I have to wonder if Jack and Lucy really have enough going for them as characters to support any more story about them.
Jack and Lucy would have been better if they'd been swapped around - Lucy as Zoë's protegée, Jack as the one falling in love with Dracula. Lucy can be a promiscuous young woman AND a brilliant scientist, it's the 21st century. :)
Zoe, though, definitely could have benefitted from getting the time to be fleshed out as her own person, because I don't think she's uninteresting, but why replace a sparkier version of a character with a more insipid one who's only going to lose by comparison and, indeed, basically gets erased by the story itself? I'd totally watch an episode that focused on Dracula being held by the Harker foundation and having lots of sparky clashes of wits with Zoe, though (speaking of Hannibal-esque touches . . . )
Exactly. Zoë deserved more time and attention, if nothing else. She's dying! We could have had some scenes where she's living with cancer, going about her life, refusing to be signed off, being bloody minded and amazing. (I love that they gave her a name that means "life", THE SYMBOLISM, I'VE MISSED YOU SO MUCH MOFF.) Also the fact that he was creating an army of undead and had recruited Renfield as his acolyte was just... left there? Is Jonathan Harker going to take them on? Is Renfield going to argue that they constitute an endangered species?? I NEED ANSWERS.
(no subject)
Date: 18 Jan 2020 02:17 pm (UTC)That is true too, I cannot deny it. *sigh* Bless Steven Moffat and his addiction to chess metaphors. It's basically a complete cliche and yet so great.
Exactly. As I said to elisi, if you're going to introduce new characters, you need to give them some time to develop, or what's the point in having them? *looks pointedly at Chibnall Who*
*snerk* I don't understand how Chibnall of all people is missing so hard on that front. IT'S THE ONLY THING HE'S GOOD AT.
Jack and Lucy would have been better if they'd been swapped around - Lucy as Zoë's protegée, Jack as the one falling in love with Dracula. Lucy can be a promiscuous young woman AND a brilliant scientist, it's the 21st century. :)
Hmmmmm. Could work. Though at least Lucy has some personality and motivation at all. Jack is such an utter blank; I was at a complete loss for why he cared about Lucy at all, what he wanted from anything . . . they just gave us nothing there. And Lucy I can at least buy into on a thematic level; Jack was beyond cardboard.
Exactly. Zoë deserved more time and attention, if nothing else. She's dying! We could have had some scenes where she's living with cancer, going about her life, refusing to be signed off, being bloody minded and amazing.
I put several jokes into the vid about Zoe being a non-character (my name's forgotten) because . . . geeze, show her a bit of respect maybe?
(I love that they gave her a name that means "life", THE SYMBOLISM, I'VE MISSED YOU SO MUCH MOFF.)
I DID NOT KNOW THAT. THANK YOU I LOVE IT.
I've been geeking out over the symbolism of Dracula's abodes. The castle, an endless labyrinth that serves as Harker's prison, and yet is it not Dracula who is ultimately seeking to escape it as a metaphor for his endless, blank life? He does not realize there is a map because he doesn't understand his own symbolic condition but he knows he needs Johnny to get out (bride #1). Harker, in contrast, intuits the existence of the map (that leads to the sunlight) because he has Mina. Compare to Dracula's flat in England where we have on a very straightforward axis, the doorway (invitation) with a piece of art in the shape of a crucified man above it across from the window (sunlight) and connecting them the long table (food, but also communion, coming together) which also serves as a mirror on top of which Dracula and Zagatha die.
I have missed this shit so much I could weep.
Also the fact that he was creating an army of undead and had recruited Renfield as his acolyte was just... left there? Is Jonathan Harker going to take them on? Is Renfield going to argue that they constitute an endangered species?? I NEED ANSWERS.
From the podcast it sounds like they left some of the modern stuff deliberately vague in case anybody wanted a second season, so who knows. It is all very Jekyll, which naturally I approve of.
(no subject)
Date: 24 Jan 2020 10:24 pm (UTC)True. But he was very PRETTY cardboard. 8D
The castle, an endless labyrinth that serves as Harker's prison, and yet is it not Dracula who is ultimately seeking to escape it as a metaphor for his endless, blank life? He does not realize there is a map because he doesn't understand his own symbolic condition but he knows he needs Johnny to get out (bride #1). Harker, in contrast, intuits the existence of the map (that leads to the sunlight) because he has Mina. Compare to Dracula's flat in England where we have on a very straightforward axis, the doorway (invitation) with a piece of art in the shape of a crucified man above it across from the window (sunlight) and connecting them the long table (food, but also communion, coming together) which also serves as a mirror on top of which Dracula and Zagatha die.
Mina as Harker's sunlight, the thing he keeps chasing until he can see her one last time (I think the leap to his death was probably his last fully free act)?
(no subject)
Date: 17 Jan 2020 12:48 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17 Jan 2020 06:11 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18 Jan 2020 02:01 pm (UTC)That reviewer completely flummoxed me because he was like 'fans of sexy nuns will have to look elsewhere' and it was like . . . WERE WE NOT WATCHING THE SAME SCENE?!!? Because I think what I saw was a nun effectively restraining an assbutt naked, feral vampire and feeding him her own blood while she taunted him, and it happened to be one of the hottest things I've seen committed to film. But then everything that is sexy about that scene is about Agatha doing exactly what she wants, the way she wants to, and the camera never even gets close to trying to objectify her, so there we are . . .
(no subject)
Date: 24 Jan 2020 10:02 pm (UTC)