The mystical world of vampires, ghosts and werewolves has long captivated audiences, be it through literature, drama or music, and Bram Stoker’s Dracula is no exception.
Whether it be Edgar Allan Poe’s poem about a beating heart underneath the floorboards, Matthew Gregory Lewis’ play featuring the ghostly Evelina, or Giuseppe Verdi’s haunting piece of music, "Requiem" (1874), nothing can beat the majesty of classically horrifying Gothic media.
The Gothic genre, while officially being established in 1764 with Horace Walpole’s “The Castle of Otranto”, was widely popularised during the Victorian period, when fears, and indeed, intrigue, around the spiritual world were intensifying.
Indeed, Dracula, published in 1897, is the perfect example of a Gothic text that plays with the intense thrill of the supernatural.
It tells the story of Jonathan Harker, a young English solicitor, who travels to Transylvania, to help his company’s newest client, the mysterious Count Dracula, purchase a London estate.
While all may seem well, albeit strange, at first, Harker unwittingly opens the door for the blood-sucking aristocrat to infiltrate London and threaten the souls of those nearest and dearest to him.
Chaos, fighting, death, and bloodshed ensue in this captivating tale of heroism and adventure.
All this theatricality means that Dracula lends itself very well to dramatization, which has been exploited by countless dramatic and cinematic adaptations, the newest of which is "Dracula", performed by the Blackeyed Theatre group and adapted by Nick Lane.
As the play was only running for three days, I took advantage of the opportunity and went to see their matinee performance on Friday 15th of November.
Located in the Arts Depot in North Finchley, the Pentland Theatre was transformed upon arrival into the rugged wilderness of Transylvania, which could be seamlessly morphed from the seaside town of Whitby to the warm hustle-and-bustle of London.
The adaptation was pleasingly mostly faithful to the original text, with minor tweaks for dramatic fluidity, and the actors were truly committed to their roles.
Marie Osman, Maya-Nika Bewley, Pelé Kelland-Beau, Richard Keightley, Harry Rundle and David Chafer all played their characters excellently, but the stand-out performance for me was that of Marie Osman, who played the flirtatious, corruptive Lucy Westenra superbly.
Unfortunately, the play was unexpectedly cancelled due to unforeseen circumstances after the first half, but from what I could tell, it provided a wonderful insight into a different, more modern interpretation of Stoker’s well-beloved work.
The director's genius showed through in the decision to use the same versatile set design for each location, really encouraging a smooth movement from scene to scene.
Actors moved wooden crates from place to place, a small modification which made all the difference: here, a crate may be used as a plush seat in a train carriage, there, as a bed for the ailing Lucy.
As fellow audience member, Alma Segal, pointed out, the staging was “innovative, fluid and utterly captivating” and worked alongside the performance to “[provide] a modern perspective, bringing the historical context to the forefront, and chillingly highlighting social inequalities that still resonate today”.
The openness of the set allowed the audience to clearly see each individual, while still providing a certain labyrinthine quality that was perfectly suited to the settings of Dracula’s castle and London’s winding alleyways.
While Lane’s adaptation was fairly traditional, there were a few minor changes that I felt detracted from the original storyline.
Although it is necessary with a dramatic work to keep the pacing fast and lively, I was disappointed with the lack of mystery surrounding Lucy’s so-called "corruption".
The fact that the real reason behind it was hinted at so strongly right from the beginning perhaps removed an important sense of mystery that I find to be very engaging in Stoker’s original work.
However, for an audience member who has not read Dracula, I believe that this element would not hinder their enjoyment of the play and would perhaps even facilitate better understanding of the overall plot.
Another element I believed was underdeveloped was the character of Mina.
Although I was only able to watch the first half and so cannot comment on the performance from this point onwards, I felt that Mina had been reduced to merely a "catalyst character", serving only to further the plot, which underplays her huge role in the just first half of the book.
Again, though, it is easy to see why this had to be done.
In a play that only lasts just over 2 hours, adapted from a 400-page book, some things must be cut; however, I felt that it was unfortunate that Mina’s original courageousness and depth of character had to be reduced.
Mina’s importance as an advocate of female agency is perhaps unfairly undercut; indeed, as audience member Eve Soupe puts it, “I felt that the feminist lens applied to Lucy might have been better suited for Mina’s character”.
For someone who is not familiar with Dracula's plot, this small change has the potential to completely change how Mina is perceived, diminishing her to a superficial and frivolous young girl, instead of the boundary-breaking, intelligent woman she is described as by Stoker.
Overall, I think that Lane’s adaptation of Dracula was well thought out for its purpose, and was certainly an enjoyable watch, even though some readers may be slightly disappointed with the abridged version.
The actors play their roles wonderfully and the ambiance was “undeniably Gothic”, as Segal expresses it, but the lack of mystery and secrecy in key plot points meant that this adaptation failed to grip the audience in the way that it was intended to.
While this play was a great success for its intentions (an honourable achievement), it could perhaps do with a little more of the rich and fiery spirit that made Stoker’s novel such a steadfast masterpiece over 120 years ago.
