 |
| Bram Stoker's (1847-1912) Notes on the personal for his novel Dracula. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
That made me feel better. What I'm thinking now is that it almost fits into the neo-mythology genre, except they aren't really telling a new story, at least not so far. The other thing I'm thinking is that the book Stoker wrote has been adapted in a bunch of different ways, but one thing that all of them (as far as I know, since I haven't seen them all, I'm sure) have in common is that there is never a clear hero (the van Helsing character comes closest, but he's usually advising younger men on how to deal with vampires rather than enacting a monomyth), which is the way the book is, too. So, not neo-mythology, but . . .
The difference with this Dracula is that the show follows him as much as it does the other characters, or even more. Maybe that's my problem with it. In a way, it kind of reminds me of The Count of Monte Cristo (the Jim Caviezel one), where the audience is in on his plans. I guess I don't want to know that much about Dracula himself -- I like following all the clues that the characters miss until van Helsing shows up to set them straight. But I can see where that would be a problem for anyone trying to make a series out of it, since it would have to end sooner rather than later, or turn into a soap opera (and maybe that's the vibe I'm getting from the show) where week after week they try and fail to stop him. I guess we'll see.
No comments:
Post a Comment