Dracula in Theatre Across the Ages

"Dracula" is a timeless story and character. Inevitably, the novel found its way into many different stage adaptations, and continues to surface in new plays even today. The first instance of a play adapted from the novel was actually put together by Bram Stoker himself. Though, this adaptation was not created under the most traditional circumstances. In pre-1968 Great Britain, all new plays were required to be submitted to the Lord Chamberlain's Office for licensing purposes. (1) When Stoker submitted his adaptation, it was purely for that - licensing. Stoker wanted the rights to his own characters as far as stage adaptations went. So he submitted his play to the Lord Chamberlain, and the first performance of said play was actually produced eight days before the novel was released. (1) This is likely because of the impact the novel had when it was first released. It was something most people of that time had never seen before, and Stoker anticipated that it'd be wildly successful. The play, however, was met with much negative reception. It is said that Stoker was very much interested in the opinion of actor Henry Irving, but when he received it, the verdict was harsh. Greg Buzwell details the happening in an article for the British Library: "To Stoker’s disappointment the actor Henry Irving took no part in the production. Irving was widely considered to be one of Stoker’s inspirations for the Count... Legend has it that when Stoker asked Irving what he thought of the play the great actor replied with a single word – ‘dreadful’." (1) The reason for the negative reception was likely because of its length. Buzwell also explains: " The play comprises of a prologue and five acts, containing over forty scenes in total, and would probably have taken a numbing six hours to read." (1) Bram Stoker's motives for writing the play, detailed above, are most likely why the play was so long and messy.

                                           The original manuscript of Stoker's adaptation. Public Domain
                                               
There was a theatrical adaptation of "Dracula" written in 1924 by Hamilton Deane and John L. Balderston. (2) The most interesting feature of this adaptation is the differences between the play and the novel. For one, there is no Mina Harker. (2) Personally, this would detract from the work in a significant way, as Mina is the most central character in the novel. Also, much of the novel is told through her diary entries, as she was practiced in shorthand and typewriting. Another major difference between this play and the novel is that Lucy is Dr. Seward's daughter, and Jonathan Harker is her fiance. (2) Decisions to change characters and plot are not only common but often necessary in stage plays adapted from novels, as there are limits as to what can be done on a stage. Deane and Balderston's version of "Dracula," was described in a review for the New York Times, written by Leah Frank, as being tonally confused. Frank writes: "The main difficulty with this ''Dracula'' is that it hasn't quite made up its mind whether it should be serious and frightening or camp and funny." (2) Campy themes are mostly seen in older movies and plays, which checks out since this play was written in 1924.

                                    Poster for a 1938 production of the Deane/Balderston play, Public Domain

To truly span the 100+ years "Dracula" has been on the stage, I chose to include a slightly more modern adaptation, "Dracula, the Musical," written in 2001 by Don Black and Christopher Hampton and scored by Frank Wildhorn. (3) In a New York Times article, Ben Brantley summarizes his perception on the quality of the musical: "Dracula, the Musical...  isn't simply bad, which is an aesthetic state of being that is kind of fun if you're in the right mood... It is bad and boring." (3) With a musical, one might expect it to be very different from the source material as it must be adapted into lyrics and music - not exactly traditional forms of storytelling. Surprisingly, Brantley claims that if you know the story of "Dracula," you will be bored. But if you don't know the story, you will be lost. (3) It seems that the writers went for a very faithful adaptation of the novel, but failed to add anything new and interesting to give the musical it's own personality and characteristics. Brantley describes this conundrum in the NYT article: "The show assumes the audience's full acquaintance with the source material and delivers much of its crucial exposition through sung lyrics that are not always intelligible." (3)

Works Cited:
(1) Buzwell, Greg. "Bram Stoker's Stage Adaptation of Dracula." British Library, British Library, 15 May 2014,
<https://www.bl.uk/romantics-and-victorians/articles/bram-stokers-stage-adaptation-of-dracula>
(2) Frank, Leah. "Theatre Review; A New 'Dracula' to Sink Your Teeth Into." The New York Times, The New York Times Company, 18 January 1987, <https://www.nytimes.com/1987/01/18/nyregion/theater-review-a-new-dracula-to-sink-your-teeth-into.html>
(3) Brantley, Ben. "Theatre Review; The Bat Awakens, Stretches, Yawns." The New York Times, The New York Times Company, 20 August 2004, <https://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/movies/theater-review-the-bat-awakens-stretches-yawns.html>