What's the deal with changing motivations in movie
adaptations of books? In the 2007 Beowulf film, Angelina Jolie's Grendel's
Mother is motivated by child support (by way of fornicating with Hrothgar)
while in the epic poem, Grendel's Mother has no hint of sexuality whatsoever.
Such is the case with Mina in Bram Stoker's Dracula. In the book, she's
portrayed as the Angel of the House in her Victorian day. In the 1992 film
adaptation of the book, she's Dracula's reincarnated/lost princess for who he
saves his true love. It’s definitely weird, but it works, I guess. The whole
movie was very uncomfortably creepy. The love interest plot feels very
predictable. At least, when Dracula was pursuing Mina in the film, he was in
his younger, more handsome form. That didn’t stop me from imagining him in his
old man form (the way he had been portrayed in the film up until that point) and
it was significantly creepier. It’s not like I don’t understand the reason why
the filmmakers chose to add this plot point to the movie, but that doesn’t
inspire me to appreciate it any more. Sex always sells, it always has, it
always will, and especially when an attractive, young, pure woman is involved. This
film has twice as much sex as it needs. Lucy’s New Woman character arc was
preserved and she is shown plenty of times in scantily clad outfits moaning and
writhing in the presence of men and monsters. Nearly every time she’s on
camera, she’s a symbol for some kind of sex. This movie fails the Bechdel test
spectacularly. Lucy’s motivations didn’t require altering because she already
had plenty of moments to be sexy. Mina, on the other hand, was going to need a
bit more help. Enter the love and affection of Mr. Dracula. A part of me was
hoping Mina wouldn’t fall for it, like when she plays hard to get after Dracula’s
initial advances. Another positive of the modification compared to the one that
takes place in 2007 Beowulf is that
it fits somewhat. The Beowulf twist
is so bizarre and out of place. The reincarnation of Mina is way more
believable than a Grendel’s Mother who wears heels and seduces old men. Nevertheless,
I wish the film had stayed truer to the original text and left love out of it.
It doesn’t need it, and it’s better off without it.
Your post is perfect because now I can talk about some of the things I hated about the movie. The whole reincarnation bit works as plot device (except for the Christian theme), but it totally takes away from Mina's character. The movie doesn't allow her to become the strong shoulder all the men needs because she's too busy drinking absinthe with the Count (and being sexually assaulted...how was that never an issue?). I think it totally takes away from the homoeroticism of Dracula as well. He's not going after Jonathan anymore because he wants him. He's going after him because he wants Mina really. The scene were Mina and Lucy are talking about men as Lucy is dying really irked me too. It didn't make them seem like good friends, and it was totally unrealistic. The movie didn't get Lucy's character either in my opinion. She shouldn't have been so uncomfortable to watch and engage with. It didn't focus on the relationships around her disintegrating and her having no control over what to do about it or her condition. Her pain was reduced to sexual gratification. There are many other things I didn't like about the movie, but I'm just going to agree with you about the female characters and the overall sexiness of the movie in an effort to save time and space.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your post. I thought the whole "reincarnation love plot" between Dracula and Mina was completely unnecessary, especially in the way that they handled it. They could just made it so Mina felt some kind of feelings for Dracula, some kind of confusing feelings that conflicted with her feelings for
ReplyDeleteJonathan (not that this makes the subplot any more necessary), but instead they decided to make her feel confusing feelings that eventually turned into feelings that completely eclipse her feelings for her actual husband. Now, i'm not saying that this couldnt happen or that this is a "bad" thing in normal senses, but when you think of how this changed her character in the story, its easy to see why this was a bad choice. Take the famous "Sucking Scene". In this scene, the book clearly shows that Dracula had attacked and forced Mina to suck his blood against her will, but in the movie, she willingly and enthusiastically did this. The smart, independent, morally correct woman that the book built up simply got reduced to another sexually promiscuous woman because "What else are women good for anyways, right?"
Again, not to knock any woman that is sexually promiscuous, but i feel like changing Mina's character in this way was completely unnecessary and made me enjoy the movie less because not only was I forced to endure another pointless love plot, but a pointless love plot where they took the strongest woman in the story and just exploited her sexuality, as what often happens in these films.
I also agree with both of what you are saying as well as the blog post, however, maybe I can add some thought. I do agree that sex sells, always has and always will, however, I might have a suggestion as to why filmmakers change motivations as they have. In this modern time, homosexuality has become more accepting in my opinion, it isn't so rare or too surprising to find a homosexual person among peers or just out at a shopping mall. Maybe the filmmakers wanted to appeal to a larger audience by changing the motivations (keeping it more heterosexual) and keeping it more "modest" so to speak. I think if the filmmakers kept the films more true to the initial play, their audience would have significantly decreased in size... In comparison to now, I think we see homosexuality more and it is more accepted or "tolerated" by some people (more than other people). Some people just judge harshly, and some people have no issues with it. However, with a large majority of the audience being heterosexual, they can relate to the movie, have more interest in it if it mirrors their own views...
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt is tragic to see Mina’s role be downplayed from how it was in the novel. It seems the director of the film wanted women to play the role of victim thus making Mina’s crucial role in the novel vanish. Mina is supposed to represent the “new women” with her intelligence and strong will leading to Dracula’s doom. However, in the movie adaptation she is seen as more an “angel of the house” by portraying the good-wife stereotype. Mina is put aside to be a side character when she should have been one the main characters in the movie. By turning Mina into the main character, we could have seen how women struggles in Victorian men’s society to be heard and taken seriously.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your thoughts on this topic and am glad to see I am not the only one who had noticed this and disliked it as well. I feel like with the whole cinema aspect and on screen things, directors will often times edit and add things to their work that they feel appropriate to gain views and attraction. Whether that be sex, racism, empathy, hot topics, etc. I also feel this, in a way, is disrespectful to the original work they try to "remake" as it can alter the main plot quite drastically; in turn possibly ruining the work altogether.
ReplyDelete