Madam Mina: Dracula's New Boo

We know from reading the book that Mina is described as angelic, maternal and a woman with a "man's brain."  She is vital to the mission of purging the world of the horrible Count Dracula in many ways, whether it's by using her excellent typewriting skills to organize the group's diaries or exploiting her connection with the Count with the help of hypnotism. She is, in my humble opinion , the most important and unappreciated member of the Crew of Light. So what is this bull corn in the movie? Mina goes from being a clever, valiant, faithful women, to someone who literally falls in love with some seemingly random guy on the streets (who just so happens to be the very same vampire sucking the life out of her dearest friend.) While it at first seems that she's going to despise said stranger (which I suppose was way too close to the original story for comfort) she actually ends up dating him! Let me remind you that she is currently engaged to Mr. Jonathan Harker. If that's not bad enough, she actually convinces her newfound lover to change her into a vampire not two minutes after finding out that it was he who killed Lucy. 

Excuse me ma'am, but this is not your fiance.

Why in the world did they choose to portray Mina into this adulterous, absinthe drinking, Van Helsing kissing version of herself when her role in the original story was so pivotal? The only theory  I could come up with is that they wanted to add excitement to the story. I suppose that by changing Mina into a character who is stuck in the middle of Dracula and the Crew of Light, the audience could be left to wonder who's side she will end up on. I mean they've changed the story line so much anyways, why not let Dracula live? At the point in the movie when Mina is conjuring up a storm to assist Dracula's escape, even I  thought that the vampiric pair were going to somehow escape and be together. (I was very concerned about how that would work out in the end.) By creating this other romance in the film, I believe Coppola was also working to attract a variety of audiences. Men, for the most part, would be attracted by the horror-like aspects of the movie, while women would appeal to the emotional and even sensual parts.

I mean let's face it, young Drac was pretty hot. Who can resist a top hat and Ozzy Osborne shades?

 Again, these are just theories in the works. What do you think about this complete flip in Mina's character?

Champagne, Opium, and Governesses (and most other things relating to Victorian Mothers): How Lucy and Mina Represent Victorian Mothers

                The Victorians were very good at some things: corsets, censorship, and postmortem photography. But one thing most Victorians aren’t well known for are their child rearing abilities.  There were often two types of mothers; the affectionate mother and the unloving mother.  Some mothers doted on their children, while other mothers were…well, monsters (but isn’t this always the case).  Mothers were monsters for whatever reason (just like the Victorians really seemed to blame women for the whole Garden of Eden and apple thing…but aren’t Lucifer and the snake generally men?  Its fine. Its whatever).  But so long as a mother made sure- or hired a governess that made sure- the children were seen and not heard, they were deemed a good mother. 

                Dracula- to me, if it’s so heavy with Oedipal things- could be a comment on the two different types of mothers in Victorian England.  Far reaching?  Yea, okay, but let me actually explain. 

                Lucy was the rejecting mother.  Plenty of Victorian mothers were rejecting; they turned their children over to governesses and had practically no hand in raising their children.  Lucy rejected Quincy and Jack, and also seems to reject the “bloofer boiz”.  She was in love when she died.  Yes, to be a part of the undead generally makes one cold, but I imagine she would need a companion.  Sure, there’s Dracula, but if he’s so busy stealing all the other English women from English men, he can’t actually keep his creations company.  So, why doesn’t she create a little child to keep her company?  Yea, that’s even more far fetched, but it makes sense.  If she’s the symbol of the cold Victorian mother, there’s a chance she wouldn’t want children: there’s a chance that could contribute to why some mothers were so horrid (and why Lucy never kept one of the children).   

                Mina is definitely the stereotypical mother; affectionate, loving, and a comfort (also she’s made to seem a little weak, but ideal women automatically being weak is a different blog post).  While mothers in the Victorian ages still believed that children should be seen and not heard, a number of them were still mothers that loved and cared for their children.  Mina would be one of those.  She helps to nurse Jonathan back to health, holds the men when they cry over Lucy, and even mothers Lucy as much as her own mother.  Mina is the ideal mother of all ages and time periods, and if Dracula is turning women based on their ability to mother, it’s no wonder he chose her in addition to Lucy.  Lucy was the prototype- Mina is the perfected version of the mother Dracula wanted.  In Coppola’s Dracula, Dracula uses Jonathan to get to Mina.  Perhaps Dracula’s original motives were not too far off (just like the rest of the movie is from the rest of the book, but again, that’s a different blog).

                Dracula was more than likely not read as Oedipal when it was first written, but it has defiantly developed into the monster it is today.  With Dracula and Van Helsing as the obvious fathers, the two women are the mothers, and the “Van Helsing boiz” are undoubtably the sons.  The two women not only represent The Angel in the House and New Women, but they represent the two different types of mothers that were famous then and are still famous now.