In the early going, Dracula has sex on the brain. The miniseries’s opening episode, “The Rules Of The Beast”, establishes the relationship between the count’s first victim, English lawyer Jonathan Harker, and his fiancé Mina Murray with a letter in which the latter playfully promises to take carnal vengeance with everyone back home should her beloved stray while in Transylvania. Sister Agatha, a nun serving as self-appointed investigator of Harker’s case, asks the ill-fated man whether his desiccated appearance is the consequence of having had sex with Dracula. She jokes another nun is sitting in on her interview with Harker because the convent doesn’t trust her with men and compares her tepid faith to being in a loveless marriage with the almighty. She assures Harker that dreams are a realm where one is free to sin without worry as we learn the count’s first attack, imagined or otherwise, came when he inserted himself into Jonathan’s dream of sex with Mina.
For those familiar with cowriters Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss’s previous work, none of this should come as a surprise. These are writers who have never hesitated to ask of iconic characters, “What defines these legends, and why is it horniness?” Their previous collaboration Sherlock is fascinated with the sexual subtext of the great detective’s relationship with, well, damn near everyone. Moffat’s 2007 miniseries Jekyll, in which Gatiss put in a guest turn as original novel writer Robert Louis Stevenson, alternates in viewing Mr. Hyde as either sex or love incarnate. And then there’s Moffat’s time at the helm of Doctor Who, in which he shattered the show’s longstanding if previously teetering assumption that the Doctor is asexual.
Not that it takes much work to view the Dracula story, of all things, through that particular lens. Vampires were the horniest monsters long before Moffat and Gatiss turned their attention to the genre’s most iconic example. All the familiar signifiers of vampiric sexuality are here: the sensuality in each shot of a drop of blood, the staging of attacks as seduction, the animal virility of the count, and so on. If ever there were an ideal vehicle for Moffat and Gatiss to explore their storytelling obsessions—especially Moffat, given he wrote Jekyll and ran Doctor Who solo, though all the macabre and grotesque imagery feels like a testament to Gatiss’s equal partnership—then Dracula is surely it.
The big question for them is the same one that dogged all three of those previous effort: Can the miniseries resist the urge to prove how clever it is long enough to craft a compelling story and give its characters room to breathe? (Admittedly, for some of the characters that phrasing is more metaphorical than you would typically expect.) “The Rules Of The Beast” is promising in that regard. Unlike Jekyll or Sherlock, this doesn’t translate the 19th century source material to the present day, instead keeping the action in 1897. That instantly makes this is a more conventional adaptation, with the opening episode concerned with the Transylvania-set portions of the familiar story. Still, this isn’t a straight adaptation of Bram Stoker’s novel, but then that’s rarely been the case going back to F.W. Murnau and Bela Lugosi, both of whose films inspire the looks of Claes Bang’s Dracula in his various states. Bang is a lot of fun here, transforming as he feeds on Harker from wizened Eastern European other to swaggering Victorian lad. There’s some of Tom Ellis’s Lucifer in his performance, especially when we find Dracula trying to tempt any one nun into betraying the others while singularly unbothered by being naked out in the cold Hungarian night.
There are some specific allusions to the original book, including setting Jonathan and Mina’s reunion at a convent he has fled to, though that one faithful decision is in service of a half-dozen audacious departures. Generally, that’s a fair exchange. One of the episode’s two biggest departures from what we might call the consensus version of the story—the one everyone sort of knows, even if there’s no one single telling that has all of it—is to have Jonathan perish at Castle Dracula and come back as a creature of the undead. That choice here emphasizes Harker’s status as an almost worthy foe for the count, though the “almost” is heartbreaking. Jonathan recognizes quickly that something is very wrong in the castle, and his investigations lead him to discoveries even his monstrous host had missed. With his last breath, he swears he will do everything in his power to stop Dracula, and it’s only after he stops breathing that he proves unable to keep that promise.
While he’s destined to be upstaged in the subsequent episodes—Dracula does, after all, wear his skin as a mask to close out the episode, which only leaves so many places to go from there—Harker is the focus of the proceedings in the premiere. John Heffernan lends the part an appropriately Victorian mix of feckless presumption and quiet determination. He’s too pathetic to ever really threaten to be the hero of the piece, especially when his undead future lurks in the audience’s mind, but he has a palpable desperation to prove he is more than just the hapless victim. Harker has just enough spirit for it to make sense when Dracula applauds his resurrection, even as it’s clear that the count’s real foe is waiting for him at the Hungarian convent.
That’s the other big innovation of this version, as the scholar Abraham van Helsing becomes Sister Agatha van Helsing. The gender flip is the least radical aspect of her character, as it’s in her that Moffat and Gatiss center most of the cleverness. Her attitude and lines walk right up to the edge of anachronistic, with the show trusting Dolly Wells to craft a performance that feels like more than a big bag of writerly choices. This is less successful during her interview with the undead Harker, as this feels a little too much like a self-consciously clever genre excursion into police show territory. However, once she is matched with Dracula herself, the character snaps into sharper focus. Her resolve and confidence remain, but she recognizes just how powerful a threat the vampire is, so there’s more of a context for her reactions. She is prepared to take big risks, including testing the legend that a vampire may only enter a residence when invited by opening the convent gate to a naked, ravenous Dracula to see if he can come through.
This is also where we start to see Dracula’s take on vampire lore. Moffat in particular loves taking an iconic work’s familiar tropes and tilting them. Here, Dracula’s condition is just a more advanced form of undeath, a condition that can affect any unfortunate who assumes they have died and finds their consciousness lingering on in the grave. Sister Agatha presents that to Jonathan so matter-of-factly it’s hard to judge whether that’s a significant clue or just a piece of macabre world-building.
Of far more definite importance are the rules governing vampire behavior, particularly the question of why crosses work to ward off Dracula. Moffat has long loved banking the profundity of his work on a single line that recontextualizes what we thought we understood about the story. For instance, he’s twice offered a revisionist definition of what love is at the climax of a story. (In Jekyll and Doctor Who’s “Death In Heaven”, for those curious, and they are dramatically different takes.) He has never wanted for big clever ideas a writer—presenting Jonathan’s condition as a venereal disease is, if not wholly original given the genre’s historical connotations, a particularly well-executed bit of business. But he and Gatiss do so insist on gambling a story’s thematic success on that one big reveal, and their track record has been mixed, even to someone like me who is generally a fan. The first big confrontation between Dracula and Sister Agatha concludes with him taunting her that she’s not as clever as she thinks she is. The big question now, as ever with this creative team, is whether the same will prove true for Dracula.
Stray observations
- Welcome to our coverage of this three-part miniseries. Look out for the next two reviews at 1 p.m. Eastern Sunday and Monday. The entire series is already available on Netflix in the United States—and the whole thing has aired on the BBC in Britain—but I’m watching and writing about one episode at a time, for those wanting to follow along.
- I tried to acknowledge this in the body of the review, but it’s worth reiterating. There’s a historical tendency to elide Mark Gatiss’ creative contributions when talking about shows like this and Sherlock, which isn’t really fair but is understandable given how of a kind so many of the creative choices of those shows feel of a kind with Moffat’s approach to Doctor Who and, more obscurely but just as relevantly, Jekyll. My convention is generally going to be to credit both equally, especially as unlike in Sherlock they are the credited co-writers for all three episodes, and any singling out of Moffat will be when I’m making a specific connection to his solo works. The same applies to Gatiss, honestly, especially given his career-long fascination with Hammer horror.
- I should also say that I don’t believe I’ve read Dracula, though I have seen the Lugosi movie and Murnau’s Nosferatu. I’ve tried to do my research on the various versions and point out some connections I come across, but I’m not the person to really assess the finest points of how it plays with the original novel.
- Any sensible person would assume that Sister Agatha’s reference to a detective friend in London is a reference to Sherlock Holmes. I am not a sensible person.
- Having watched the show as background for reviewing this, I have to ask: Any other Jekyll-heads around??
78 Comments
I’ll say what we’re all thinking: Mark Gatiss looks like an ostrich.
Something I absolutely loved about the episode, and it was something I was really concerned about heading in, is that Dracula is a pure monster. Even his charming tendencies just bolster how horrific he truly is. I think the point on the book is a good one as a lot of people, and I include myself in this at a time, don’t realize that the gothic romantic version of the character is directly from the 1990s movie. This is what he was in the book and for me that was a crucial aspect of the story.I was also a bit worried at the start of the episode as it was weirdly campy, both in tone and performance, but it really started hitting that stride half an hour in. The take on Harker was a brilliant one and I really dig that he constantly tried to do the right thing and fight that darkness, before that final weakness that results in the massacre of the end.
Sexy Dracula was most explicit in the 1990s Coppola movie, but the idea of Dracula as strikingly handsome and seductive started with Bela Lugosi, continued with Christopher Lee, and is almost hilariously overwrought in the Frank Langella movie from the 70s. (It was also such a cliche that Andy Warhol parodied it, tastelessly, with Udo Kier in the early 70s.) If you branch “sexy vampire” away from “sexy Dracula,” the Lost Boys and especially Interview with the Vampire are probably the pinnacle of that trope. It’s kind of an interesting cultural development. The unsexy, grotesque vampire spun off into other culture-specific monsters (Freddie Kruger, most prominently).
On the two female character, I really liked Van Helsing, especially once I realized she was Van Helsing. For me, Van Helsing is a crucial character of the Dracula mythos, not just due to his role in the story, but also what he represents against Dracula. It is a story of a mortal defeating the darkness with the power of reason after all. So when Agatha was first introduced, I found it really confusing as she felt too much like Van Helsing and I couldn’t figure out how she fit in to the story. I also really adored the addition of having her truly wrestle with her faith, even I’m a bit worried where they will take that storyline.Now having written that, Jesus Christ Mina Murray was too dumb to live. Like what the hell was that? Literally her sole defining characteristic in this episode was how much she loved Jonathan. Something that even after seeing that Jonathan could not control himself around her and decided to kill himself rather than endanger her, she still invites him in to the circle? That moment was so absurd that it really took me out of the final minutes and I really hope they manage to do something better with her if she sticks around.
People do stupid shit in real life all the time.
The one thing I don’t like about Helsing is that she plays it too flippant at times and it sucks all the tension out of the scene. Like, she doesn’t seem to be worried, so I’m not gonna worry either.
That can’t be avoided. A Moffatt and/or Gattiss joint ALWAYS has a smart, flippant character who thinks he/she is in charge… right up until he/she is not. They gravitate toward material that includes an arrogant smarty-pants doctor, detective, or scientist.
I was ok with it because it reminded me (pleasantly) of Anthony Hopkins in the Coppola version.
I’d like to say I wouldn’t have invited him in, but until I’m looking at the love of my life who was turned into a vampire then I thought committed suicide while I’m trapped in the basement of a Hungarian convent while Dracula is murdering everyone upstairs, I just don’t know.
Considering Mina mentions the barmaid at the Rose and Crown ( who ended up being a companion to one of that Detectives friends), you could be right ..https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/The_Rose_%26_Crown_(The_Snowmen)
I liked the show more than most, but it definitely does go downhill as it goes. I don’t think the 90-minute format helped it, especially in ep 2 and 3.Having watched the show as background for reviewing this, I have to ask: Any other Jekyll-heads around??I loved Jekyll, but haven’t watched it since it aired. 13 years ago now, Christ. It’s still the role I associate Dennis Lawson with the most, so I was just thinking about it when he showed up in that movie recently.
Me, too on Lawson. Only I bought Jekyll and used to watch it every year or two in the fall. I’m due for another rewatch, soon.
This is one of those shows where it seems like there would really need to be a lot of nudity for it to be interesting.
Yeah, I’ll never quite understand the common choice to do shows about sexuality and then be chaste in terms of what’s actually depicted.
Do they do nudity on the BBC?
I don’t think there’s any restrictions on nudity after the watershed (watershed is 9pm, most of our restrictions on content are based around pre and post watershed).I’m not sure if BBC produced stuff has a policy on nudity (especially given how much stuff is now cofunded by channels in several countries and thus has to adhere to all restrictions) but in terms of actually showing it on TV – there shouldn’t be an issueEDIT: Apparently it was on at 9pm but there is an idea things shouldn’t go immediately from kid friendly to not bang on 9pm. I’d guess given it’s Moffat/Gattis production they probably erred on the side of caution?
In a post-Witcher world…
Beheading: goodFull frontal: bad
Jekyll was great. Episodes one and two of Dracula are solid. Episode three… well I look forward to the writeup about episode 3
so, bottom line, is this worth watching? so many things to watch, so little time. i’m really done with the whole vampire thing. does this bring enough new & interesting to the table?
I think the first 2 episodes are interesting and entertaining.
Haven’t seen the 3rd yet.
The first episode is not quite “Gotham” levels of insane, but maybe somehow more fun.So, yes.
thank you, herr doctor.
Yes.
Episode 1 certainly is worth watching – after that, your mileage may vary.
I just watched the first episode and I will continue watching it. The actress playing Sister Agatha is awesome.
It’s fine. Coppola’s Dracula casts a long shadow over the first episode. There’s also plenty of material cribbed from Ye Olde Booke of Genre Conventions (labyrinth-house with a basement full of zombies, fly crawling under someone’s skin, messages scratched on windows) and a lot of hyper-stylized dialog. Parts of it are a little bit funny, at least.
Is it only me or does Dracula kind of give off a Borat vibe? Not that I’m complaining. I think it’s awesome.
Does anybody know about the upcoming Big Finish audio? Is Gatiss acting Dracula in that? Did he write it as well? It’s all one big Dracula thing they’re doing.
The “twist” that the nun is actually Van Helsing seems kind of… pointless? For those of familiar with the story going in, it seemed pretty obvious she was the vampire hunter character. And for those that aren’t familiar with the story the name won’t mean anything.
This kind of touches on something else about this, and Moffat/Gatiss’s work in general, that bugs me a little, and it’s the gulf between how much noise they make about not spoiling the dramatic reveals they make in their stories versus how impressive those reveals turn out to be. They apparently made some noise about spoiling this one (plus a later one in the series, which I’m not going to get into here), and while I get wanting people to experience the story fresh, the sheer seriousness that they take it seems out of proportion to the actual reveal.And my problem with this is that it feeds into my overall suspicion that Moffat/Gatiss view themselves as being much smarter than their writing actually merits. Because, while making her a nun is admittedly an interesting little spin on the character, it’s not like Van Helsing eventually showing up is a jaw-droppingly unexpected twist in a Dracula story, yet they’re kind of acting like it is. It’s a mildly fresh new take on an old character that they’re acting is a groundbreaking development, which consequently makes their concern seem more about how brilliant they think they are rather than how brilliant the material actually is.
“Moffat/Gatiss view themselves as being much smarter than their writing actually merits.”
Yes that sums it up perfectly. They are really not that smart but are convinced they are genious. Sherlock, that started as a nice show and devolved into a fucking nonsense mess is a case in point.
“Too clever by half” is the operative words here, I think.
In her very first scene they give her some of Van Helsing’s dialog directly from the novel. It’s a “plot twist” that relies entirely on people being unfamiliar with the source material – ie, a smarty-pants bullshit plot twist.
The Van Helsing name is such a part of Dracula lore that it will still ring familiar to many casual fans. Just ask Guillermo.
I haven’t read Dracula and I barely recognized the van Helsing “reveal” as a plot twist. I don’t really think they were trying to be too clever there.Wells is fantastic, by the way. I agree that her character borders on anachronistic (whether the character was male of female), but she is great with the role.
“You’re a monster!”“And you’re a lawyer. Nobody’s perfect.”Poor Jonathan Harker’s always getting the short end of the stake, isn’t he?
This is a good time to note that the series end of Moffat’s ‘Sherlock’ was infamously the worst pieces of rancid dog-poop ever seen on television. As to Moffat’s interest in Sherlock’s ‘sexual subtext’, another way to refer to it is ‘sneering gay-baiting’.
You haven’t read the novel? Fuck’s sake, kid. Read the novel and then start your reviews. It’ll take you a few hours and while you may not appreciate the prose, you’ll have read an iconic novel and you’ll have some sort of background from which to approach the review. Because your admission that your understanding of the characters is based on Lugosi and Murnau? Jesus, why would you admit that?
okay, so i watched the first episode. overall, i guess i liked it. i got the whiff of modern a few too many times & those whiffs, along with quite a few “ooooh, listen to me, didn’t i just write a clever line there!” bits unfortunately jarred me out of the story several times. writers, if you’re going to be in the 18oo’s, commit to it & stay there & don’t show off. it wass interesting to make van helsing a nun. the artistic direction & camera work were evocative & compelling & set up a nice mood. i may watch episode two or i may not.
update to myself: i did not watch episode two.
“ooooh, listen to me, didn’t i just write a clever line there!”Thanks for this—it’s a good way to describe smug, self-serving writing that is so in love with itself that it pulls you out of the story. “Clever” isn’t necessarily a compliment. I really wanted to love this show—I enjoyed the Dracula/Agatha/Zoe scenes—but a lot of the time I was thinking “This script is trying too hard.” FWIW, I’ve re-watched the Dracula/Zoe scenes from episode 3 a few times b/c I love the look of delight and wonder on Dracula’s face whenever she’s around. “It’s her–but it’s NOT her! I’m going to make her last, as well!”
can anyone tell me what dracula said to mina at the end when he whispered to her about his blue eyes? i couldn’t make it out.
He said “they aren’t my eyes.”
thanks!
‘They’re not *my* eyes’
thanks!
You should read Dracula as soon as you can. It’s a quick and easy read. Really fun.
Moffat hasn’t made a good show yet, don’t expect him to start now.
Coupling was a very solidly-constructed sitcom, if you ignore the last season. Unfortunately that still feels like his highwater mark after all these years.
Coupling is great. Shame about the rest.
AAhhh love to see people opining on the full body of Steven Moffat’s work who clearly have never seen press gang! Glad to see some things never change
I have, in fact, seen Press Gang. I honestly thought Coupling was a tighter construction. But I also was never a child in Britain, so I didn’t watch Press Gang young and have no nostalgia for it like I imagine many UKians do.If you’re right and Moffat’s peak was even earlier than Coupling, though, that’s even more depressing.
The show is mostly…fine. I can’t say I find it particularly horny or clever though, its just kind, eh…another take on Dracula. I do get a little kick out of, for years, hearing Aukerman and PFT on Comedy Bang Bang make fun of the “I don’t drink…wine” line from Bram Stoker’s Dracula that the writers behind this show seem to have the same amusement with its particular silliness.
This was a laughably bad series, the third episode entirely undoes any good work the first two did. Agatha is a useless protagonist who accomplishes absolutely nothing. Claes Bang gives an entertaining performance, beyond that I’m struggling to get what critics are seeing in this.
The third episode is like an inverse of those superhero storylines we occasionally get.“Don’t you see Dracula? Your weakness…it was actually INSIDE you all along….”
“…the third episode entirely undoes any good work the first two did.”Almost exactly what a lot of us said about “Sherlock”’s final series versus the previous two.
As a professional critic of pop culture, it’s probably worth reading some of the original source material for things that are repeatedly adapted, the adaptation cannon as it were. This is not a criticism as we are all works in progress, just a recommendation. I’m not saying read every book that ever gets adapted, but there is a reason some of these works have such a large footprint, and it’s interesting to explore the original work to see why it has captured our attention to such a degree.This one looks fun.
Normally I’d agree with the sentiment, but Dracula is such a limp read, after you’ve watched any adaptation of it. It’s an epistolary novel, and there’s actually very little Dracula in it.
And that’s part of what makes it so interesting, especially knowing what a huge footprint it has had since publication. You read it and think, huh, this is the novel that launched a thousand adaptations. Also, one can knock it out in one or two sittings. I’m not saying everyone should read it, but if you’re are a professional of pop culture, then yes. Also, Frankenstein, multiple religious texts, and the complete Bullfinch’s Mythology. A grounding in certain Russian authors and Jane Austen doesn’t hurt either.
F.W. Murnau and Bela Lugosi, both of whose films inspire the looks of Claes Bang’s Dracula in his various states.Maybe like 20% of his looks and only in a few scenes. The much, much stronger root for Bang’s Dracula is Christopher Lee, who is curiously and disturbingly absent from this review. The cat-and-mouse game between Dracula and Van Helsing owes a ton to Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing’s on-screen energy.
They even have a shot of Bang with bloodshot red eyes baring his fangs, straight out of the Hammer Dracula. To be fair, that version of the story is mostly notable for the effectsa nd for Lee and Cushing’s chemistry. Otherwise it’s weirdly inert.
Haven’t had time to watch this yet, but if it gets us a couple of Alasdair Wilkins reviews back into the AVC, it’s existence is justified. Good to read your writing again! Going to the Part 2 screening of Dr Who in the theater today. Miss your recaps.
While I like the idea of a Vastra allusion, if they are Easter egging/name checking other Dracula works – they get a “double” by referencing Sherlock because it refers to both their work on Sherlock, and Saberhagen’s Holmes/Dracula novels.
It looks very dark, you know, like it was shot indoors with candles for lighting.
I mean, it is Dracula and all…
Watching. It’s very good! And funny!
I haven’t seen it in a long time, but I loved ‘Jekyll’ when I first watched it, mostly for Nesbitt’s gleefully whacked out performance. (I still often think of him, as Hyde, confronting the hooligans that humiliated him and saying, “I was born hating you”.) Of course, it also didn’t make a whole bunch of sense and I seem to remember the rules governing Hyde changing scene by scene, but that feels very much like a Moffat thing.
Jekyll was a great show, and i’m surprised it never got followed up.
Moffatt and Gatiss lost their power over me with the final series of “Sherlock”.And I think “Jekyll” was a hot mess.So, I’ll read the recaps, because I enjoy reading recaps, but won’t watch the show.
In truth I had forgotten about Jeckyll until mentioned in this review. I never watched past the first ep but that was due to outside forces. I’ll have to go back and revisit after Dracula. Also I guess I’m a sensible person because the first person I thought of when Agetha mentioned a detective friend in London was Sherlock Holmes. It’s cool to grokk that those characters were contemporaries and they have met in other works (Warren Ellis’ Planetary for example)
Having watched the show as background for reviewing this, I have to ask: Any other Jekyll-heads around??I want to be, but that show is so hard to find streaming! Should I bite the bullet and pay for it on Amazon??
Watched the first episode and felt no particular desire to continue. I may get back to it, but I’d had enough tonight. What disappointed me most was how quickly things went south in Castle Dracula. In the book it’s a slow burn, and the creeping sense of horror is one of the best things about the book. Having Dracula pretty much tell Jonathan he’s a prisoner on the first night deflates that.As another Jekyll-head, I hope the reveal of Jonathan’s writing was a call back to the “I’m coming” on endless sheets of paper in Jekyll.
Enjoyed the first episode. Some clever ideas here and some legitimately scary moments.But many of the (rather anachronistic) attempts at humor fall utterly flat. Which was the least surprising thing about this adaptation given its pedigree.
“This is less successful during her interview with the undead Harker, as this feels a little too much like a self-consciously clever genre excursion into police show territory.”Not needed ^
I’ve watched Jekyll three times—-and you posting that scene from episode 1 has made me plan to watch it yet again. Lord knows, it wasn’t perfect—-what the hell is? But I still found it entertaining as all get-out. The million-an-a-half “I’m not myself today”-style gags were awful, but they stuck with me as much as any of the stuff I liked.. They were minimally amusing at first, then increasingly less funny, then absolutely grating. After which they circled back ‘round to funny. Not because the jokes were any damn good, but because the writers’ insistence on continuing this madness became a joke all its own.
As of this writing, I’ve seen the first two episodes of Dracula and enjoyed them for the most part. But if the final ep bears any resemblance at all to the last scene of Jekyll, I’ll be awfully pissed. Seriously, what the actual fuck was that, anyway?