First off, I like how they changed the order of the plot. I feel the flashbacks made the story more dramatic. It allowed you to be introduced to all the characters, and then see what previously happened. It also gave the scenes at the Count’s castle more meaning because of the timing it is presented. The timing of it was in the middle of Lucy’s becoming “sick.” The flashbacks therefore showed what was going on with Lucy after it had already begun. The book, however, has the scenes at the Count’s castle first, and then when everything happens with Lucy, you already know what’s going on.
The cast selection was also done very well. The man the cast to play Dracula was truly creepy. He walked in a very smooth, flowing way. His bone structure also made him seem very rigid which made him seem stronger. Something about the way he held himself just gave me a very eery feeling.
The rest of the cast as well played their parts very well. The best one, I believe, was Reinfield. That actor did an excellent job in his performance. The way he moved and spoke really made him look crazy. His eyes, however, are what I remember the most. He truly seemed out of his mind.
I also really enjoyed the scene where they were all traveling towards the Count’s castle because while they were stationary, they still created a sense of movement and intense suspense. I feel with many plays that the scenes involving traveling are done in a very cheesy way. They did it very elegantly though.
Overall, the Dracula play that we saw was by far my favorite version of the story. While the casting and change of plot helped. I believe that seeing the story in person is what made it better than the other versions.
2 comments:
I, too, was impressed with the effective "concentration" of the plot in the play. Often, plays, as well as movies, condense stories to meet the time constraints introduced by the audience's attention span. This is often a detriment to the story, but the Shakespere Company put this necessity to work for them, juxtapositioning key parts of previous events with current conflicts in the story, thoroughly explaining everything at oonce, while keeping the audience entranced by the unraveling plot. I agree it was brilliant.
I liked this play too. I really liked Dracula--he was really creepy, but still somehow charismatic. When he first got to England, he looked a little like Ozzy Osbourne, which I thought was appropriate, because it wouldn't shock me if he (Ozzy, not Dracula) turned out to be a vampire. Renfield was good--that's a hard role, because it's hard not to overact in that role. He was like two feet from me on stage, but still he seemed totally convincing. The blood was cool too.
I liked the flashbacks, too--they changed the feel of the story, and made it feel less familiar.
One thing that was really obvious in this play was the erotic aspect. It's not exactly pushing the envelope here, because lots of people have seen parallels to sex in Dracula, but they were really obvious here, from Lucy's seductiveness to her sex noises when Dracula bites her.
Post a Comment