Re: Dracula

Leo Smith <barter[_at_]ntplx.net> wrote:
>
> (in the Bram Stoker's Dracula example, it could be that Bram Stoker
> added his name to the title simply to avoid costs of litigation, or
> he may have added his name from an egotistical perspective.

The British writer and theatre manager Bram Stoker (1847-1912) was the author of the book, _Dracula_, on which many films are based, some with attribution, many (e.g. _Nosferatu_) without. Probably Stoker's name was added to the title of the recent film to differentiate it from the many other films titled _Dracula_ in the marketplace. I reckon there has also been some fabulously expensive market research indicating that adding the original author's name to the title of a movie based on a classic work of fiction will fool the potential audience into thinking that the latest film or television version is special in part because it captures the book better than any other film or television adaptation to date.

My two cents: Cognoscenti know that this ploy is a dead giveaway that the film (or television adaptation) will do a worse job of capturing the spirit (and often the letter) of the original than any other. _Mary Shelley's Frankenstein_? _Bram Stoker's Dracula_? _William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet_? Phooey. The only exception to this rule I've discovered so far is _Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol_, as performed on stage by Patrick Stewart. Very few cuts, and no distortions of the material.

Be all that as it may, in none of these cases was the writer's name added to the title to boost his or her ego, the writers in question all being long since deceased, and in any case not to be confused with Sidney Sheldon, Danielle Steel, or Jackie Collins. _Harold Robbins' Oedipus Rex_, anyone?

Amy Stoller

ghoti
<redherring[_at_]tuna.net>
<:)))>><( Received on Sat Jul 25 1998 - 02:55:50 GMT