Doctor Dracula is In

So why do vampires need to be invited in? Why are they put off by crucifixes? Such questions are at the heart of the dialogue in 2020's Dracula, a Netflix/BBC miniseries from Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat. I've only caught the first episode so far but I've found it enjoyable but not brilliant. With Sherlock and Doctor Who, Steven Moffat took fan speculations, nitpicks, and decades of critical analyses to generate new versions of the classic characters, turning analyses into genuine people. A similar attempt is made in Dracula but so far the result is more of a video illustrated deconstruction than the same kind of organic endeavour as Moffat's previous forays.

But there's already been deconstructionist takes on Dracula--how couldn't there be? Bram Stoker's novel is one of the most adapted works of fiction of all time. There was Andy Warhol's Blood for Dracula which broke down the implications of class stratification with an amusingly wimpy, aristocratic performance by an adorable Udo Kier. There was Guy Maddin's Dracula: Pages from a Virgin's Diary, an insufferable slog through the shallowest, academic perspectives on the book as reinforcing patriarchal and colonialist privilage. One of the most refreshing things about Gatiss and Moffat's version is that, though it references English presumptions in foreign lands and culturally supported sexism, it also makes a point to show that Jonathan Harker (John Heffernan) is compelled to risk his own life as a matter of course when someone requests his aid. This is a show that's aware of the fact that part of the Christian cultural heritage is a basic sense of human decency. The conflict between the good and bad qualities of the religion forms the internal conflict of Agatha Van Helsing (Dolly Wells).

A female version of Van Helsing has been done (there's a USA series which, for all I know, may still be airing new episodes). But this one is also Sister Agatha, another character from the book, so she's not simply gender swapped, she's a combination, one that works well enough to serve as an intriguing streamlining of the story. Her crisis of faith is something entirely new, though, as neither Sister Agatha nor Abraham Van Helsing seemed to have any trouble believing in God.

Mostly the show has the quality of an intellectual discourse, exemplified when, in their first showdown, Agatha and Dracula (Claes Bang) argue about why vampires require invitations. The show brings very little new to the table in terms of atmosphere and effects, much of which is cribbed a bit from Hammer and a lot from Francis Ford Coppola. Claes Bang comes off a bit like Christopher Lee's Dracula crossed with Cary Grant in Suspicion but with the faster speech of a typical Steven Moffat character. There's nothing Vlad the Impaler-ish so far, he doesn't even have the "We Szekelys have a right to be proud" speech, Dracula's longest monologue in the novel. This is a show much more about discussing the vampire in modern fiction in a breezy manner and, while it doesn't inspire much shock or awe, it is kind of fun.

Dracula (2020) is available on Netflix.

False Illumination

I remember seeing a lot of people wearing Rose Tyler's outfit from "The Idiot's Lantern" at Comic Con. A Tenth Doctor Doctor Who episode written by Mark Gatiss, it'd be hard to understand why young women would choose a costume that could really be a generic 50s outfit if you haven't seen the episode or were generally acquainted with this era of Doctor Who. Watching it again last night for the first time in years, I was struck by the unusual chemistry between Doctor and Companion. They're just so into each other, it's adorable.

She's so excited to be wearing that 50s dress; he's so excited she's so excited. She's so excited he's so excited that she's so excited. Who in their right minds would mistake this for a platonic relationship? Four and Romana were kind of like this sometimes but never to this extreme. Because David Tennant and Billie Piper are so charismatic and both are particularly good at showing unvarnished enthusiasm--without being even slightly obnoxious--their mutual appreciation is a real vicarious kick for the viewer.

He's just so dang happy to be in 1953, wow. That grin is going to split him it two.

Normally I'm not much of a fan of episodes written by Mark Gatiss but this one generally avoids his problem of writing scripts that make absolutely no sense. And the concept of televisions stealing faces from people works really well. I also like the sub-plot about the father who brags about fighting fascism in World War II only to be overbearing in his own home. The scene where his son tells him off is satisfying; "You fought against fascism, remember? People telling you how to live, who you could be friends with, who you could fall in love with. Who could live and who had to die. Don't you get it? You were fighting so that little twerps like me could do what we want, say what we want. Now you've become just like them."

Although the term "Idiot's Lantern" obviously refers to the television--apparently coming from a term writer Gareth Roberts remembers his father using--the idea of an electronic device in everyone's home that turns them into anonymous collaborators in a censorious mob certainly seems relevant to-day.

Another difference in the Russell T. Davies era from Steven Moffat's is how much more frequently people died. The episode features Ron Cook guest starring as assistant to the main villain--I'd just seen him recently playing Richard III in the great BBC Television Shakespeare series from the 80s. His role is relatively small here but I like how he's established as someone at the end of his rope financially and therefore easy prey for the malevolent spirit onscreen. Repenting near the end can't save him in the Davies era, though, however sad it might be. I also like how that fascist dad ends up not being painted as someone who deserves to be thrown away and forgotten.

Why couldn't Gatiss maintain this quality in his writing? Maybe Davies, as showrunner, generously edited the script to "Idiot's Lantern". Whoever's responsible, it's a good episode.