By Joe Gibson
While I like the
original book and enjoy most adaptations, there are some things that annoy me
about how the franchise has developed over the years. Any given version seldom
has all three of Lucy Westenra’s suitors (Arthur Holmwood, Quincey Morris and
Dr. Jack Seward), and if it does (Coppola’s film), it has other drastic
alterations that prevent it from being faithful to the text. Jonathan Harker is
usually present, but he is either dumbed down or incidentally killed off, and
the script is usually not smart enough to do so in such a way that doesn’t just
also subtract from Mina Murray’s journey. Yet, there is one character that has only
grown in focus and importance over the years. Where there is Dracula, there
must always be Van Helsing for some reason.
Frankly, my problem is
not with the character but with his oversaturation in the Dracula story. He is
but one character in an ensemble yet leeches the focus away from all the rest
to the point that in my cursory research in straight adaptations (excepting prequel, sequel or midquel scenarios like Dracula Untold, Son of Dracula or The Last Voyage of The Demeter), he never sits out whatever final
fight occurs with Dracula even while Harker or even Mina die in acts one
or two far more commonly. Think about how
many times Jonathan Harker dies just to prop up Van Helsing, even while Van
Helsing changes into a younger vampire-hunting leading man that Harker otherwise would be. It has been done
well, and it has been done poorly, but it gets to a certain point where I
wonder why it is done at all and begin to think of alternatives, alternatives
that I find more engaging.
Let me pitch to you a
scenario for a Dracula adaptation where it starts as the book does (so that's
Jonathan Harker at Castle Dracula not Renfield, Lucy having three suitors
propose back to back, the juxtaposition of Mina and Lucy's sexuality with Lucy
getting bitten first, the arrival of Van Helsing, and return of Harker) but
crucially, Harker with his capacity for self obfuscation and the suitors in
general aren't taking it seriously so Van Helsing dies. It is then that they
finally step up to defeat Dracula. As I started this article, Van Helsing
overrides these other relationships, and maybe the simplest way to mitigate
that problem is to eliminate him. It automatically raises the stakes to get rid
of the sagelike mentor whose instruction surely would have prevailed.
The thing that I've
realized recently is that the other members of this little fellowship
altogether are capable of replacing Van Helsing if they align their strengths
together. Technically, that shouldn't be surprising since depictions of Van
Helsing have warped so as to replace every single one of them, but in this
ensemble cast of iconic characters, it gives more of them more payoffs to
follow the natural consequences of killing him off in the next adaptation.
If any of the characters
in the original Dracula actually qualify as vampire slayers, it would be
Jonathan Harker and Quincey Morris for being the ones to track down and kill
Dracula. In terms of familiarity with vampires, Van Helsing's knowledge is only
theoretical, but Harker's knowledge is personal due to his cold open section at
the castle. A purist should acknowledge that Harker makes more sense as the
vampire hunter on account of track record, but even so, Harker and Quincey are
the ones in the party to kill Dracula in actuality, a role given to Van Helsing
that they deserve to reclaim.
Seward is the doctor conducting his own investigation into Renfield, a case that blends science and supernatural (Van Helsing is also literally a mentor character to Seward, so the application of having to keep the former alive through following his example is a very minor change). Poising Van Helsing as the expendable mentor that Seward has to learn from is a simple change that keeps Seward relevant and memorable in the story. Van Helsing would no longer be around to treat Mina, which means that the scientific trial and error of how Seward studies Renfield and assists in treating Lucy at the beginning of the story would be more relevant for how he would treat Mina at the end of it. (Again without this throughline, it becomes easier to see why Seward is demoted in many adaptations, but I hope you can see how merely reducing Van Helsing increases Seward immensely.)
Arthur, interestingly, also has a concrete relationship with Van Helsing that lends itself so easily to a death for the old doctor. First, they are upper-class men (Van Helsing by reputation at least) and notably the most dignified. Arthur directly contrasts the other suitors with this category, since they are an awkward doctor and an American cowboy, while the positive reputation of foreigner Van Helsing directly contrasts the 1897-based xenophobia that exists toward Dracula. However, it also goes deeper than that. In the text, Arthur resembles an adult version of Van Helsing’s deceased son, creating a fatherly fondness for Arthur particularly in this group from Van Helsing. At the same time, one of Arthur’s most important moments in the novel is when his father dies so Arthur takes up the title of Lord Godalming. The motif of taking on the role of a father figure who dies already exists for Arthur, so it should be easy to see how Arthur could step up to be the leader of this fellowship following the death of another father figure. If this all sounds like a lot for a film, it really isn't especially since people already know the general story, but, if adapting these characters in a context that does them justice is too much for a film, then Dracula shouldn't be just films (not that the various miniseries take full advantage of all the members of the fellowship).
From the simple alteration
of killing Van Helsing, Harker, Seward, Arthur, and Quincey Morris can all take
on new life, and it really baffles me that I have not seen an adaptation do
this yet (if one exists, please direct me to it). It would be so efficient
within the existing framework of adapting the novel that I kind of think it
should be obvious, but there is a reason off the top of my head for reticence
to commit to something like this: Van Helsing is an exciting foil to Dracula.
As I hope to have
demonstrated, dialing back Van Helsing’s screentime in this way would only
benefit the other characters, but the next challenge is that aforementioned
rivalry. While it absolutely does raise the stakes to kill off the character
who would have the easiest time defeating Dracula, the Dracula and Van Helsing
rivalry has been iconic since at least the 1931 film (for all my talk of
prioritizing other characters, I love a good “your will is strong, Van Helsing”
moment). All that said, for one thing, it’s not technically in the book as strongly
as it is in the 1931 film onward if at all, and I would also argue that there are several
characters more suited for that archenemy role than Van Helsing.
As I already detailed,
Harker and Quincey are the vampire slayers of this story. Harker is the obvious
choice for archenemy, being the vehicle for our introduction to Dracula as well
as the vehicle for the vampire’s death in the book, while also being Dracula’s
persistent romantic rival. Despite this, many adaptations still diminish
Harker’s role to favor Van Helsing, but the presence of Hutter in the Nosferatu
films means that some form of Harker is one of the main universal constants of
this story. Still, maybe Harker is too commonly killed off to justify setting
him up as Dracula’s opposite; in that case, Quincey has so much potential.
Despite very few
adaptations remembering Quincey, he has the most franchise potential as a vampire-slaying
cowboy from yesteryear (if Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter can be a real movie,
why not explore Quincey Morris fighting vampires in Texas?) or perhaps a modern
cowboy cop as Rebecca Quincy (child of Morris Quincy) is in Renfield 2023.
Another idea off the top of my head would circumvent the immortality problem of
Dracula, where, in any given continuity, Dracula gets killed by methods that
should work but then returns to life for the next movie. Since the deaths of
Dracula and Quincey are so intertwined in the original novel, why wouldn’t
whatever revives Dracula also revive Quincey? In the event of that story,
Dracula and Quincey are on a level playing field while avoiding the “power
creep” that occurs from the modern conception of Van Helsing being an
accomplished vampire hunter that still somehow struggles against a
vampire.
(Power creep is
essentially when the skills and weaponry necessary early on in the story become
superfluous later on because of increasing improvement and innovation, and having a character that specializes in taking down
vampires struggling for a whole film to take down a vampire can very easily
make all or much of the story redundant and unnecessary. It does not necessarily have to play out that way, but there is no arms race necessary in the battle between vampire and normal laypeople as this story is in the book or the faithful adaptations.)
Just because the release
of Nosferatu 2024 has reminded me of it, The Last Voyage of the Demeter
features a character, Black doctor Clemens, who gradually comes to put together
what is happening on the ship and organizes the most tenable resistance to the Count
he can. Clemens is implicitly the closest thing to the
Van Helsing in that film’s continuity, and the film is so much more interesting
for making a new character that we slowly learn about while he grows more
dynamic in the fight to stay alive (he does not seek out the vampire but does seek out the ship and helps the victims on board for reasons we learn over the runtime). However, I do not want to spoil too much of
that film and character since its low box office (like Renfield 2023) and lack
of significant success on streaming (unlike Renfield 2023) means that most of
you reading have not seen it, so let us proceed to the most tenable option.
As the Nosferatu films
demonstrate, the most substantive stakes and therefore most cogent dichotomy
often are found in the battle between Mina/Ellen and Dracula/Orlok. Outside of
Renfield, Mina is the clearest demonstration of what Dracula’s will can do to a
person, with the strength in Mina’s character coming from how she resists the
changes (this is more present in the book than the 1931 film), and Ellen is the
one that manages to kill Nosferatu. One aspect I very much like about the Mina
Dracula rivalry in its various forms is that Mina is both the best equipped (an
entire fellowship of men fighting for her as well as a connection to Dracula
she can sometimes exploit) and worst equipped (often a physically weak sexually
repressed woman slowly falling victim to his curse) person to defeat him, and
that is where the best drama comes from (a fight that can go either way based on the characters' strengths and weaknesses is more compelling than a fight with a foregone conclusion). The advantage to selecting Mina as the
counterbalance to Dracula in a story is that she is relevant throughout the
whole story, whereas Van Helsing usually has to be summoned to help.
Though I have argued Van
Helsing’s true modern utility is in passing on the torch, I should say that I
do very much appreciate his functionality in the original book as well as the
Edward Van Sloan and Peter Cushing versions of the character. It is just also
true that each of those and the following great adaptations of the character
leeched away focus and importance from the remainder of the cast in ways that
either are now or someday may prove detrimental to the Dracula IP.
