Renfield: An Analysis (1897, 1931, 2023)

By Joe Gibson

The following essay is an excerpt from a cross-disciplinary research paper comparing the redemption of Renfield from the trajectory of the original book Dracula to the 1931 film to Renfield’s own 2023 film with the history and efficacy of blood transfusion itself. The scientific and historical connections to blood transfusion were ill thought out and obligatory, so here are the cult film analysis sections that should stand up to scrutiny a little more. We here at Plan9Crunch have analyzed Dracula 1931 a fair bit already (links at the bottom of this post) and will likely find new things to talk about in the future, but I hope you enjoy these research paper excerpts.

On page 72 of the Barnes and Noble edition of Dracula by Bram Stoker, it reads, pertaining to Renfield’s fly indulgence, “...he argued quietly that it was very good and very wholesome; that it was life, strong life, and gave life to him.” 

At several points of Renfield 2023 but notably the denouement, Dracula’s whole blood is administered to heal substantive damage and even death with no negative side effects. Indeed, “the blood is the life” in Renfield, as he stated it was in Dracula 1897. In most adaptations and the original story itself, Renfield was deluded; Dracula’s blood would only corrupt the user into something unrecognizable (see the personality changes of Mina, Renfield, and Olgaren in Dracula, Dracula 1931 and The Last Voyage of the Demeter 2023 respectively). This redemption of Dracula’s blood necessarily translates to redemption of Renfield (and his psychology) and not Dracula (because Renfield highlights Dracula’s abusive tendencies).

The history of R.M. Renfield (via bullet points since the admittedly profuse publications featuring this character either do little to change him or are too obscure to be relevant to Renfield 2023’s character study). Broadly, the loose inspiration for [Renfield] starts in antiquity regarded positively, then the concept itself [Renfield] emerges regarded less positively as the modern era approaches and each gets refined to such a degree to show efficacy.

Renfield’s development is grounded in the context of warping and stretching Christian symbolism and scenarios; quite clearly in the original novel, the way that Bram Stoker intended Renfield was an allusion to John the Baptist. On page 106, Renfield speaks in bride-maid and bride parables similar to Jesus, compounding the idea that Renfield and John the Baptizer both espoused similar philosophies to their lords and then deferred to them (Renfield commits himself to Dracula on page 107). Renfield’s famous line on page 148, “...the blood is the life” works as a direct quotation of Deuteronomy 12:23 (Renfield being the vehicle for most of the novel’s religious imagery). Most tantalizing, John the Baptist is understood to have eaten locusts. (He may not have, but the symbolism and imagery need not correspond to reality in literary use. Similarly, some scholars doubt that Jesus sweating blood was originally part of the Gospel of Luke, but that is obviously a strong image still on the table to use in literature.) Renfield dies from trauma to the head and neck, just like John, but this is warped because the Herod figure (if anyone fits Herod’s role in Renfield’s life, it would be Dr. Jack Seward for his notable observation of Renfield and hasty woman-motivated decision making) does not cause the death; Dracula, the dark Lord, does (Stoker, 1897, 2011). There is stark reversal more so than similarity with the Baptizer.

The audience of Bram Stoker’s Dracula understands Renfield not as a person but as an enigmatic mystical contradiction. Dr. Seward observes Renfield scientifically, where one could read neurosyphilis greatly into the latter’s behavior, but the hints of great strength (for a 59 year old man), prophetic forewarning and religious allegory communicate Renfield as a mystical character. Renfield never gets his own point of view sections to explain himself (and the audience never learns who he was before Dracula), locking his character behind two different veils of interpretation.

By the time of Tod Browning’s Dracula, Renfield had changed somewhat, consolidating Harker’s castle scenes into his own tragic subplot. Harker loses much of his development, Mina’s moments of reflection at her infection reduce, and the suitors of Lucy are all but eliminated to make room for Renfield, a sane man, falling victim to Dracula at the castle, Renfield, an insane man, onboard the Demeter, Renfield interacting with the comic relief orderly and nurse at Seward’s sanitorium, and Renfield surviving until the final confrontation with Dracula where he leads Harker and Van Helsing to Dracula’s resting place (Browning, 1931). The novel is an ensemble, and so is the film, but, whereas Harker, Mina, Seward, and Van Helsing are the major players by amount of journal entries, it is Renfield, Dracula and Van Helsing that enjoy increased relevance and focus for the movie adaptation. That is important for the horror and terror since, in all versions, Renfield is the most clear picture of what Dracula can do to a person, but, now, Renfield was a sane person before, which means Dracula can turn anyone into Renfield, a far scarier thought than one Renfield existing somewhere in isolation. There is still a layer of separation between the viewer and Renfield: the tragic delusion. Renfield is wrong and insane, and the audience, like Seward before them, observes Renfield live and die in delusion.

Seemingly, the biggest reframing Renfield 2023 does is posit “What if Renfield is not only the point of view character but also undeniably correct in his delusion?” That is why Dracula’s Whole Blood carries infallible life giving properties: because Renfield has always believed it does. (Likewise, rather than ambiguous mad strength, eating bugs genuinely gives Renfield and any of Dracula’s other familiars super strength and reflexes.) However, if Renfield is now correct and has the opportunity for growth and change as an audience insert character, the pendulum has swung to necessitate a vehicle or mechanism to explore how the average audience member can become Renfield through Dracula’s interference (and how Renfield’s foil Teddy Lobo can become a Dracula familiar). The answer to that problem is very simply an abusive codependent relationship. This is pretty blatantly the point of the film, especially since Renfield sums himself up as a codependent during the climax, but there are more specific examples as well.

The opening, midpoint and denouement of the 2023 film take place in character Mark’s Dependent Relationship Anonymous Addiction Group (DRAAG) within the gym sector of a church, where Renfield explicitly (and the film implicitly though Dracula’s dialogue during pinch point confrontations with Renfield) identifies the relationship between servant and master as similar to the codependent relationship of Caitlyn and her narcissist boyfriend. Beyond the obvious, Caitlyn also, despite herself, finds herself defending ska music as one of her partner’s interests, just as this film indicates Renfield’s life obsession was given to him by Dracula as Renfield is capable of letting go of his bugs after he makes a breakthrough. Most interestingly, a use of double entendre occurs when Teddy Lobo replaces Renfield as Dracula’s familiar; because Dracula is aiming for world domination and Lobo’s gang, led by his mother, has lofty ambitions, the pact between them comes with the romantic image said by Teddy that Dracua should meet his mother (McKay, 2023).

Much of the audience distance from Renfield in the earlier referenced works came from comparison to more sane characters (or a saner Renfield in a cold open), so much of the audience sympathy for Renfield in this film comes from comparison to other characters. Nicholas Hoult’s Renfield only does the Dwight Frye laugh when preparing to kill abusers and drug dealers, and Teddy Lobo serves as a shadow to Renfield (being the weaker element to a criminal enterprise) especially after supplanting him as Dracula’s familiar because of the contrast of “Drug Use and Bug Use.” While Renfield abandons the bugs as part of his new life early into the story and treats “bug use” as part of the curse that puts someone under Dracula’s spell, he consumes the largest amount possible in the climax and puts up the most credible attack against Dracula possible (meaning no correlation between the bugs consumed and being under Dracula’s thrall). Renfield consumes the bugs for strength, and he is ultimately correct, so he can consume that for strength independent of Dracula, but Teddy Lobo, established to be in the cocaine trade, also uses cocaine and takes his bugs via snorting, making him more vulnerable to Dracula’s influence because he is treating it as a hit not the disgusting source of strength it is (McKay, 2023).

As the last vestiges of syphilitic imagery in the 2023 film, the seductive Dracula also takes form as a decaying corpse clinging to Renfield when the title henchman tries to escape Dracula’s destructive influence. There is some symbolism in Renfield that a fair analysis must ignore, because if Dracula’s Whole Blood were syphilitic in this film, it would not have those life-giving qualities (the syphilis subtext is only here because this is a Dracula story). Along those same lines, the narrative of Renfield’s backstory only hazily corresponds to the 1931 film; Renfield was not present to attend high society with Dracula or assist him in procuring any of his successful victims after the boat. The name of the DRAAG leader, Mark, is most likely unimportant on a larger scale, while being a notable Christian name.

The recent data that Whole Blood can efficiently combat preventable deaths raises an interesting implication in that the preventable deaths and collateral damage of the story (Renfield himself, the gang’s foot soldiers, Rebecca’s sister, and the other DRAAG participants) are the ones healed by Dracula’s blood. Dracula’s blood does not save the leaders of any given faction (Dracula himself, Teddy’s mother, the police captain and Rebecca are figureheads whose deaths would necessarily be conclusive, but the film never uses the blood to heal any of them, just the unnecessary preventable ones).

The final image of Renfield is that pitcher of Dracula’s blood on a table in the church next to a bowl of some bread product (likely muffins), and the caricatured nature of that imagery masks it somewhat, but that is a holy sacrament, perhaps a picnic version but a holy sacrament nonetheless. Does this entail some commentary on or against organized religion? Perhaps; if someone at a later date can delve into that interpretation, it may be helpful for overall analysis on the film; but there is another simple implication. Because the film is dealing directly in the redemption of Renfield and his ideology, and Renfield has always been a symbol of warped religious devotion, this sacrament is most simply the ritual necessary to redeem R. M. Renfield in this movie. In that sense, Renfield finally gets to rise above John the Baptist. Renfield first partakes of the bread of DRAAG by attending and opening up to it, then dies opposing Dracula, but gets to live again from the miraculous blood of Dracula, becoming an admittedly haphazard Christ figure. Both were necessary for the redemption of Renfield (but the purpose of this essay is obviously to focus on the blood).

https://planninecrunch.blogspot.com/2016/09/dracula-85-years-later-vampire-is-still.html

https://planninecrunch.blogspot.com/2015/02/tod-brownings-dracula-defense-of-often.html

https://planninecrunch.blogspot.com/2021/06/dracula-was-count-resigned-to-his.html

Dracula: Was the Count resigned to his eventual destruction?

 

By Doug Gibson

I absolutely love Bela Lugosi’s portrayal of Count Dracula in the 1931 classic. He is pure aristocratic evil, able to put on a facade of gallantry yet betray it in mere seconds with a deadly glare at Van Helsing. Also, even in fine attire, in his own domain, in a dungeon, with rats, bugs, whey-faced brides or a cringing, spider-eating Renfield, he conveys malicious evil deeper than the filth around him. In that deepest part of his existence, his dead heart rots darker.

Why, though, did Lugosi’s Count Dracula ditch his Romanian, Hungarian playfields, where he had his pick of the scared villagers, and easy escape to his coffins filled with native soil, and go to alien England, with a mere few coffins and shovelfuls of native soil? Why choose such a conflicted, weak minion as the anonymous, unloved Renfield as his companion? And why set up shop, in Carfax Abbey, so close to such a deadly rival as Dr. Van Helsing? Why seek the virginal, well-protected Mina, the intended of the feckless Jonathan Harker, but whose back is closely watched by Van Helsing?

I’ve watched Lugosi play Dracula many times. I can knock away the silly claims that Dracula is a stagy film, or slow. Every frame is necessary — with the possible exception of the asylum employees played for laughs — to establish and maintain Lugosi’s Count’s sinister, evil, egotistical persona. But recently, I’ve added this interpretation. Did Count Dracula move to London, with its unknown attractions and more dangerous temptations, with the intention of ending his long, endless existence?

Dracula is a slave to his passion, his thirst for blood. It cannot be satiated, whether the victim is a mere flower girl or society belle Lucy. He knows well he cannot resist tasting his pretty neighbor Mina. He cannot even haul up stakes and flee after Van Helsing exposes him with the mirror parlor trick. In fact, Dracula, although nearly claiming Mina’s life due to his blunt force of personality, is merely pitiable at his end. He lies in his coffin, chased into the bowels of Carfax Abbey after being betrayed by the ill-fated Renfield, and submits to an anticlimactic, off-screen death at the hands of the vampire hunter Van Helsing.

Was the Count so vain as to think that no harm could come to him in his coffin filled with native soil in the basement of a rotting abbey? Van Helsing didn’t even have to break a lock to stab the Count in the heart. I think not. I hypothesize that Dracula himself was tired of living for centuries, that he chose his trip to London, a land of new blood and unseen dangers, as a deliberate step to the end of his existence. Although the script allows no confirmation, I think Lugosi’s Dracula must have known that he was to be the neighbor of his most feared enemy, Van Helsing.

Of course Dracula tried to prevent his death. His natural greed and cold evil did not dissipate in his last adventure, and he nearly succeeded — for a brief moment — in vanquishing Van Helsing. He allowed nature, his generations-old greed and lust for blood, to be his undoing.

The strongest evidence for Dracula’s death wish is found early in Dracula’s journey to London when he encounters Mina, her dad, Lucy, and Jonathan at the opera house. He says, wistfully, “To die, to be really dead, that must be glorious!” Mina Seward replies, “Why, Count Dracula!” and Dracula adds, “There are far worse things awaiting man than death.”

Dracula fights, he makes an effort to save himself, but he will not move from his final home. As a result, he is vanquished, but it is an honorable end for the old fiend.

Horror movie expert Frank J. Dello Stritto, who along with other experts have mulled over Dracula’s motives in his final days, opines that the slow, thousands year-plus lives of Dracula is conveyed by Lugosi’s mannerisms. Dello Stritto says, “He (Lugosi) put into his performance a lot of subtle touches to make Dracula seem from another world: the odd pace of his speech, the use of his cape, his very slow movements compared to the other cast members’ … A lot of actors who play Dracula are ordinary men trying to appear extraordinary, and not quite succeeding. Lugosi’s character is like Dracula himself — an extraordinary being trying to appear ordinary, and again not quite succeeding.”

I once wrote this of Dracula, and I stand by it. “I have seen “Dracula” scores of times, and Lugosi is the key to the film. He is a tall, courtly, menacing figure who promises a fate worse than death. And that is the appeal of these early horror films compared to the sadistic gore-fests of today — a fate worse than death awaits the vampire’s victims. That fate is conveyed to perfection in the scene where Lugosi’s vampire murders actor Dwight Frye’s cringing, pathetic, mad disciple Renfield. Dracula’s exterior is charming. But his filthy interior attracts darkness, fog, storm, chill winds, rodents, flies, spiders, blood and undeath.”

Dracula was a slave of his filthy existence. Pleasure had long been usurped by bloodlust. It was a tremendous feat for the Count to keep it up for centuries. But he was tired, and chose London for his grand finale. He became, finally, really dead.

If you have not seen Bela Lugosi’s Dracula, do yourself a favor and watch it. It can be accessed at Amazon Prime, for a price. Or buy Universal Dracula Collection on Blu Ray.

(This essay originally appeared at StandardBlogs)

Dracula: 85 years later the vampire is still revered

On Sept. 4, 2016, that's this Sunday, Turner Classic Movies will air Tod Browning's masterpiece, "Dracula," with Bela Lugosi as the iconic Count Dracula. Watch it scores of thousands of others ...
But before then, read these two Plan9Crunch reviews of the 1931 Universal "Dracula" by your bloggers, myself, Doug Gibson, and Steve D. Stones.
On with the reviews, and don't forget to watch "Dracula" on TCM this weekend.

Dracula, 1931, 75 minutes, Universal, black and white. Directed by Tod Browning. Starring Bela Lugosi as Count Dracula, Helen Chandler as Mina Seward, Dwight Frye as Renfield, David Manners as Jonathan Harker and Edward Van Sloan as Dr. Van Helsing. Schlock-Meter rating: 9 and 1/2 stars out of 10.

By DOUG GIBSON

As a film, Dracula too often appears like a stage play. Most of the actors aren't particularly strong, and the climax of the film (Dracula's death) foolishly takes place off screen. Nevertheless, thanks to Bela Lugosi -- and to a lesser extent Dwight Frye -- the film remains a classic, a true cult film that brings viewers back for repeat visits to Transylvania, foggy London and Carfax Abbey, the lair of the Count. The plot: Dracula prepares for a move to London. He drives Renfield (a Londoner in Transylvania to help him move), mad, and then arrives in London. He soon ingratiates himself with the Seward family, and lusts for the blood of two ladies. He is foiled when a family friend (Van Sloan) suspects he is a vampire, and pretty Mina Seward (Chandler) is saved when Dracula is destroyed.

It's safe to say that first half hour of this film is perfect, in atmosphere, Lugosi's Dracula, etc. After it moves to Carfax Abbey and the Seward sanitarium, it dips a tad in quality, but returns to perfection when Lugosi is in a scene.

Lugosi's performance is magnificent. He is truly the Count, with his urbane charm, his sly humor (I never drink ... wine.), his greedy eyes sighting blood, his melodramatic answers to questions, and his artful fencing with vampire hunter Van Helsing. However, few critics capture another personality of Lugosi's Dracula: His desire to die. In a poignant scene at an opera, Dracula expounds in melodramatic fashion the peace of death. One realizes in that scene the Count wants to die, that he's as much a prisoner of fate as his victims. He simply lacks the will power to end his long existence.

Frye's Renfield is marvelous. He succeeds in convincing viewers that the secret of the Count -- discovered first hand -- is so horrible that it would drive anyone insane. His mad chuckles when discovered on a deserted ship are chilling. Frye also conveys terror and adoration when pleading with Dracula late in the film. Manners and Chandler are barely adequate as two lovers threatened by Lugosi's Dracula, but Van Sloan is pretty strong as Van Helsing. He manages a sense of humor despite the seriousness of his task, and reminds me of Donald Pleasance's slightly crazy psychiatrist who pursued monster Michael Meyers in Halloween.

Lugosi's eyes, used to seduce victims, are hypnotic. He knew this character -- he'd played Dracula on Broadway. Director Browning conveys atmosphere early in the film with scenes of a coach in the wilds of Transylvania and a ship tossed at sea. Unfortunately, the last two-thirds of the film is often too static and talky. But every scene with Lugosi is a pleasure, and he turns an ordinary film into a classic of the genre.

(WATCH THIS SCENE FROM THE FILM BELOW)

By STEVE D. STONES

“Listen to them. Children of the night. What music they make.” — Dracula

Creeky castle doors, thick spider webs, a fog-infested cemetery and coffins filled with earth from Transylvania. These items stir up images of one of the greatest screen villains in cinema history — Dracula. The vampire Dracula has appeared on screen and stage more than any other fictional character in the history of literature and films.

What would Halloween be like without Dracula and vampires? We have Irish writer Bram Stoker to thank for the count's immortal image. Considering the fact that Stoker's novel was thought by many critics to be nothing but a trashy, late-19th century exploitation pot boiler that many readers didn't want to know about, it's amazing to think just how long the story and image of Dracula have lasted.

From the moment Hungarian actor Bela Lugosi emerges from his coffin in Tod Browning's 1931 “Dracula,” Hollywood history was made. Lugosi's old-world mannerisms, receding hairline, thick Hungarian accent and flowing cape set the standard for every vampire movie that followed. No actor who portrayed Dracula after Lugosi has been able to top him.

Seeing Dracula on the big screen is a sight you will never forget. Close-up shots of Lugosi's face show just how menacing the immortal count can be. His image both attracts and repels the viewer. He is the ultimate boogeyman who will stop at nothing to leave behind a trail of victims. When Dracula says “there are far worse things awaiting man than death,” we believe him.

Dracula's contribution to popular culture cannot be overestimated. He appears on everything from T-shirts to coffee mugs, action figures, comic books, Halloween masks, postcards and lunch boxes.

After the success of “Dracula,” Lugosi became a victim of the fickle Hollywood industry who typecast and pigeonholed him as an actor who could only play Dracula. He appeared as a vampire a total of three times, which included the hugely successful  “Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein” in 1948. Lugosi was never able to obtain the riches of his rival, Boris Karloff. Today, sales of merchandise associated with Lugosi surpass those of Karloff’s.

May the story and image of Dracula live on for centuries.

Originally published in the Standard-Examiner newspaper.