Fear aside, did Dracula have a peculiar seductive allure, or charm.

bobcat said:
He was a dark mysterious, often rich, figure with penetrating eyes.
Was there some sort of magnetic attraction to his personality? or his accent?
Click to expand...

Honestly? No.

I was introduced to these characters via Universal horror movies. There was nothing special about Vampires. I have read modern audiences who feel differently, but that wasn't part of my upbringing.
 
I never thought Dracula was charming. Maybe women understand him better or see him as the ultimate bad boy dream boat. I thought he had some sort of hypnotic powers that beguiled women with Satanic hokum, but I don't think his attraction has been explained in the lore that much.
 
Frank Langella was young there. I don't remember him from those days, but he was a personable enough Daracula in that role. But over the years, Hollywood has taught us so much more about how vampires really are. OK, not as much as zombies maybe, but zombies today are nothing like the ones I saw when I was a kid.
 
JustDave said:
I never thought Dracula was charming. Maybe women understand him better or see him as the ultimate bad boy dream boat. I thought he had some sort of hypnotic powers that beguiled women with Satanic hokum, but I don't think his attraction has been explained in the lore that much.
Click to expand...
God No. Totally disagree.
 
bobcat said:
He was a dark mysterious, often rich, figure with penetrating eyes.
Was there some sort of magnetic attraction to his personality? or his accent?
Click to expand...
Hmmmmm. His penetrating eyes had no charm. His magnetic charm might be the equivalent to that of Rasputin. Hs accent (if you are talking about Bela Lugosi) is Romanian, such as Sebastian Sas:
 
The same was said to be true of Rasputin. Vlad the impaler was a real person, too. Dracula was a fictional character, possibly based on both of these men. Many authors act out their own fantasies in their stories. It may be the case here. Certainly the actors playing the role were very attractive and many vulnerable women are taken in by charismatic men. It could be said that Hollywood is being sexist by betraying beautiful young women as airheads.
 
bobcat said:
He was a dark mysterious, often rich, figure with penetrating eyes.
Was there some sort of magnetic attraction to his personality? or his accent?
Click to expand...

I suppose it depends on who is cast as Dracula. As far as I'm concerned, no matter how outwardly attractive he might be, knowing what he really is makes him completely devoid of any charm.

I seriously doubt anyone would find Nosferatu remotely attractive.

There was a time when vampires didn’t sparkle in daylight or give interviews to Christian Slater. They were the menacing undead who were best avoided – Count Dracula, in particular. In the case of F. W. Murnau's Nosferatu (1922), the first vampire movie and a legendary piece of filmmaking, starring Max Schreck,, that was especially true.

Nosferatu 1922, The First Vampire Movie Still Scares 100 Years Later


The film cribbed the tale of Dracula, changing the names of the characters to avoid lawsuits. That plan failed, and Bram Stoker’s estate filed a lawsuit after Nosferatu’s release. As a result, all copies of the film were ordered destroyed. However, one copy survived. That sole print was reproduced again and again, moving down through the generations, and over the years, it’s become a cult classic. But is the classic vampire movie Nosferatu (1922) really any good? Look, it’s not Daybreakers, Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Van Helsing or Dracula Untold, but it’s still pretty decent.

The Nosferatu Story. > Nosferatu 1922, The First Vampire Movie Still Scares 100 Years Later

CallMeKate said:
There was no allure or charm to Vlad the Impaler. He was vicious. What a strange question. :unsure:
Click to expand...

History of Vlad the Impaler a.k.a Vlad Dracula, if you dare to read it. :eek: > The History of Dracula

Dracula history.
 
Bella said:
I suppose it depends on who is cast as Dracula. As far as I'm concerned, no matter how outwardly attractive he might be, knowing what he really is makes him completely devoid of any charm.

I seriously doubt anyone would find Nosferatu remotely attractive.

There was a time when vampires didn’t sparkle in daylight or give interviews to Christian Slater. They were the menacing undead who were best avoided – Count Dracula, in particular. In the case of F. W. Murnau's Nosferatu (1922), the first vampire movie and a legendary piece of filmmaking, starring Max Schreck,, that was especially true.

Nosferatu 1922, The First Vampire Movie Still Scares 100 Years Later


The film cribbed the tale of Dracula, changing the names of the characters to avoid lawsuits. That plan failed, and Bram Stoker’s estate filed a lawsuit after Nosferatu’s release. As a result, all copies of the film were ordered destroyed. However, one copy survived. That sole print was reproduced again and again, moving down through the generations, and over the years, it’s become a cult classic. But is the classic vampire movie Nosferatu (1922) really any good? Look, it’s not Daybreakers, Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Van Helsing or Dracula Untold, but it’s still pretty decent.

The Nosferatu Story. > Nosferatu 1922, The First Vampire Movie Still Scares 100 Years Later



History of Vlad the Impaler a.k.a Vlad Dracula, if you dare to read it. :eek: > The History of Dracula

Dracula history.
Click to expand...

Good points and background. Yes, all Draculas are not created equal. It would be like comparing all cars since the inception of their design. The concept of Dracula has evolved from a more menacing figure to a more polished and cultured version.

In asking the question, I was trying to remove the fear factor from the evaluation, so one might see Count Dracula within the context of the persona, and perhaps charm he may possess. Inviting one to view him as though you knew nothing about his ultimate intentions.

Many people have a strange fascination with Halloween, and all the ghoulish aspects of it (Spider webs, ghosts, pirates, zombies, witches, vampires, and the list is quite long). Perhaps it is a way for us to face our fears in a costumed manner. We know they are not real, so it's OK to impersonate them or even find things about them that we can admire without letting our dread cancel out the intrigue or fun fantasy aspect.

In some versions of Dracula, he must have had some charisma or charm for those who didn't yet know what his intentions were. Since we know the end of the story, maybe that was asking a bit too much to see him as they did before the bite. To me, some versions portrayed him as cultured, distinguished, and perhaps even dashing. I think that may have been part of the cloak and dagger that allowed him to get close to his next dinner guest.
 
I prefer Renfield myself. If you want to see an interesting take on Dracula, check out the horror-comedy movie Renfield. Nicholas Cage is a hoot as Dracula, and Renfield presents as almost an English butler to the Count, easy on the eyes, seeking to liberate himself from Dracula, and into self-help psychology … 🧛‍♂️

 
Last edited:
Fyrefox said:
I prefer Renfield myself. If you want to see an interesting take on Dracula, check out the horror-comedy movie Renfield. Nicholas Cage is a hoot as Dracula, and Renfield presents as almost an English butler to the Count, easy on the eyes, seeking to liberate himself from the Count, and into self-help psychology … 🧛‍♂️

Click to expand...
Wow, I have not seen that. Definitely earns the category as a horror film from the trailer.
We seem to enjoy being scared, especially when subconsciously we know we are in no real danger. It must have something to do with the rush of adrenaline, which explains sky diving, bungee jumping, and haunted houses. Perhaps secretly we desire to overcome our fears, and this is a controlled way of doing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top