Recently I attending a performance of Dracula Re-imagined by Richard Davis. I enjoyed the performance and felt that all the actors were a credit to their profession. I took many notes during the performance and would now like to share my thoughts on the story as a whole.
First, I think that if this production were in a larger venue it would actually decrease the impact of the performance. There is something about a small theater like The Browncoat that heightens certain kinds of drama. This was no exception. I didn't feel like I was part of a large elaborate production, rather that I was back with my primeval ancestors, telling stories around a campfire. This is by no means detrimental, and if anything heightens the action taking place on stage, passing the weight to the actors shoulders.
I would like to touch briefly on the music selection. I understand that there was a theme that was being developed, but I felt that it was a little too heavy handed. Around 30 or 45 minutes in I was struck by the thought of "I get it. Gothic story and vampires. We can quit with the over the top choral pieces." The various covers of the song House of the Rising Sun did fit well with the plot and tone however.
A quick run down of the characters and their place within the story.
The most glaring flaw to me was Jonathan Harker. His whole point in this production seemed to be a piece of meat. The average man being slowly ushered deeper in to horror and actively seeking a way out was not as prevalent as I remember from Bram Stokers original piece. I am not sure if this was Davis's intent or not, but at the end I felt as though I never got to really meet Jonathan.
Mina Harker however, had an obvious amount of time dedicated to her. She experienced quite a bit of character development, and I felt that it was a well executed take on a character that has started to become a bit overdone.
Abraham van Hellsing experience nearly no change from his original form, and I liked that. A little familiarity is good, especially when you are going to manipulate the original story to the degree that Richard Davis has.
When it comes to the character of Lucy, I felt that there may have been more unsaid. She felt like a character that had gone through one too many revisions and not was simply a shadow of what had been originally written.
I couldn't stand the character of Arthur Holmwood, but I think this was deliberate. I have a certain loathing for whiny characters (and people) and Arthur inhabited this very well.
The character of Renfield was equal parts new vision and old homage. I'll get more into this later.
Quincy changed dramatically, from a southern gentleman, to a good ol boy. I'm not sure I really approve, since this change was not essential to the story.
Dracula, was Dracula. His presence was required, but the changes made to his role in the story and his interaction with members of the cast were new and innovative. I would like to see more thought put in to these kinds of adaptations in other works.
The Brides of Dracula were characters whom I wouldn't change a single thing about. They were creepy and sensual. Ol' Bram would be proud.
A few comments on the blocking and directions.
There was far too much pausing in doorways. If it was enough to draw my attention, then it was far above the amount regularly seen in stage shows. It felt like the entire production hinged (pun intended) on important lines being delivered on the threshold. It is called a stage show, and I would like to have seen more work done, on the stage.
I found the use of found footage to be an excellent echo of the original book by Bram Stoker, I found myself wanting more of it over the course of the play, but I was grateful for what I received.
In short, I liked a different take on the story we all know and love, but the novelty grows a little stale. This is a play that deserves one or two rewrites, and would make an excellent found footage film.
