What do you think?
Rate this book
Dracula: The Ultimate, Illustrated Edition of the World-Famous Vampire Play
Includes the complete script of the 1927 stage play together with the original 1924 version
151 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1927
1 person is currently reading
95 people want to read
About the author
Hamilton Deane
5 books1 followerHamilton Deane (1880–1958) was an Irish actor, playwright and director. He played a key role in popularising Bram Stoker's Dracula as a stage play and, later, a film.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
January 26, 2012
Oh, Hamilton Deane. Now I know who to blame for the fact that my favorite 30-year old doctor always becomes someone's dad and the constant Mina/Lucy name switching. And John L. Balderston, you're not helping either.
Needless to say, not my favorite adaptation.
Needless to say, not my favorite adaptation.
February 16, 2019
Being a great fan of DRACULA onstage, this book is an exceptional treat. Not many folks today know that DRACULA (like the 1931 American and Spanish movie versions from Universal) existed in two very different stage versions on either side of the Atlantic. Extremely popular “terror” plays of the day such as THE CAT AND THE CANARY and THE BAT involved the revelation of a human element behind seemingly fantastic happenings. DRACULA brought audiences face-to-face with the supernatural.
In 1924, Hamilton Deane’s version premiered in Great Britain and proved to be “critic proof” as it moved across the country. It was revised through the years and was to include a Prologue that was cut from the script. That’s too bad, because it featured the famous scene (from the novel) of Dracula descending head-first down the side of his castle tower!
Such success naturally attracted calls for a production in the United States. However, Hamilton Deane’s script was not met with favor. (Indeed, it is very talky with side scenes that severely strain credibility even in a vampire story.) An extensive rewrite was ordered that significantly changed most of Deane’s work ... and it was a vast improvement. The “Hamilton Deane and John L. Balderston” version was also “critic proof,” a huge success, and brought an actor who spoke very little English to the title role, Bela Lugosi.
The Deane and Balderston version is the one that is trotted out most frequently when there is a DRACULA stage revival. It is also the one that convinced Universal that the “unfilmable novel” could be brought to the screen. For years, though, the stage version you saw of DRACULA depended whether you were in the United States or Great Britain.
I have seen the Deane and Balderston version several times and it provides a most enjoyable evening at the theater. I knew of the existence of the Hamilton Deane version, but I had neither seen it or read it. Thanks to this book, I’ve now read it.
DRACULA: THE ULTIMATE, ILLUSTRATED EDITION OF THE WORLD-FAMOUS VAMPIRE PLAY contains both versions, an overview of the history of Bram Stoker’s novel (and unsuccessful attempt to persuade his employer, Sir Henry Irving, to commission it as a play for his theater), and licensing battles for the dramatic rights fought by his widow, Florence Stoker ... which almost put a stake through the heart of a rogue film version from Germany called NOSFERATU (a favorite of mine).
The book also contains scores of photographs and reprints from various theater memorabilia, sidebars of critical opinions, and notes about the actual productions ... including how special effects worked (or didn’t). In short, this had everything I wanted to know about DRACULA onstage, including photographs from modern productions.
The sole negative thing I found was the layout. I would expect to see some production notes in the sidebars, but this book also included reviews and background stories there. These were good things to know, but I couldn’t stop myself from reading them when they appeared ... which meant that I was interrupting my reading of the plays (much as one can be annoyed by parts of an overheard conversation within the audience). I would have appreciated having these appear in their own section following the text of each play, but I suppose that is a minor quibble.
For those interested in DRACULA onstage or for DRACULA completists, this is an indispensable book.
In 1924, Hamilton Deane’s version premiered in Great Britain and proved to be “critic proof” as it moved across the country. It was revised through the years and was to include a Prologue that was cut from the script. That’s too bad, because it featured the famous scene (from the novel) of Dracula descending head-first down the side of his castle tower!
Such success naturally attracted calls for a production in the United States. However, Hamilton Deane’s script was not met with favor. (Indeed, it is very talky with side scenes that severely strain credibility even in a vampire story.) An extensive rewrite was ordered that significantly changed most of Deane’s work ... and it was a vast improvement. The “Hamilton Deane and John L. Balderston” version was also “critic proof,” a huge success, and brought an actor who spoke very little English to the title role, Bela Lugosi.
The Deane and Balderston version is the one that is trotted out most frequently when there is a DRACULA stage revival. It is also the one that convinced Universal that the “unfilmable novel” could be brought to the screen. For years, though, the stage version you saw of DRACULA depended whether you were in the United States or Great Britain.
I have seen the Deane and Balderston version several times and it provides a most enjoyable evening at the theater. I knew of the existence of the Hamilton Deane version, but I had neither seen it or read it. Thanks to this book, I’ve now read it.
DRACULA: THE ULTIMATE, ILLUSTRATED EDITION OF THE WORLD-FAMOUS VAMPIRE PLAY contains both versions, an overview of the history of Bram Stoker’s novel (and unsuccessful attempt to persuade his employer, Sir Henry Irving, to commission it as a play for his theater), and licensing battles for the dramatic rights fought by his widow, Florence Stoker ... which almost put a stake through the heart of a rogue film version from Germany called NOSFERATU (a favorite of mine).
The book also contains scores of photographs and reprints from various theater memorabilia, sidebars of critical opinions, and notes about the actual productions ... including how special effects worked (or didn’t). In short, this had everything I wanted to know about DRACULA onstage, including photographs from modern productions.
The sole negative thing I found was the layout. I would expect to see some production notes in the sidebars, but this book also included reviews and background stories there. These were good things to know, but I couldn’t stop myself from reading them when they appeared ... which meant that I was interrupting my reading of the plays (much as one can be annoyed by parts of an overheard conversation within the audience). I would have appreciated having these appear in their own section following the text of each play, but I suppose that is a minor quibble.
For those interested in DRACULA onstage or for DRACULA completists, this is an indispensable book.
May 23, 2021
Not a bad play.
Dracula has become kind of drawing room sort of drama. A lot plot elements have been dropped from Stoker's novel. The story has been condensed down, some characters have been eliminated, and Mina and Lucy have been swopped, plus the story has been updated to a more contemporary time period.
I actually watched a production of this while reading and following along in the script, but I feel that some of the cast over-acted a bit and they strayed from the script a bit in places.
This play was the main basis for Universal's 1931 film starring Bela Lugosi and the 1979 remake starring Frank Langella, which I can see what they used from the play and what they used from the original novel in those productions.
Dracula has become kind of drawing room sort of drama. A lot plot elements have been dropped from Stoker's novel. The story has been condensed down, some characters have been eliminated, and Mina and Lucy have been swopped, plus the story has been updated to a more contemporary time period.
I actually watched a production of this while reading and following along in the script, but I feel that some of the cast over-acted a bit and they strayed from the script a bit in places.
This play was the main basis for Universal's 1931 film starring Bela Lugosi and the 1979 remake starring Frank Langella, which I can see what they used from the play and what they used from the original novel in those productions.
February 13, 2020
i don't understand why dracula broke the fourth-wall so many times, especially since no other part of this play hints at it being a satire
October 8, 2016
To get the complete text of both the original British version (by Deane) and Balderston's American rewrite in one volume, along with Skal's typically expert notations, is quite a nifty thing. Balderston kept Dean's three-act structure, but otherwise did a complete stem-to-stern revision -- and thank goodness, because Deane can't write dialogue to save his soul. I can only imagine the difficulties any actor would have wrapping their mouths around his distorted speeches. Balderston's style is still archaic by today's standards, but in a way that lends itself to comic "straighter-than-straight" delivery.
It was my privilege to see Frank Langella and Co in the 70's Broadway production designed by Edward Gorey. I well remember the marvelous moment at the end of act three when Drac turned into a bat right onstage, right before our eyes. It was a terrific production and everyone seemed to be having a great time giving expertly-toned, tongue-in-cheek performances.
It was my privilege to see Frank Langella and Co in the 70's Broadway production designed by Edward Gorey. I well remember the marvelous moment at the end of act three when Drac turned into a bat right onstage, right before our eyes. It was a terrific production and everyone seemed to be having a great time giving expertly-toned, tongue-in-cheek performances.
March 23, 2018
For the fact that there were differences between the play and the original book, I thought Hamilton Deane and John L. Balderston told the different version of Dracula well. I thought the characters were detailed, the settings were elaborate, and the story had many different and interesting moments than in regular plays. And, of course I loved the story because of its horror. Though I did enjoy it a lot, there were some things that I thought could have been improved on. First, the ending was very anti-climatic and we just never get to see what happens to the characters once Dracula is gone. Second, though the characters were detailed, people like Lucy who was a very important character didn't have enough time to show her true emotions, and Dracula had potential to be scarier and more of a powerful character, but he just did not have that much time to do so. Even with my complaints, every story has it's flaws and I cant finish this rating without saying how much I enjoyed its dark and thrilling themes. In conclusion, if you are the person who enjoys darker horror stories and likes characters that are detailed but give you lots of room to experiment and imagine what they are thinking and feeling, then I recommend you should read this play. If you like everything specific, don't like horror, and hate endings that leave you off on a cliff, then maybe there are other books you could try, like the original Dracula.
May 3, 2019
What an excellent book! After watching the Bela Lugosi Dracula movie for the nth time, I decided to finally check out the play that was said to have inspired it. And while the plot-lines were definitely different than I was expecting (I had thought it would be more like reading the film script), I was pleasantly surprised with the ensuing story.
Skal provides a lot of wonderful details and background on various productions, and the sidebars are liberally peppered with fascinating facts and pictures from the play. But, perhaps the most interesting part of the book was that it contained the text for both the 1924 and the 1927 versions. It was really fun to read both and compare the two--they were quite different!
The 1924 version felt more grandiose, but was clunky and full of extra characters and really wordy dialogue. The 1927 rewrite was perfect, though. Slimmed down and well-paced. Characters like Quincy Morris and Lord Godalming were cut from this second script, and some names were changed (Mina becomes Lucy and vice versa), but all in all, this was a much better piece. I especially liked how Van Helsing and Renfield were written in the '27 version, and would have loved to have seen this performed live!
Skal provides a lot of wonderful details and background on various productions, and the sidebars are liberally peppered with fascinating facts and pictures from the play. But, perhaps the most interesting part of the book was that it contained the text for both the 1924 and the 1927 versions. It was really fun to read both and compare the two--they were quite different!
The 1924 version felt more grandiose, but was clunky and full of extra characters and really wordy dialogue. The 1927 rewrite was perfect, though. Slimmed down and well-paced. Characters like Quincy Morris and Lord Godalming were cut from this second script, and some names were changed (Mina becomes Lucy and vice versa), but all in all, this was a much better piece. I especially liked how Van Helsing and Renfield were written in the '27 version, and would have loved to have seen this performed live!
October 11, 2023
As a play it's snappy and atmospheric. As an adaptation, it tries using a micro focus to capture the full sprawling story of the book, but does so by staging most of it off screen, when they could have stripped more of that down to better highlight the elements it does focus on. It still adds some nice flourishes, like a stronger arc for Renfield, and Lucy (swapped with Mina in their story roles for some reason) becoming more and more drawn into her own vampirism. The other main issue is that, by starting so deep into the story, it feels like act three of a larger show more than its own complete plot. As the start of the many many many Dracula adaptations, it's not an uninteresting one, and it would have been great to see young Legosi on stage. I understand this play was the basis for the Universal film, which I'll finally be watching for the first time here at some point, so it'll be interesting to see how they approach that adaptation of an adaptation.
January 11, 2024
The original 1924/1927 play that both the 1931 Bela Lugosi, and the 1979 Frank Langella films were based on in addition to the Bram Stoker novel of course!
As far as adaptations of Dracula go this is a pretty basic given that it is one of the very first, yet still fairly entertaining! It was great fun to listen to the recent "dreamscape media" audiobook/ full cast recording of the play while reading along with the play's text!
I would say if you like the Lugosi film this is a fun little time capsule to go back to and check out, even if the play of course jettisons the Transylvania section of the book/movie at the beginning, and has a very odd forth wall break from Dracula himself out of nowhere in act 1!
As far as adaptations of Dracula go this is a pretty basic given that it is one of the very first, yet still fairly entertaining! It was great fun to listen to the recent "dreamscape media" audiobook/ full cast recording of the play while reading along with the play's text!
I would say if you like the Lugosi film this is a fun little time capsule to go back to and check out, even if the play of course jettisons the Transylvania section of the book/movie at the beginning, and has a very odd forth wall break from Dracula himself out of nowhere in act 1!
September 6, 2019
Two versions of the hit play from the 1920s based on Bram Stoker's Dracula. The first is the original British version by Hamilton Deane; the second is the Broadway version adapted by John L. Balderston. The latter is the one that is still staged today, and the one on which the 1932 Bela Lugosi movie was based. Both make for interesting reading. Deane's original is wordier and has more characters (it includes two additional vampire hunters from Stoker's novel). Unlike the movie, neither play has room for Dracula's first female victim as an onstage character. Recommended more for theater fans than for horror fans.
January 27, 2018
I wanted this to be better than it was- there's potential for Dracula onstage, but this adaptation (influential though it may be in giving us the suave, caped Dracula we all know and love) falls flat as theatre, barely eking out melodrama before registering as sheer camp. The dialogue is hackneyed to the point of being at times indistinguishable from a Star Wars prequel, and the writing forever insists on congratulating itself on its own scariness, which it does nothing to back up with substance.
April 6, 2018
This was a very interesting read, and it was neat getting to read some of the dialogue that made it into the Universal film. Deane's play, while mostly retaining the characters and their relationships from the book, had some very rough patches and didn't completely come together. Balderston's revision, while still having its issues here and there (like the heroes basically using Renfield as bait and getting him killed over it, wtf?), as well as a departing from the novel more, was a much better, more engaging read.
February 14, 2021
Unsurprisingly, I found myself preferring the source material.
While it was refreshing to have such a long story condensed into such a short play, I almost feel that too much was sacrificed in the world building. The changes that were made to allow this—the switching of Mina and Lucy, the writing out of Lucy's three men, and the complete omitting of Harker and Dracula's initial meeting at the tower—just kind of took this down a level for me.
While it was refreshing to have such a long story condensed into such a short play, I almost feel that too much was sacrificed in the world building. The changes that were made to allow this—the switching of Mina and Lucy, the writing out of Lucy's three men, and the complete omitting of Harker and Dracula's initial meeting at the tower—just kind of took this down a level for me.
February 12, 2020
Dated and a bit corny, but still very fun.
October 22, 2021
Fun adaptation of the story and it’s interesting to see what they can do with the story on stage
January 1, 2024
screw lucy—i want to play renfield
November 4, 2025
For Studio
December 3, 2020
For those who find Dracula by Stoker a slog, this contemporary play based on the novel is a livelier experience!
November 2, 2023
Ooo, this is the first time I've been the first reviewer for something (second rater, but still). But I do like to rate the version of the book I read, and this is the one my local library had.
This is the Lugosi movie, plain and simple. Minus the beginning part in Transylvania, this is that play. And while some of the performances in that original movie leave something to be desired (not Lugosi's or Dwight Frye's), the actual words detached from the performances are quite good. It's not my favorite way to experience Dracula but it's still well worth the reading.
My rating: 4/5
Would I own/re-read? Maybe!
TW: Death (referenced), Hypnotism, Eating Bugs
Does the animal die?: It being a Dracula adaptation, Renfield eats more than his share of bugs, though none of that happens on stage.
This is the Lugosi movie, plain and simple. Minus the beginning part in Transylvania, this is that play. And while some of the performances in that original movie leave something to be desired (not Lugosi's or Dwight Frye's), the actual words detached from the performances are quite good. It's not my favorite way to experience Dracula but it's still well worth the reading.
My rating: 4/5
Would I own/re-read? Maybe!
TW: Death (referenced), Hypnotism, Eating Bugs
Does the animal die?: It being a Dracula adaptation, Renfield eats more than his share of bugs, though none of that happens on stage.
September 23, 2015
This play has a few scenes that drag because of expository monologues, and there is very anti-climatic ending. Also, some of the characters are not as textured as others. For example: Lucy, though technically the lead female, doesn't have room to show much acting range. However, the technically "comedic relief" character of the maid has more range potential.
August 30, 2008
A less sexy version of the classic Dracula script - this one lends itself well to being a melodrama. Reading it for the first production fall semester at MSU.
October 16, 2023
Having listened to the 2023 audiobook adaptation, I thoroughly enjoyed it, especially knowing it’s the only authorized English version and the basis for Bela Lugosi’s iconic role.
March 3, 2025
I missed male wife, soaking wet cat of a man John harker :(
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews