“The process of watching any Radu Jude film essentially entails asking one very simple question: how does he keep getting away with it?”

Why are we drawn to the story of Dracula, and what is our overall fascination with vampires? These tend to be the most commonly explored subjects in terms of iconic horror creations, transcending both temporal and geographical borders. The novel by Bram Stoker is widely considered one of the defining works of horror literature, to the point where it hasn’t been out of print since its publication in 1897 and doesn’t seem to be ceasing any time soon based on the immense popularity of the text and countless adaptations over the years. Yet, we must still endeavor to answer these questions, determining the precise qualities that have mesmerized readers for over a century, understanding the intricacies of what is essentially considered one of the foundational texts from which all modern horror has developed in some form. The novel has also been adapted into every conceivable medium, which includes direct retellings of the story as well as contemporary recreations, carefully constructed homages and even the occasional parody. The story is so familiar that anyone can recognize it – but this hasn’t stopped several artists from attempting to put their own touch on the classic narrative. The most recent comes on behalf of the brilliant provocateur Radu Jude, who tackles the subject by filtering it through his unique and outright demented perspective, taking on a challenge that gives him the opportunity to craft yet another subversive and compelling deconstruction of his home country and its complex, varied history.

Existing somewhere between a loving tribute and relentless mockery of this beloved work and its reputation, Dracula is a mercilessly funny and outrageously bold work that once again consolidates Jude as one of the most unusual and radical filmmakers of his generation, and one who manages to redefine the form in ways that we simply cannot ever predict. Therefore, in taking a text as notable and beloved as this one, he once again unsettles the artistic status quo in his own way, providing audiences with an experience that they are not likely to ever forget, for better or worse; your mileage may vary while viewing his absolutely unhinged approach to examining not only the novel and its specific elements, but also the cultural and artistic reasons for its everlasting popularity over the years, told in a profoundly daring and challenging manner. Through exploring both aspects of how Dracula is perceived, the director is attempting to assert his own unique interpretation (which we already know will be beyond irrational and wild), combining his personal feelings towards this text with its overall public perception, creating quite a bold blend of ideas that are unlike anything we are likely to encounter from any other director.

Accuracy is not a concern, but rather perception and how it has changed over time. Despite usually being seen as the most notable work of literature to explore Transylvanian culture, Dracula is a foreign text, as Stoker was an Irishman with a deep fascination for but no solid connection to the region in which his masterpiece takes place. As a result, it’s not surprising that the vast majority of works that explore the legend of Count Dracula (or vampires in general) are made by filmmakers from outside the region. Jude is not the first Romanian director to tackle the subject (particularly when it comes to the story of Vlad Țepeș, the notorious leader whose penchant for impaling not only his enemies but anyone he viewed as unworthy of his constituency was the inspiration behind this myth), but he does attempt to be the first to actively explore the themes beyond the most obvious, surface-level adaptation of a novel. Jude is very much aware that it has proven to be quite polarizing, particularly within the local industry, who are divided on whether Stoker’s novel did more harm or good to their culture.

On one hand, Dracula has created a continuous stream of revenue for the country (and the region of Transylvania itself, with much of this film being shot there), with tourists flocking to participate in tours and recreations of the iconic story – one of the central motifs is an immersive theatrical experience in which people pay to hunt vampires, which takes a very dark and predictably very funny turn when the actors begin to realize that this is perhaps a more literal experience than what they had initially signed up for. However, critics of this trend have noted that this rise in focus on the Dracula mythos has created an indelible impression of the culture that only scratches the surface of the rich history and traditions of Transylvania and its people, which they feel is doing a disservice to the vibrant, storied past that is much more than the fodder for gothic horror. Jude addresses both of these conversations directly, constructing a lively tapestry of stories that overlap, each one wildly different from the others, but sharing the same overall intentions: namely to take this cherished text and explore it from a number of different perspectives, in an effort to understand the reasons for the longevity of this story, as well as engaging critically with its reputation in contrast to the cultural themes that are often lost in more mainstream adaptations of the novel.

The process of watching any Radu Jude film essentially entails asking one very simple question: how does he keep getting away with it? He has gleefully taken his position as one of the most provocative and daring filmmakers working today, relishing his ability to constantly surprise audiences. As an adaptation, Dracula is intentionally very jagged and inconsistent, bouncing between storylines that don’t necessarily come together at the end, or at least not in the way that we would expect. Even the most seasoned of viewers of his work, or those who have pored over every bit of discourse in which he has participated, cannot begin to predict the lengths to which he is willing to go to tell a story or even just explore a specific point. Especially since this film in particular blends his earlier work, in which he made striking historical dramas such as Scarred Hearts and Aferim! with his more recent movement towards postmodernist narratives set in the present day. One aspect is common throughout, which is that nothing is sacred in his work, and absolutely no one (ranging from individuals to entire institutions) is immune to his satires. Dracula only finds him going even further than ever before, lampooning everything from the Transylvanian tourism industry (which he implies is complicit in creating a one-dimensional view of the character and its legacy) to the many people across every artistic medium who have attempted to reinterpret Stoker’s novel as if it was a historical text.

Working with a cast of over sixty actors (many of whom take on multiple roles – it’s difficult to pinpoint a standout, since everyone is absolutely stellar and commits wholeheartedly to helping the director bring these bizarre ideas to life), Jude crafts this subversive and challenging deconstruction of the folklore surrounding both the historical figure of Vlad the Impaler and his literary counterpart, who are divided into entirely separate entities in some portions of this film and combined in others, depending on the specific point that Jude is attempting to convey at any given moment. He asks several peculiar questions in an effort to redefine what this myth represents – he explores the romantic sub-plot (and finds there is a very subtle boundary between gently erotic and outright vulgar), the themes around the master and servant relationship, the concept of mob justice and, in one of the strangest interludes, what Count Dracula would talk about if he had a TikTok account. The result is a three-hour-long satirical collage composed of several wickedly strange fragments, blending fiction with reality through an approach that simultaneously implies that they are intimately related and entirely separate, especially in the process of interpreting a book that has captivated readers for well over a century.

To even call this an adaptation of Dracula feels oddly inappropriate, since it is a film that resists categorization at every possible opportunity, which is one of the many traits that has positioned Jude as not only a great filmmaker, but an essential artistic voice and social critic; someone whose ability to take a work as familiar and over-saturated as this novel, and reconfigure it in a manner that allows entirely new ideas to come to the surface. There is a belief that if a work of literature exists for long enough, everything that can be said about it will eventually be said – and yet, despite being subjected to innumerable adaptations and homages across stage, screen and the printed page, it is redefined as something entirely new and revolutionary under Jude’s masterful and provocative direction. There are aspects of this film that we certainly struggle to comprehend, which can easily be justified by the realization that Jude’s artistic manifesto can be described using the words of Thomas Pynchon, who asked “why should things be easy to understand?”; a bold sentiment that underlines not only the artistic motives behind such a project, but also the audience’s reaction to these works.

Yet, despite its unwieldy and pensive nature, there is certainly no shortage of outrageously entertaining moments that populate Dracula. This is a blisteringly funny film, but one that does highlight its intentions to take the audience hostage as far as forcing us to peer behind the veneer of this classical text, challenging us through presenting a series of strange moments that only become increasingly more unhinged, and making use of a number of peculiar literary and visual techniques. It also could quite possibly be one of the only ethical uses of artificial intelligence in a film, a conclusion we can draw from the fact that Jude makes it quite clear that machinery can simply never recreate the human touch, and that its only purpose (as far as he is concerned) is to highlight the existential absurdity of modern life and our perpetual search for shortcuts to every task. The images created using artificial intelligence are superfluous and border on grotesque, a deliberate choice that finds Jude playfully mocking supposedly advanced systems that are truly nothing more than fodder for shallow, insincere flights of fancy, entertaining but genuinely lacking any real substance or longevity. The calculated irony being that Jude takes a text that has withstood the test of time and almost become universal, and uses a tool that produces images that are forgotten almost immediately – and in this approach, we find some of the most profound and interesting artistic observations.

Ultimately, it is going to be fascinating to see who will be fearless enough to attempt to mount yet another adaptation of Dracula in the aftermath of Jude’s masterful deconstruction of both the novel and the cultural impression it has made over the past century. This isn’t to imply that this film is in any way the definitive version of this novel – if anything, it provides a swift and direct assertion that the concept of an ultimate adaptation of any work is not only impossible, it’s foolish to even attempt, since a work is defined not by how successfully it is brought to life, but rather other factors that go far beyond the text, which is applicable to  any work of literature. Dracula is a titanic satire of art, consumerism and society, a lengthy absurdist epic that is so wonderfully hypnotic the runtime barely registers. Jude holds no reverence for the living or the dead, and absolutely nobody is safe from his ridicule, which allows him carte blanche to do whatever he feels necessary to communicate his wild frenzy of ideas. As with many of his films, Jude does not push boundaries, he ignores them completely and, in the process, manages to not only show different sides of the same story and our relationship with it over the decades, but also alleviates himself (and any other filmmaker in the future) from the burden of making the definitive version of this or any literary text. Regardless of who is telling the story – man or machine – there will always be far too many different interpretations of the same ideas, so it’s best to simply embrace the absurdity and welcome the unknown, irrespective of the ensuing chaos.