A real Romanian prince, a novelist who never went to Romania, and a love story invented a century after the book. This is how a legend gets built.
Need an easier version? Read this lesson at A2/B1 level →
Work through the four short activities. Each word sits in a situation that gives its meaning away — you don't need to know the film yet. Say your answer out loud first, then reveal.
Francis Ford Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992), written for the screen by James V. Hart. Read each part, try the quick check from memory, then discuss. (There are spoilers ahead — that's the point; we're here to talk about it.)
The film opens in 1462, on the eastern edge of Christian Europe. A Romanian prince, Vlad Dracula, rides away to fight the armies of the Ottoman Empire and wins. But his enemies send false word back to his castle that he has been killed, and his wife Elisabeta, believing it, throws herself into the river below. When he returns in triumph, a priest tells him that because she took her own life her soul is damned. Something in him breaks. He renounces the God he has been defending, drives his sword into the stone cross of his own chapel, and drinks the blood that runs from it. He becomes what he will be for the next four hundred years.
Jump to 1897. A young London solicitor, Jonathan Harker, is sent to Transylvania to complete a property purchase for a client named Count Dracula — the job having passed to him after his colleague Renfield returned from the castle out of his mind and was shut in an asylum. Harker crosses the threshold of the castle and finds an ancient, courteous, unsettling host who keeps him talking late and is never seen in daylight.
Then the Count catches sight of a photograph of Harker's fiancée, Mina Murray — and stops. The face is Elisabeta's. Harker's usefulness ends there. He is left imprisoned in the castle, and the Count takes ship for England, carrying boxes of his own Transylvanian earth.
1. What happens in 1462 that turns Vlad Dracula into a vampire?
2. Why does the Count lose interest in Jonathan Harker?
1. He wins a battle against the Ottomans, but a false report of his death drives his wife Elisabeta to suicide; told her soul is damned, he renounces God and drinks blood from the chapel cross.
2. He sees a photograph of Harker's fiancée Mina and believes she is Elisabeta returned. Harker is imprisoned in the castle while the Count sails for England.
In London the Count takes possession of Carfax Abbey and, by night, hunts. Mina's wealthy, high-spirited friend Lucy Westenra — courted by three men at once — begins to sicken. She sleepwalks; she loses blood; no doctor can explain it. Dr Seward sends for his old teacher, Professor Abraham Van Helsing, who examines her and says the unsayable word. There is a creature at work, and it obeys rules: it casts no reflection, it recoils from the sacred, it will not enter a house unless someone inside invites it. Lucy dies, rises as a vampire, and the men who loved her have to destroy her themselves.
By day, meanwhile, the Count has made himself young. He appears in London as an elegant foreign gentleman and meets Mina by apparent chance. He is charming, sad, oddly familiar. She is engaged to a man who has vanished somewhere in Eastern Europe, and she finds she cannot stay away. It is a courtship, filmed as a courtship — and this is the film's boldest decision: the audience is asked to want it, at least a little.
Then news arrives that Harker has escaped the castle and is being cared for in a convent in Romania. Mina goes to him and marries him there. The Count, left behind, does the cruellest thing available to him, and Lucy's death is the result.
1. What rules does Van Helsing say the creature obeys?
2. How does Mina come to know the Count, and what interrupts it?
1. It shows no reflection, it recoils from sacred objects, and it cannot enter a house unless it is invited in.
2. He appears in London by day as a young, elegant stranger and courts her; the news that Jonathan has escaped and is in a convent in Romania takes her away to marry him.
Mina returns to London married. Van Helsing's group hunts down the Count's boxes of earth and destroys them, cutting off his refuges one by one. But the Count comes to Mina, confesses everything he has done, and she — furious, grieving for Lucy — tells him she loves him anyway, and remembers, or believes she remembers, a life as Elisabeta. At her own insistence he begins to turn her. He stops before it is finished; he will not damn her as she was damned before. When the hunters break in, he escapes.
The chase runs east: by sea to Varna, then overland to the Borgo Pass as winter closes in. Van Helsing takes Mina — now half-changed, and dangerous — to the castle itself and destroys the Count's three brides. The others intercept the cart carrying his coffin at sunset, in the snow below the castle walls. In the fight Quincey Morris, one of Lucy's three suitors, is stabbed and dies. The Count is mortally wounded.
Mina carries him into the chapel where, four centuries earlier, he cursed God. There, dying, he becomes a young man again and asks her for peace. She gives it to him: she drives the blade through his heart, and then, so that it is finished properly, takes his head. The mark on her forehead fades. Above them the chapel's painted ceiling shows the two of them at rest. Whether that is redemption or merely a beautiful ending is left for the audience to decide.
1. Why does the Count stop transforming Mina?
2. Who kills him, and where?
1. He refuses to condemn her to the state he chose for himself — he stops before the change is complete, even though she asked for it.
2. Mina does, in the chapel where he renounced God in 1462, after he is mortally wounded in the fight below the castle.
This is a story built entirely out of what things typically do. Vampires have rules. Villagers have customs. Characters have compulsions they cannot stop. English has a whole set of structures for exactly this — for saying what is in someone's nature, not just what happened once.
Use the verb in brackets and the hint to choose the structure and complete the gap.
1. Guests in that house (arrive) late — they nearly always do. (a general pattern)
2. Ask her about the sea and she (describe) every harbour she has ever seen. (typical, entirely predictable behaviour)
3. Audiences (believe) a frightening story more readily than a dull one. (a mild leaning, not an absolute rule)
1. tend to arrive (a habitual pattern)
2. will describe (characteristic behaviour — this is simply what she does)
3. are inclined to believe (a disposition, deliberately softened)
The hint tells you which structure to use. Write the full verb phrase.
1. It is the same dream every night: she (wake) at three and cannot get back to sleep. (use keep — it goes on and on)
2. He (check) the locks — ten times an evening, and it drives the whole house mad. (use be forever — an exasperating habit)
3. Leave that window open and the wind (slam) it shut. (what predictably happens, every time)
1. keeps waking (keep + -ing)
2. is forever checking (be + forever + -ing)
3. will slam (will for a predictable, characteristic result)
One gap needs the past form. Read it aloud when you have finished.
Ask anyone in the valley and they (tell) you the same thing. They (avoid) the upper road after dark, and they (cross) themselves whenever the castle is mentioned — you simply cannot stop them. Years ago, before the fear took hold, they (walk) that road at night without a second thought.
will tell · tend to avoid · are forever crossing (or keep crossing) · would walk
Notice the shape of it: will and tend to and be forever + -ing describe how people are now; only the last gap steps back into the past, where will becomes would.
Carry these into the Speak tab. A monster is only frightening because of what it always does — and a legend survives because of what people keep repeating.
Everyone "knows" that Dracula was based on Vlad the Impaler. It is one of the most confidently repeated facts in popular culture. It is also, on the evidence, largely wrong — and the story of how it became a fact is more interesting than the fact itself.
Vlad III of Wallachia — Vlad Țepeș, "the Impaler" — lived from around 1428–31 until the winter of 1476–77. He ruled the principality of Wallachia, in what is now southern Romania, three separate times: briefly in 1448, then from 1456 to 1462, and finally for a few weeks in November 1476 before he was killed in battle. His name came from his father, Vlad II, who joined the Order of the Dragon, a knightly society founded to resist Ottoman expansion: Dracul, the dragon, and Dracula, "son of Dracul". In modern Romanian, awkwardly, dracul also means "the devil".
In 1462 he crossed the Danube and attacked Ottoman territory, and Sultan Mehmed II invaded Wallachia in reply. On the night of 16–17 June 1462 Vlad rode into the Ottoman camp near Târgoviște and tried to kill the Sultan himself. He failed, lost the war, and spent years imprisoned in Hungary before his last brief return to power. His punishments were savage even by the standards of his century, and German-language pamphlets printed after his death — with woodcuts of him dining among the stakes — turned that savagery into one of the earliest bestsellers of the printing press. In Romania the memory ran the other way: a harsh ruler, yes, but one who defended his country and imposed order. Both versions have held sway ever since.
Here is where the legend was manufactured. Stoker's working notes for the novel survive — they are held at the Rosenbach Museum & Library in Philadelphia — and they show what he read. On 8 August 1890, on holiday in Whitby, he borrowed from the public library a book published in 1820 by a British consul, William Wilkinson: An Account of the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia. From it he copied a few lines about a "Voivode Dracula" who crossed the Danube and attacked Turkish troops — and one footnote, which he wrote out in capitals: DRACULA in the Wallachian language means DEVIL.
That footnote is the whole of it. Wilkinson never gives the man a first name. There is no Vlad in the book, no Țepeș, no Impaler, no atrocity, no castle and certainly no vampire. Up to that moment Stoker had been calling his creature Count Wampyr; in the notes he crosses that out and writes Dracula instead. He took a name because it sounded like the devil. Vlad III is not mentioned anywhere in the notes.
Be fair to the other side, though: the novel does hand its Count a warlike ancestry. Dracula boasts of a man of his own race who as Voivode crossed the Danube and beat the Turk on his own ground — Wilkinson's sentence, almost word for word — and Van Helsing later says the Count must have been that same Voivode Dracula. So Stoker's vampire is loosely attached to a real warlord. But it is a thread, not a portrait, and no reader in 1897 could have identified the man.
Stoker never set foot in Romania. His Transylvania was built in libraries: the atmosphere and the word nosferatu came largely from Emily Gerard's essay "Transylvanian Superstitions" (1885) and her book on the region. Whitby gave him the rest of the machinery — the abbey on the cliff, and a Russian ship called the Dmitry that had been driven aground there in 1885, which he rewrote as the Demeter. Elizabeth Báthory, the Hungarian countess usually named as another source, appears to be a later addition too: Stoker took notes from Sabine Baring-Gould's The Book of Were-Wolves, but not one of them concerns her.
The Vlad identification arrived much later. In 1972 two Boston College historians, Raymond McNally and Radu Florescu, published In Search of Dracula, which fused the novel with the prince and sold enormously — written, crucially, before Stoker's notes had been properly studied. Both authors later softened the claim. But it was out. A 1974 television version already gave its Count a lost wife whose double he pursues, and closed by pointing at Vlad the Impaler. And then Coppola's 1992 film made the fusion definitive and beautiful: a prologue in 1462, a wife named Elisabeta, a reincarnated love. None of that is in Stoker's novel. Not the wife, not the reincarnation, not Vlad, not the sword in the cross. It was invented for the screen — and it is now what most of the world means by "Dracula". Even the castle is a stand-in: Bran Castle in Romania draws the tourists, though its connection to both Vlad and the novel is essentially an invention of the tourist trade.
This is the heart of the lesson — do it all out loud. The timer keeps you going; fill the time with detail.
Tell the story of Bram Stoker's Dracula in your own words, as if to someone who has never seen it. Move through the arc: 1462, the false news and Elisabeta → the vow in the chapel → Harker at the castle and the photograph → London, Lucy, and Van Helsing's rules → the courtship of Mina → the pursuit east and the ending in the chapel.
Work in at least five key words (threshold, loom, embellish, notoriety, lore, spurious, conflate, succumb, pretext, hold sway), and use the grammar of characteristic behaviour whenever you describe the creature's rules: "he will not cross running water", "he tends to appear at nightfall", "Renfield keeps catching flies".
Coppola's film asks the audience to sympathise with its monster — to see a grieving husband rather than a predator, and to accept a heroine who says she loves him. Build an argument. Does giving a monster a tragic backstory deepen the story, or does it quietly excuse what he does to Lucy, to Harker and to Mina? Take a side and defend it, then argue the other side as well as you can.
A footnote in 1820, a bestseller in 1972, a film in 1992 — and a "fact" that hundreds of millions of people now believe. How does something like that happen, and can it be undone? Make your case.
Stuck for an idea? Pick one of these and run with it: