The Perverse Sacramentality of Bram Stoker's Dracula

Stoker’s Dracula is a novel saturated with religious imagery, yet its deployment of Christian sacramental themes is anything but orthodox. On the surface, the narrative pits good against evil, the Church against the vampire, with crucifixes, Communion wafers, and holy water operating as tangible defenses against the undead. But beneath this apparent moral clarity lies a more disturbing reality: Dracula does not simply celebrate Christian sacramentality—it distorts, mimics, and inverts it. The Count himself is a grotesque parody of Christ, offering his blood to initiate eternal life, while his victims undergo an unholy transformation that mirrors baptism, communion, and resurrection in reverse. The novel thus presents us with a kind of anti-theology, in which sacred rites are echoed in blasphemous form, and the boundaries between sacrament and sacrilege become unnervingly porous.

This tension is not merely aesthetic; it arises from Stoker’s own position at the fault line of shifting theological and cultural landscapes. Though the novel is often read through a Victorian Protestant lens—with Van Helsing as a mouthpiece for Enlightenment rationality and Catholic superstition—its treatment of Catholic sacramentality is far more ambivalent. The Eucharistic Host, for example, is not merely symbolic but powerful, functioning with the potency of the Real Presence—a notion far more at home in Catholic theology than in Anglican or Reformed thought. Meanwhile, the vampire’s bite imitates the intimate, bodily intrusion of communion, but devoid of grace and mediated instead by violence, lust, and control. What results is a theological uncanny: a landscape in which sacred forms remain recognizable but have been emptied, twisted, or infused with malevolent force.

Moreover, Dracula’s theological structure mirrors sacramental sequence. The vampire’s initiations involve blood, death, burial, and a kind of resurrection—marking a grotesque parody of baptism, confirmation, and Eucharist. Mina Harker’s near-transformation is a particularly vivid instance of sacramental inversion: her forced ingestion of Dracula’s blood parallels the reception of communion, yet it binds her to sin and damnation rather than grace. In this way, the novel dramatizes a recurring Victorian fear: that ritual power might not be purely sacred, but could operate through occult or heretical channels—especially if divorced from legitimate authority.

These sacramental inversions are not incidental. They serve to destabilize traditional notions of holiness and power, calling into question the very efficacy of religious symbols when confronted with modern horror. As such, Dracula can be read as a work of theological Gothic—a mode in which the apparatus of religion is not simply present but is itself made uncanny, grotesque, and possibly corrupt. Far from being a straightforward allegory of Christian virtue triumphing over pagan evil, the novel stages a deeper drama: the haunting of the sacred by its own dark double.

In what follows, we will explore this theme in greater depth—tracing the perversions of baptism, Eucharist, and relic cults in Dracula; examining Van Helsing’s uneasy role as both priest and scientist; and interrogating the theological ambiguity that makes the vampire not simply a monster, but a rival messiah.

Sacrament, Violence, and the Irony of Veneration

In the liturgies of the Serbian Orthodox Church, prayers are regularly offered for “Vlad of Blessed Memory”—a figure honored by some Balkan Christians as a bulwark against the Ottoman invasion, a savior of Christendom whose brutal methods are forgiven—or forgotten—in the glow of geopolitical triumph. Here, Vlad III Țepeș—Vlad the Impaler—is not merely remembered; he is revered. His image, frozen in Orthodox iconography or nationalist myth, becomes a symbol of fierce Christian resistance. But this sanctification of Vlad poses an unsettling theological dilemma: how can a man known for mass impalements, the execution of his own subjects, and a reign of terror marked by gratuitous cruelty, be commemorated in prayer as though he were a righteous defender of the faith?

This contradiction lies at the heart of Bram Stoker’s Dracula. Though the novel never names its vampire explicitly as Vlad the Impaler, it hints insistently at that connection—Dracula claims descent from Attila, recounts his battlefield savagery with pride, and occupies a castle in the mountains of Transylvania, the very region over which Vlad once ruled. Stoker’s notes make the link clearer still: his research into Eastern European history brought him face to face with the real Vlad, whose mythic cruelty and historical proximity to Christian iconography made him a compelling model for a Gothic anti-Christ. Yet what makes this choice particularly resonant is not simply that Vlad was violent—it’s that he was canonized by culture, even partially sacralized. The vampire, then, emerges not only as a symbol of evil but as a dark echo of sanctity itself.

Stoker exploits this ambiguity to devastating effect. Dracula is not merely a tale of horror—it is a meditation on the corruption of holiness. The vampire is a paradoxical creature: he mimics the sacraments, parodies the Incarnation, and offers eternal life through blood, but his promise is a lie, and his presence desecrates everything sacred. He is the shadow of Christ, drawing power not from divine self-sacrifice but from domination, violation, and fear. His ritual—the giving of blood, the un-death, the enthralling of disciples—is liturgical in structure but diabolical in intent. And when we consider that his historical prototype is a man venerated by the very Church he defiled through cruelty, we begin to see that Dracula is a theological nightmare not only because it depicts blasphemy, but because it raises the possibility that the boundary between holiness and horror has already collapsed.

Why did Stoker choose Vlad? The answer lies in the tension between image and essence. Vlad represented both the defender and the defiler of Christendom. He fought the infidel with holy zeal, yet ruled like a demon unleashed from Hell. In fusing this duality into Dracula, Stoker makes an implicit accusation against the religio-political narrative of sainthood: that beneath the gold of liturgical memory may lie rivers of blood. Dracula’s immortality is purchased through terror and sacrilege, and his legacy—like Vlad’s—is ambiguous, teetering between martyrdom and monstrosity. Stoker does not resolve this tension; he embeds it deep within the body of the vampire, making it the engine of Gothic dread.

Thus, in Dracula, the horror is not just that the dead return—but that they return clothed in the trappings of sacrament, offering a parody of salvation backed by historical memory. The Count is not merely undead; he is, symbolically, beatified. He is what happens when the Church’s language of sanctity is drained of love and filled with conquest—when the blood of Christ is replaced with the blood of nations.

This irony is not incidental. It is the novel’s theological center. The blasphemy of the vampire is not simply his thirst—it is his claim to sacred continuity. The novel forces us to ask: what if the holy is already perverse? What if the real Dracula—the one history prays for—was never far from the monster Stoker imagined?

In the following sections, we will explore the psychological roots of Vlad’s historical violence, and how this may inform the figure of the vampire as a distortion of sacramental desire: the longing for immortality, communion, and transcendence—all tragically misdirected into bloodlust and domination. In doing so, we return not only to the myth of Dracula, but to the dark places where theology, history, and horror intersect.

Humiliation, Sadism, and the Sacralization of Violence

To understand the psychological foundations of Stoker’s Count, one must return to the boyhood of Vlad Țepeș—Voivode of Wallachia, warlord of medieval terror, and posthumous icon of both sainthood and monstrosity. The real Vlad was not born a monster, but forged in captivity, rivalry, and the ritualized cruelties of empire. As a child, Vlad was taken hostage by the Ottoman Turks, alongside his younger brother Radu, as part of a diplomatic arrangement meant to ensure his father’s obedience. There, in the gilded cages of Edirne or Gallipoli, the psychological conditions of his future reign were sown. This was not a gentle captivity. Ottoman court politics were theatrical and sadistic; boys were pawns and prey. Some scholars have speculated that both Vlad and Radu were exposed to sexual exploitation—likely normalized within the upper echelons of the harem-adjacent training regimes. Yet the emotional dynamic between the two brothers may have been just as damaging as any physical trauma.

Radu, known to history as “Radu the Beautiful,” is widely believed to have become a favorite of the Sultan. Whether this entailed mere favoritism or sexual domination remains uncertain, but for Vlad—intensely proud, brutal in temperament, and fiercely nationalistic—such intimacy with the enemy would have constituted a spiritual castration. His brother had assimilated, prospered, and submitted. Vlad, by contrast, stewed in resentment and isolation. One must imagine a young boy, heir to a warrior dynasty, watching his brother become beloved by the man who held their freedom in his hand. Humiliation metastasized into identity.

This early trauma likely fractured Vlad’s capacity to form trusting attachments. We know almost nothing of his wives—names vanish into silence. No children are confirmed. Rumors of infertility have persisted for centuries, leading to whispered legends of gelding by the Ottomans—a punishment reserved for slaves and threats to dynastic continuity. Whether literal or metaphorical, Vlad’s severance from reproductive legacy speaks volumes. His immortality would not pass through bloodlines, but through violence and myth. This, too, reflects in Stoker’s Dracula: a being who cannot father life but can only infect it, reproduce not through love but through domination.

Upon his return to power in Wallachia, Vlad’s reign was defined by extremes. Impalement became his signature—a performative spectacle of suffering designed not merely to punish but to humiliate en masse. The historical Vlad impaled thousands: Turks, Saxons, boyars, peasants—his own people. He executed the poor for being poor. In one consistently attested episode—recorded in both Slavic and Romanian sources — Vlad invited the local boyar nobility (rival lords and aristocrats) to a feast. After accusing them of treason and disloyalty (including the murder of his father and brother), he had many of them impaled or forced to march to rebuild a ruined fortress at Poenari, where many died of exhaustion. This was not law—it was theological theatre. The Voivode cast himself as a kind of wrathful demigod, enforcing divine purity through blood. One cannot help but hear in this a parody of sacrificial theology: to cleanse the nation, the unclean must burn; to preserve the sacred body of the state, the polluted must bleed. Here is kingship become priesthood, but without forgiveness—only fire and stake.

And so the real Vlad becomes a figure of dreadful synthesis: humiliated child, castrated heir, vengeful prince, and anti-Christ. He enacts the sacraments not in church but in flesh—replacing baptism with burning, Eucharist with impalement, and divine judgment with personal rage. These actions were not chaotic but highly ordered. He staged cruelty as ritual. He forced the world to bear witness. And by doing so, he redefined power: no longer the ability to govern or protect, but the capacity to consecrate violence through fear.

This is the psyche Stoker channels into Dracula. The Count is not merely undead; he is unhealed. His obsession with blood is more than hunger—it is control. He invades the body of the other because he himself has been violated. He seduces and dominates because he was once rendered powerless. He does not father children, but creates servants. His castle, like Vlad’s regime, is both prison and altar. And his immortality—like Vlad’s legacy—is not a gift, but a refusal to die. It is the eternal return of pain.

In making Dracula a figure modeled on Vlad, Stoker was not just borrowing a historical villain—he was dramatizing a trauma: the cycle of humiliation and vengeance that, when fused to symbols of holiness and heritage, births something monstrous. Something holy-inverted. The vampire, in this light, is the psychological consequence of sacrilege inflicted and internalized: a being who cannot forget the wound, and who therefore feeds it to others.

This convergence of history and pathology—of sacramental parody and psychosexual rupture—becomes the key to unlocking Dracula’s deeper terror. The novel is not simply about good versus evil. It is about the return of the wounded prince, cloaked in the robes of religion, wielding blood as sacrament, and forcing the world to kneel before his pain.

Unholy Communion: Eucharistic Inversion in Dracula

At the heart of Christian sacramental theology lies the Eucharist—an act of profound intimacy, in which the communicant receives the body and blood of Christ, not only in remembrance but in real presence. “Take. Eat. This is my body,” says Christ in the Gospels, “which is given for you, for the forgiveness of sins.” The sacrament is an offering of life through death, of union through sacrifice, and of transformation through grace. In Dracula, Stoker takes this most sacred of mysteries and turns it inside out. The vampire, too, offers blood. The vampire, too, promises eternal life. But what is offered is not grace—it is corruption. What is shared is not communion—but contamination. The Count becomes a grotesque parody of Christ, a priest of damnation, feeding not to save but to enslave.

The novel makes this parallel unmistakable in the infamous scene of Mina Harker’s violation. After hypnotic coercion, she is forced to drink Dracula’s blood directly from his chest, in what can only be described as a dark sacramental rite:

“With his left hand he held both Mrs. Harker’s hands, keeping them away with her arms at full tension; his right hand gripped her by the back of the neck, forcing her face down on his bosom. Her white nightdress was smeared with blood, and a thin stream trickled down the man’s bare chest which was shown by his torn-open dress.”

The scene is horrifying not merely because of its sexual overtones, but because it mimics a holy act. Dracula offers his body—his blood—to Mina, forcing her to ingest it and thus become one with him. It is a travesty of the Eucharist. Instead of a willing communicant, there is spiritual rape. Instead of sanctification, there is infection. Instead of the celebrant saying “Take, eat, this is my body,” we have a predator enforcing submission, twisting intimacy into domination.

This Eucharistic parody resonates with the wider structure of the vampire’s power. The bite itself is sacramental in form. It marks the body, binds the soul, and begins a transformation—mirroring, grotesquely, the indwelling of Christ through the sacrament. Yet where the Eucharist bridges the divine and the human, the vampire bite severs the human from the divine. The soul is not redeemed but exiled—cut off from grace and doomed to unlife. The result is not resurrection, but undeath.

Moreover, Dracula’s victims become his apostles. Lucy, the innocent and beloved, once turned, becomes a “bloofer lady” (child-speak of London waifs for "beautiful lady")—a mockery of the Virgin or Marian figure, transformed into a predator of children. Her reanimation is an inversion of the resurrection hope promised by sacramental union with Christ. She returns not in glory but in corruption, her beauty intact but her soul twisted. In confronting her, the vampire hunters conduct a reverse liturgy: staking her like a desecrated host, severing her head, and burning the body—a dark mirror of the burial rites meant to commend the soul to God.

Stoker deepens the blasphemous inversion by allowing true Christian sacraments to function with supernatural potency. Van Helsing, a Catholic (and thus more sacramentally attuned than his Protestant counterparts), carries consecrated Hosts with him—real Eucharistic wafers. These are not mere symbols. When pressed against the coffin or laid in a circle to sanctify the ground, they repel the vampire physically, violently. When Van Helsing touches a Host to Mina’s forehead to protect her, it burns into her flesh—not because the Host is profane, but because she is now partially claimed by the unholy. This action, perhaps unintentionally, reinforces Catholic theology: the Host is not metaphor but reality. In this universe, Christ is really present, and Dracula’s parody has real power only because it mimics something metaphysically true.

This metaphysical realism is part of the novel’s horror. Dracula’s rituals work. His blood binds. His sacraments, while perverse, have consequences. He is not merely a metaphor for evil; he is a theological antagonist, a rival priest whose liturgy promises eternal life through domination, not love. His cult, if left unchecked, will spread. In this, Dracula becomes a kind of doctrinal terror—a nightmare born of sacramental theology turned to its shadow form. What if the most holy mystery could be hijacked? What if the door opened by grace could also be forced open by evil?

The novel’s final triumph over Dracula is thus not just physical, but theological. The staking, the decapitation, the crumbling body—these are purgative acts, yes, but they also symbolize the restoration of sacramental order. The sacred is defended not by brute force alone, but by sacred means: the Host, the crucifix, the invocation of God’s name. The hunters do not merely kill a monster—they perform a kind of exorcism, reasserting the authority of the true sacrament over its demonic parody.

Yet the scars remain. Mina is marked. The sacred has been touched by the profane. The final image is not of peace, but of fragile grace restored after near-annihilation.

The Cannibal Eucharist: How Dracula Fulfills the Pagan Charge Against Christianity

From its earliest days, Christianity carried with it an unsettling charge: that its adherents were cannibals. Roman commentators—disgusted and suspicious of the new sect—heard whispers of secret meetings, flesh-eating, and blood-drinking. Misunderstanding (or perhaps deliberately misconstruing) the Eucharist, they interpreted the liturgical language of “eating the body and drinking the blood of Christ” as literal. In their eyes, the early Christians reenacted a sacred crime, cloaking cannibalism in the language of devotion. And though the Church insisted on the mystical nature of the sacrament—sacramentum, non carnalis manducatio—the image remained potent, even within Christian thought. The Eucharist is not symbolic theater alone; in Catholic theology, it is a real presence—an intimate, even bodily union with the divine. One eats Christ.

Bram Stoker’s Dracula drags this buried anxiety into the open. The vampire is, in essence, a Eucharistic predator. He drinks blood to live, and through that act, he shares his own cursed life with others. The contagion is spiritual and physical—his victims become like him, bound by blood, damned through ingestion. The scene in which Mina is forced to drink from Dracula’s chest is not only a violation of the Christian sacrament—it is the pagan nightmare of it fulfilled. No mystery, no grace—just the raw cannibal act, ritualized.

In this sense, Dracula stages what theologians have always feared: that outside the church, the sacraments might be seen not as communion, but as corruption. The vampire embodies the accusation—he is the flesh-eater. His blood is not sanctified but cursed. Yet the structure of the act is identical: bodily ingestion, transformation, eternal consequence. Stoker’s brilliance lies in refusing to deny this resemblance. Instead, he confronts the reader with it—he makes us witness the shadow lurking beneath sacrament.

This dark fulfillment of the pagan charge also casts the vampire in an anti-Christ role. Like Christ, Dracula says in gesture if not in word: Take, eat, this is my body; drink, this is my blood. But unlike Christ, who offers himself freely for others, Dracula forces his body upon the unwilling. His communion is not self-sacrifice, but self-replication. It is not given for the life of the world, but taken to enslave it. The Christian sacrament transforms through love; the vampire's communion transforms through domination. Yet both hinge on the body and blood of a central figure. In this, the horror of Dracula becomes theological: it suggests that even the highest mystery can be inverted—that sacrament and sacrilege share a terrifying formal symmetry.

The Church, in Dracula, is not unaware of this danger. Van Helsing’s deployment of the Eucharistic Host as weapon reveals a deep awareness that only the true body can resist the false body. That is, it is not words or beliefs that repel the vampire—it is real presence. This is why Protestant characters are often ineffective without Van Helsing's Catholic arsenal. The Host burns not symbolically, but literally. This is metaphysical combat. But again, this reaffirms the fear: if the Host is truly Christ’s body, then so too might the vampire’s body carry its own perverse efficacy.

Thus, Dracula occupies a unique space in theological horror—not just because it introduces monsters into sacred terrain, but because it resurrects the ancient accusation against Christianity and lets it breathe. The reader is forced to confront the thin veil between sanctity and savagery. When Lucy feeds on children, when Dracula binds Mina with blood, when Jonathan lies weakened in the Count’s castle after being “bled”—the rituals of Christianity flash darkly in reverse. The sacred meal is here. But it has no grace, no charity. Only hunger.

Unholy Baptism

If Eucharist is the sacrament of sustenance and communion, baptism is the sacrament of entry—into the body of Christ, into the Church, into spiritual life. Through water and invocation, the baptized is cleansed of original sin, reborn into a new life of grace, and marked as Christ’s own forever. It is, in Christian theology, the great threshold crossing—the beginning of sanctified identity.

In Dracula, we are given an anti-baptism: a grotesque ritual by which a human is reborn not into life, but into undeath; not through water, but through blood; not into the Church, but into the cult of the vampire. The method varies slightly across the text, but the structure is strikingly consistent. The victim is seduced, drained, and finally fed with the vampire’s blood. This is not merely death—it is transformation. A soul is extinguished, a new identity imposed. The person becomes a vessel of the Count’s will—a disciple, a shadow-self, a mockery of divine rebirth.

This perversion of baptism is most vividly illustrated in Lucy Westenra’s slow transformation. Her death is not sudden—it is incremental, ritualized, sacramental in its pace. Dracula visits her repeatedly, draining her life little by little. Each encounter is a dark visitation, an unholy anointing. Her decline mirrors the stages of catechumenal preparation: withdrawal from ordinary life, purification of the old self (through suffering), and then—after death—the “new birth.” But Lucy’s rebirth is as a predator. She rises not as a child of light, but as an undead seductress who preys on children in the night. Her baptism is not into the Body of Christ, but into the body of Dracula.

This inversion becomes all the more pointed when the vampire hunters confront her corpse. The rituals they perform are the inverse of baptismal rites. Instead of sprinkling with water, they drive a stake through her heart. Instead of naming her into a new life, they decapitate her to release her soul. Instead of clothing her in white, they strip her of her bridal shroud. It is a re-baptism, not into life, but out of undeath—purification not by water, but by fire and violence. In this, the hunters become priests of a strange exorcistic liturgy: they must unmake what the vampire has made.

Even more disturbing is the near-initiation of Mina Harker. Her transformation is interrupted before completion, but the essential gestures of dark baptism are already present. Dracula forces her to drink his blood—not unlike the pouring of water over the head in Christian baptism, but here, the fluid is his own corrupted lifeblood. The purpose is identical to baptism: to bind her to him forever, to mark her as belonging, to initiate her into a new kind of life. But where Christian baptism brings the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, Mina’s forced baptism threatens to install a spiritual parasite. She begins to feel Dracula’s presence in her mind, as if possessed. His thoughts are hers. His will presses into her soul. This is no symbolic joining—it is metaphysical colonization.

Yet here, as in Eucharistic perversion, the power of true sacrament begins to intervene. Van Helsing and the others use consecrated Hosts to create protective circles. They pray. They anoint. They do not merely resist Dracula’s power with science or weapons—they resist it with sacrament rightly ordered. In this way, the Church reasserts its own baptismal authority. Mina, though marked, is not lost. The waters of the vampire do not run deeper than the grace of God.

But the horror remains. Dracula’s dark baptisms remind the reader of the fragility of the sacred. The form of the rite can be mimicked. The structure of transformation can be hijacked. What should be an act of joyful entrance into the body of Christ can be inverted into a death-cult ritual of blood, domination, and eternal servitude.

This is not a coincidence. Stoker is working within a deep Gothic tradition, where the sacraments are always vulnerable to parody—precisely because they are powerful. Baptism creates the self in grace. Dracula’s baptism destroys the self and replaces it with the hunger of the Other.

Nosferatu (1922): The Sacrificial Maiden and the Vampire’s Destruction

F.W. Murnau’s Nosferatu was born in plagiarism—it is an unauthorized adaptation of Stoker’s Dracula—but its vision of the vampire myth diverges in key theological and structural ways. Most significant is the substitution of a redemptive climax in place of Stoker’s apocalyptic pursuit and communal action. In Nosferatu, evil is not defeated by consecrated Hosts, brave men, or ritual violence—but by one woman’s willingness to give herself to death.

The film’s vampire, Count Orlok (Max Schreck), is not seductive, aristocratic, or philosophical. He is verminous. A walking corpse, ratlike and obscene, he represents not a corrupted sacrament but death itself. Orlok’s power is metaphysical rot. He brings plague, not just blood loss. There are no brides, no covenants of blood—only contagion.

Yet this figure of pestilence is undone not by force, but by love. Ellen, the wife of Hutter (the Jonathan Harker analogue), learns that the vampire can be destroyed only if a woman of pure heart freely gives herself to him—delaying him with her beauty and offering herself as bait until dawn. She does so. In the final scene, she holds Orlok in her arms as he drinks, her eyes fixed on the rising sun behind him. When the light touches him, he crumbles to ash.

This moment is wholly absent from Stoker’s novel. It is a new myth, grafted into the Dracula corpus by Murnau. And it is profoundly theological. Ellen is not just a victim; she is a Christ-figure. She willingly accepts death to destroy death. Her act reframes the vampire tale from desecration to salvific drama. Where Stoker stages the violation of sacraments, Murnau stages a counter-sacrament—an offering of the self, freely given, to redeem the many.

There is no Host in Nosferatu, no priest, no church. The sacred is incarnate in a single, silent woman. She offers her body not for desire, but for deliverance.

Nosferatu (2024): Eggers' Gnostic Elegy of Light and Flesh

Robert Eggers’ remake takes this redemptive arc and coats it in ash and incense. His Nosferatu (2024) is not merely a retelling but a consecration of the original’s theological subtext. Here, Ellen (played with haunted brilliance by Lily-Rose Depp) is less a Victorian innocent and more a tragic mystic—drawn inexorably toward her own sacrifice, not out of naivety, but out of metaphysical clarity.

Eggers steepens the theological stakes. His Orlok (Bill Skarsgård) is not only a carrier of plague and death—he is a fallen god, a cursed pagan relic crawling back into a Christian world that has rejected him. His feeding is intimate, sorrowful, even reverent. He does not just kill—he longs for union, as if his hunger is a broken form of worship. He kisses the skin of his victims before drinking, his eyes full of something that might be awe.

Ellen, in this retelling, becomes a kind of Marian figure—a dolorosa. She is aware of her doom from early in the film. Her dreams are filled with water, with drowning, with blood. She is not just seduced—she chooses. And her death is filmed not as horror, but as passion. She opens her veins. She extends her arms. She welcomes the bite. Eggers draws visual parallels to Pietà, crucifixion, and monastic martyrdom. The sunrise is not triumphant but funereal.

And yet: it works. Orlok dies. Evil is undone not by hatred or purity, but by a kind of love that includes death. Ellen is not saved—she is the savior.

In Eggers’ Nosferatu, the vampire is not a parody of Christian sacrament—he is a tragic inverse of the sacred. The unredeemed longing for grace. His death is not merely justice; it is a kind of release. The film ends not in triumph but in silence, with the impression that sacrifice is the only force strong enough to end damnation.

This theological evolution prepares us for Coppola’s Dracula (1992), where the question is no longer whether evil can be defeated, but whether it can be redeemed. And for that, we must return to Dracula as a person: a man betrayed, a warrior turned apostate, a soul so broken by loss that he dares to defy God—and is, perhaps, finally forgiven.

Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992): Sacrilege as Theodicy, and the Long Arc of Redemption

Francis Ford Coppola’s Dracula opens not in a haunted castle, but in a church—splattered with blood. It begins not with a solicitor’s journey, but with a soldier’s grief. In a bold deviation from the novel, Coppola imagines Dracula as Vlad the Impaler himself, a man whose beloved wife Elisabeta, misled by false reports of his death, hurls herself from the castle tower. When he returns victorious and finds her dead, the priests declare her soul damned by suicide. God, it seems, has no mercy.

It is this moment—the denial of divine compassion—that breaks Vlad. Before an altar, he renounces God, stabs the crucifix, and drinks the blood that pours from it. This act is not merely rage—it is sacramental inversion. Vlad performs an anti-communion, a blasphemous self-baptism in rage and grief. It is precisely because he once believed that his fall is so terrible. And so the vampire is born not out of lust or hunger, but out of divine silence in the face of innocent suffering.

In this, Coppola reframes Dracula as a theodicy—a challenge to the justice of God. Vlad’s unholy transformation is not just punishment; it is protest. He becomes the enemy of life because life betrayed him. He wages a slow war not only on the living, but on the logic of salvation itself. He mimics the sacraments, not to parody them, but to steal their power. His blood is his gospel. He offers it, as Christ once did, to bring eternal life—but his is a blood without forgiveness, without love. Only pain and permanence.

And yet: Coppola dares to ask if even this soul can be redeemed.

When Dracula meets Mina (the reincarnation of Elisabeta), he does not merely seduce—he remembers. Their love is not eroticism alone; it is eschatological ache. She awakens in him the man he was before the curse. In a reversal of every vampire trope, he weeps, refusing to condemn her to his fate. He offers her escape. He would rather die than make her what he is. This is not sacrilege—it is repentance.

The final act of the film takes place in a desecrated church, where the lovers reunite. Dracula, mortally wounded, lies beneath a fresco of Christ. Mina lifts the blade. He asks to be free. She kisses him, then drives the stake through his heart. And in this death, his curse ends. The mark on her forehead vanishes. The cross above him shines. He is released—not destroyed, but forgiven.

This is the redemptive arc Nosferatu begins but does not complete. In Coppola, Dracula is not only defeated by love—he is saved by it. His damnation is lifted not through exorcism, but through shared suffering and mutual recognition. Mina is not his victim—she is his redeemer. And he, in dying, becomes her savior too.

The vampire, who began as a parody of Christ, ends as an image of Christ crucified. The film closes not with horror, but with absolution.

And yet, to fully understand why this arc works—why the blasphemer can become the penitent—we must finally ask: Why do we create such figures at all? Why do we return again and again to these myths of sacrifice, sin, and redemption? Why are the sacred and the horrific so often mirrors of one another?

In our final section, we’ll explore the deep human fascination with mortality, transgression, and punishment—and how these psychic pressures give rise to both sacrificial religion and literary horror, forming a continuum where the vampire, the saint, and the heretic all drink from the same well.

Mortality, Atonement, and the Origins of Sacred Horror

At the root of both religious ritual and Gothic horror lies a shared axiom: death must mean something. The raw fact of human mortality—its inevitability, unpredictability, and finality—generates a kind of existential pressure. To be aware of death is to be aware of the fragile boundary between presence and absence, between body and soul. And to remain sane in the face of that knowledge, human cultures have devised systems of interpretation. The most enduring of these are built on the idea that death is not random, but deserved—that life ends because something is wrong.

This is the origin of sin—not merely as a moral failing, but as a way of explaining suffering. If suffering is punishment, then perhaps it can be prevented. If death is the result of transgression, then perhaps it can be appeased. Thus arises the logic of sacrifice: the giving of one life (animal, human, divine) to save another. The innocent offered in place of the guilty. The beloved slain to placate an unseen force. The ritual spilling of blood becomes not horror, but hope. The altar and the executioner share the same grammar.

It is no accident that the central image of Christianity is a tortured body—bloodied, nailed, lifted up for all to see. It is no accident that the Eucharist, the holiest rite of love, is also a ritual ingestion of flesh and blood. These are not aberrations—they are sublimations of a deeper, older dread: that we die because something is wrong with us, and only blood will set it right.

Gothic horror arises from this same wellspring—but inverts the formula. Where religion creates rituals to tame death, horror creates monsters to embody it. The vampire is death that refuses to pass, punishment that never ends. He is sin made animate. He drinks not to absolve but to condemn. He performs a sacrament in reverse: “This is my body—take it, and die.”

Yet we are drawn to him. Why?

Because part of us suspects that the price of being human has not yet been paid. Because part of us fears that the suffering we see in the world is not unjust—but deserved. Because part of us longs to be told that if we just bleed enough—if we just offer enough—there will be peace. And because another part rages against that very logic, and asks: “Why should I suffer for a curse I did not choose?”

This is why the vampire is not merely a monster, but a mirror. He is the priest who turned on God. The scapegoat who refused to die. The sinner who demands justice on his terms. In him, we see both the cruelty of sacrificial theology, and the dignity of defiance.

It is no wonder, then, that literature and religion so often overlap in their images: crucifix and coffin, blood and chalice, kiss and bite. These are not mere symbols. They are the residue of our species’ oldest anxieties—about love, guilt, mortality, and what must be done to make peace with death.

Stoker’s Dracula begins with desecration and ends with purification. Murnau’s Nosferatu introduces redemption through willing death. Coppola gives us absolution, freely offered and freely chosen. But all three speak to the same wound—the unbearable tension between the desire to be forgiven, and the fear that one never can be.

In that space—between altar and grave—the vampire waits.

Works Referenced and Suggestions for Further Study

Coppola, Francis Ford, dir. Bram Stoker’s Dracula. Columbia Pictures, 1992.
Eggers, Robert, dir. Nosferatu. Regency Enterprises, 2024.
Murnau, F.W., dir. Nosferatu: Eine Symphonie des Grauens. Prana Film, 1922.
Stoker, Bram. Dracula. Edited by Nina Auerbach and David J. Skal. New York: W.W. Norton, 1997.
Treptow, Kurt W., ed. Dracula: Essays on the Life and Times of Vlad the Impaler. New York: East European Monographs, 1991.
Volk, Lucia. “Martyrdom, Sacrifice, and Political Memory in Romania.” History and Memory 19, no. 1 (2007): 4–36.
Zanger, Jules. “A Sympathetic Vibration: Dracula and the Jews.” Gothic Studies 6, no. 1 (2004): 35–45.

om tat sat