Coppola and Stoker’s Dracula differ on several fronts, but it should not be said that one of them is better than the other. Even though there are differences, it should be noted that Coppola stays relatively true to Stoker’s Dracula as the title would indicate (Bram Stoker’s Dracula). The main difference between the book and the film is the fact that in Stoker’s version, Dracula is nearly completely a monster. He has little motive for killing except that he needs to feed on and stalk his victims, killing them horrifically. He is only concerned with feeding, and is depicted much as being a complete animal. Even though he has the basic motive to kill and feed on his victims, he does this in a way that is distinctly human, and he completes his tasks in an almost cool type of way. However, Coppola depicts Dracula as being a very passionate lover. In this newer version there is more sexuality included, and he is essentially acting on a very disturbed version of the male gaze, where he is not only acting out the sexualization of the male fantasy, but also on a twisted primal murderous sense of the male gaze. Coppola delves more into a wider spectrum of the human primal instinct, as he plays on the fantasies that are completely disturbing and are embedded in the human psyche. This is perhaps why Coppola is so successful in many of his films, because he uses gender roles, concepts embedded deep into our psyches to appeal to his audience. In doing so, he gives Dracula a more humanized characterization than Stoker’s version.