But even in Murnau's NOSFERATU, what does the Renfield character - Knock - really do beyond sitting in his cell, eating flies, and saying "the Master is coming"? It's not even shown how he became linked to Orlok. We just accept the fact that he's his disciple. Not that I'm knocking ol' Knock; I'm only bringing it up for fair comparison. In Browning's film, Renfield personally goes to Transylvania to set up Dracula's lease of Carfax Abbey and we see how he came under the Count's influence. Although it's not shown, we're supposed to understand that Renfield is somehow aiding Dracula in his victimizing of Mina. Is he making it possible for Dracula to gain access to her room? Is he constantly escaping from his cell in order to keep everyone occupied while Dracula goes about his business? As long as I'm able to fill in the gaps with a plausible resolution that sticks within the limits of the narrative, I don't have any problems with the film until someone can prove to me - by sticking to the very same narrative - that my resolutions are implausible.

I always considered DRACULA as a film that invites me to imagine 'what's going on behind the curtain'. It's part of its mystique for me. I experience a lot of it with my mind's eye as well as with what I'm seeing on the screen, and, as I stated in another thread, this is why I think the film evokes a unique, dreamlike quality. Not everyone sees it this way, but I always did and so I have difficulty attaching to it all the criticism of how it should have shown this, or did that, etc,etc. And frankly, I don't see why I should.