Angie B's 31 Horror Films in 31 Days Continues With... BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA.
BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA
(1992)
STARRING: Gary Oldman, Winona Ryder, Anthony Hopkins.
DIRECTED BY: Francis Ford Coppola
RATED: R.
Everyone knows the story by now, right? I don't need to do a plot summary for this one, right? Of the dozens, if not hundreds of takes on Stoker's Dracula over the past century, this may be one of the most faithful in terms of plotting and characters. There are even large portions of the movie that are narrated from diary entries and letters -- echoing Stoker's fondness for unfolding the main narrative through correspondence. I'm quite fond of the original novel, and think it's plenty exciting enough that it doesn't need to be meddled with when it comes time for filmmakers to adapt it.
I try to detach every "adaptation" film from its source material and look at it or enjoy it on its own singular merits; I understand that some things in written fiction can't be easily translated to the silver screen, especially with time and budget constraints. And yet, as a writer first and foremost and a cinematic fan secondary, I can't help but appreciate when a filmmaker manages to stay relatively faithful to the source material. So it is with this film. Yes, Coppola seriously amped up the explicit sex -- poor Lucy is hardly clothed for most of the film -- that Stoker largely shied away from, and emphasized a "destined love" angle. But this is the sort of film that's more about the visuals, the atmosphere, the emotions, and the effects; it makes sense to heighten those aspects of the story that are the most visual or racy.
And that right there is what I appreciate the most about this film: the look of it all. The costumes by Eiko Ishioka are positively orgasmic -- the Count's impossibly long red robes, Vlad's armor that looks more like exposed musculature, and all of Mina's dresses... Simply breathtaking. I love the "in-camera" tricks that Coppola used for special effects. I love the things they did with the shadows. I love the downright impressive make-up and prosthetic work on Dracula, turning Gary Oldman into a wolfman, a man-bat, an incredibly ancient and monstrous figure, and then back into a ridiculously good-looking young gent. I love the colours. I love the music. I love the dreamy/nightmarish quality of the edits and the transformations. I love the sets, which are alternately totally realistic looking or obviously faked on a soundstage (Hammer nods, perhaps?) and yet still gorgeous.
Even tiny moments like this are a feast for the eyes!
Perhaps now's a good time to mention the elephant in the room: my thoughts on the cast. Gary is flawless as Dracula. OMFG, that GQMF has never been sexier or scarier to me. He's terrifying, he's sympathetic, he's romantic, he's a creeper, he's charming and he's off-putting. The emotional and verbal gymnastics this man had to go through for this part. TOTES IMPRESSIVE. I quite enjoy Hopkins as Van Helsing; he's eccentric and slightly bizarre, but he's also full of fire and brimstone, and is very earthy and blunt about dealing with such incredible and bizarre situations. In short, he's everything Van Helsing should be in my book. I love most of the supporting cast -- Lucy's suitors are all incredibly well cast, especially Cary "As You Wish" Elwes as Holmwood, and Tom Waits is so fucking perfect as Renfield I almost can't stand it.
BUT WHAT IN THE EVERLOVING FUCK WAS THE CASTING DIRECTOR THINKING WHEN THEY CHOSE THE TWO HUMAN LEADS? Keanu "I Know Kung-Fu" Reeves as Johnathan Harker? Winona Ryder as Mina Murray? OH MY GOD IT ALMOST PHYSICALLY PAINS ME. When you've got an almost entirely British cast, playing BRITISH CHARACTERS, why do you get two Americans who cannot fake an English accent if their lives depended on it? Especially two American actors who can't really act a variety of emotions. I'm quite fond of Keanu Reeves in the right role, and I have no beef with Winona Ryder as long as she sticks to what she can handle. But neither of them were up for this. I laugh compulsively when Keanu is on screen. I often find myself cringing at Winona's most dramatic scenes. I just...
And why didn't any else realize what a shite idea it was to cast Ryder and Reeves? Did the casting director have a juicy bit of blackmail on Coppola that prevented him from overruling them? It literally boggles my mind that those two got past the initial auditions. And it's a real shame that they detract so much from the film, because as I waxed eloquent above: it's a super gorgeous film. The special effects are AMAZING. There's so much awesome going on in this, but every time one of those two are on screen, I can't help but immediately check out of the movie. It's like my brain is trying to forcibly eject them, can't, and so settles for totally ruining the mood but pointing out how pathetic their accents are, how expressionless their faces are, etc. etc. etc. It's incredibly frustrating.
I'm hardly in the minority on this count, and I'm pretty sure I'm just preaching to the choir here. But misery loves company, yes? Anyway, the other bone of contention when it comes to this film seems to be the tragic love story that drives most of the plot. Granted, it's been several years since I read the novel, but I don't remember the whole Dracula-and-Mina-being-long-lost-soulmates development; as I recall, Dracula was really more animal than man, and simply targeted Mina as revenge against Harker and Van Helsing. So Coppola's choice to rewrite the story to factor in a super sexy and super angsty "true love" romance tends to divide people. I think this might have been a result of the popularity of Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles, where the vampires were more sexual and romantically sympathetic figures -- not nearly on par with Twilight (*shudders*), but still a far cry from the pure monster of Nosferatu.
For the most part, I'm pretty damn okay with this change. Largely because I greatly appreciate seeing Gary Oldman play the romantic creeper. Those clooothes. That haaair. Mmmmmh. I do wish he had a better ladylove to act opposite than Winona, but at least they look pretty together, right?
...I forgot what I was saying. *fans self*
And I think I'm okay with it because Coppola doesn't try to whitewash Mr. Impaler as a pure white knight. Gary's Dracula is plenty monstrous throughout the picture. He realizes Lucy is connected to Mina, but that doesn't stop him from corrupting her or killing her. Hell, he still goes to have some sexy supernatural romps with Lucy even after he knows of Mina's existence. Not exactly the noble figure here. And at the end, he's not looking his sexiest when he and Mina have their final moments alone together. I think it was a great decision to have him look very monstrous as he lies in the chapel receiving his final kiss and declaration of love from Mina -- right before she chops his fucking head off. Beautiful.
So overall, I rather enjoy this film. I've enjoyed it for years -- it's one of the few supernatural flicks I can watch with my Mum. She enjoys Crazy Mr. Oldman just as much as I do, thank God. I think Coppola managed to make a really memorable and beautiful picture, though it's certainly not without its flaws. As vampire flicks go, there are far, far worse out there.
FINAL SCORE: I'm giving this take on Dracula a 7 out of 10 for being very, very pretty (*shallow, no regrets*) and for keeping the vampires monstrous rather than boy band wannabes.
Click to view