Dracula ««½
R, 130m. 1992
Cast & Credits: Gary Oldman (Count Dracula/Prince Vlad), Winona Ryder (Mina Murray/Elizabeta), Anthony Hopkins (Professor Abraham Van Helsing), Keanu Reeves (Jonathan Harker), Richard E. Grant (Dr. Jack Seward), Cary Elwes (Lord Arthur Holmwood), Bill Campbell (Chauncey P. Morris), Sadie Frost (Lucy), Tom Waits (Renfield). Screenplay by James V. Hart based on Bram Stoker’s novel. Directed by Francis Ford Coppola.
Dracula is one of the most artistically crafted, beautifully filmed movies I have seen in a long time. It is a unique case of style triumphing over substance. What a shame I can’t say the same for much of the film’s supporting cast.
The Transylvanian skies are awash during the day in fiery orange, dark red colors. It is almost as if we really were breathing the smell of death and blood as Prince Vlad, who later becomes Dracula (Gary Oldman), impales his enemies in battle on long, towering spears; their bodies writhing in pain as they move slowly down the sharp poles.
It is in Transylvania (where exactly is this country if it even exists) where Count Dracula resides. The foreboding castle, located on top of what I assume are some of the largest mountains in Europe, seems to come right out of Orson Welles’ Citizen Kane (1941). At night, the atmosphere is pitch black where the skies streak with brief flashes of lightning while the sounds of thunder are mixed with the almost painful howls of bloodthirsty wolves and owls. It is as though the entire place had the words, “Enter at your own risk,” written all over it; much the way Kane’s private Xanadu had the sign, “No Trespassing,” posted on the front gates of his estate.
The country is a dreary, ominous place where frightened city dwellers offer real estate agent, Jonathan Harker (Keanu Reeves) a cross and say, “God be with you” when his carriage drops him off at the base of the mountain. He is picked up in a few moments by a faceless creature whose long clawed hand grabs the scared, hesitant visitor by the shoulder, helping him into another buggy that will bring him to Dracula’s castle.
This was wonderful to watch and the haunting musical score created the tone of what I expected Dracula to be; an erotic, perhaps sad operatic love story about reincarnation. Director Francis Ford Coppola’s tackling of the supernatural theory using Dracula and his long lost fiancée, Mina Murray (Winona Ryder who looks surprisingly bored in this performance), as characters from past lives is similar to the storyline Kenneth Branagh did in the murder mystery, Dead Again (1991).
The problem is Coppola has never been good at telling emotionally moving love stories. Coppola’s greatest strength is making movies that are engrossing character studies. He proved this with The Godfather trilogy (1972-1990) focusing solely on the rise and fall of Mafia Don Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) and family relationships. And he explored how a lone government assassin can slowly go mad in war torn Vietnam in the flawed, 1979 epic, Apocalypse Now. Dracula, which is rich with stunning cinematography and exquisite costumes, suffers from a weak supporting cast who act like they have no emotional energy that include along with Ryder and Reeves, Cary Elwes, Bill Pullman and Tom Waits.
Perhaps it was the vast amount of material screenwriter James V. Hart had to work with. I read Bram Stoker’s classic novel before seeing the film. The book was written in the form of a diary chronicling several of the character’s experiences with the Prince of Darkness that included a lot of Mina’s and Harker’s recollections; which is what made the novel such a great read.
Professor Abraham Van Helsing (Anthony Hopkins) is the lone narrator who begins the story in the 15th century when Oldman’s Prince Vlad, goes to war against a neighboring country. And in a scene that cleverly echoes the tragic ending in William Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet, the victorious warrior returns to Transylvania, only to learn that his wife, Elisabeta (Ryder in a dual role), committed suicide after reading a note from her husband’s enemies that he was killed in battle. In a rather confusing sequence, the vengeful prince drinks the blood that pours from a sacred cross and vows revenge against humanity for his wife’s death.
The two performances with the most depth and are the most fun to watch are Oldman and Hopkins. Oldman’s eccentric Count is a man of awe and mystery who is evil incarnate. In one unsettling scene, Dracula hands his family of women vampires a living infant for dinner that was enough to make me cringe.
When the film moves from 1462 to 1897, the prince is an old man whose face is a pale white and dons a 17th century wig that has a deep partition down the center. Oldman’s voice is eerily reminiscent to Bela Lugosi’s in the original 1931 version. When he moves to London, England, Dracula transforms himself into a young Englishman whose presence is both alarming and seductive.
As I watched the movie though, several questions about Dracula popped up in my mind that I knew would never be answered. How did Prince Vlad become Dracula and manage to live over four centuries? Was it through Satanism? Or did the warrior from the 15th century die and become something else?
Could he be the devil who can see into the future? The movie’s reason on why the Count is buying large pieces of real estate in London is because he knows his long lost fiancée, Elisabeta, who over 400 years later is now in the form of Mina, lives there. But how did he know this? And moreover, does he really have control over the weather? When Mina writes Dracula a note saying she is going to marry Harker, the heartbroken Prince raises his arms, calls upon the sky, and screams for his heavy winds and storms that arrive at a moment’s notice.
Hopkins’ Helsing is the movie’s much needed blood transfusion whose role bears resemblance to his academy award winning character, Dr. Hannibal Lecter, in Silence of the Lambs (1991); only not as sadistic. The educated doctor, who gives university lectures on the vampire bat, isn’t afraid to speak his mind. During a wake for one of Dracula’s victims (Sadie Frost), he asks a psychiatrist (Richard E. Grant) to meet him later that night at the cemetery and it is not to do an autopsy.
When Mina asks Helsing later if her friend suffered any pain in Dracula’s attack, Helsing, taking scant notice of her feelings, says yes. “She suffered,” he replies as he digs into a juicy red slab of roast beef. “Then we cut off her head, drove a stake through her heart, and she was at peace.”
I suspect Coppola wanted the audience to feel sorry for the characters of Mina and Dracula. I expected to be moved by their downfall since their relationship was one destined for tragedy but I wasn’t. Could the reason be that maybe romance and gothic horror don’t mix? Most horror movies I have seen never focused this deeply on relationships as this one does. There is a first time, however, for everything.
This is an ambitiously, good looking movie that had the potential to be a great one had Coppola been able to successfully hit that emotional high note.
I am certain many people who have read stories about vampires, maybe even some romantics, will say Dracula is one of the most faithful movie adaptations of the novel since the 1931 classic horror film. I was disappointed.
©11/14/92
R, 130m. 1992
Cast & Credits: Gary Oldman (Count Dracula/Prince Vlad), Winona Ryder (Mina Murray/Elizabeta), Anthony Hopkins (Professor Abraham Van Helsing), Keanu Reeves (Jonathan Harker), Richard E. Grant (Dr. Jack Seward), Cary Elwes (Lord Arthur Holmwood), Bill Campbell (Chauncey P. Morris), Sadie Frost (Lucy), Tom Waits (Renfield). Screenplay by James V. Hart based on Bram Stoker’s novel. Directed by Francis Ford Coppola.
The Transylvanian skies are awash during the day in fiery orange, dark red colors. It is almost as if we really were breathing the smell of death and blood as Prince Vlad, who later becomes Dracula (Gary Oldman), impales his enemies in battle on long, towering spears; their bodies writhing in pain as they move slowly down the sharp poles.
It is in Transylvania (where exactly is this country if it even exists) where Count Dracula resides. The foreboding castle, located on top of what I assume are some of the largest mountains in Europe, seems to come right out of Orson Welles’ Citizen Kane (1941). At night, the atmosphere is pitch black where the skies streak with brief flashes of lightning while the sounds of thunder are mixed with the almost painful howls of bloodthirsty wolves and owls. It is as though the entire place had the words, “Enter at your own risk,” written all over it; much the way Kane’s private Xanadu had the sign, “No Trespassing,” posted on the front gates of his estate.
The country is a dreary, ominous place where frightened city dwellers offer real estate agent, Jonathan Harker (Keanu Reeves) a cross and say, “God be with you” when his carriage drops him off at the base of the mountain. He is picked up in a few moments by a faceless creature whose long clawed hand grabs the scared, hesitant visitor by the shoulder, helping him into another buggy that will bring him to Dracula’s castle.
This was wonderful to watch and the haunting musical score created the tone of what I expected Dracula to be; an erotic, perhaps sad operatic love story about reincarnation. Director Francis Ford Coppola’s tackling of the supernatural theory using Dracula and his long lost fiancée, Mina Murray (Winona Ryder who looks surprisingly bored in this performance), as characters from past lives is similar to the storyline Kenneth Branagh did in the murder mystery, Dead Again (1991).
The problem is Coppola has never been good at telling emotionally moving love stories. Coppola’s greatest strength is making movies that are engrossing character studies. He proved this with The Godfather trilogy (1972-1990) focusing solely on the rise and fall of Mafia Don Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) and family relationships. And he explored how a lone government assassin can slowly go mad in war torn Vietnam in the flawed, 1979 epic, Apocalypse Now. Dracula, which is rich with stunning cinematography and exquisite costumes, suffers from a weak supporting cast who act like they have no emotional energy that include along with Ryder and Reeves, Cary Elwes, Bill Pullman and Tom Waits.
Perhaps it was the vast amount of material screenwriter James V. Hart had to work with. I read Bram Stoker’s classic novel before seeing the film. The book was written in the form of a diary chronicling several of the character’s experiences with the Prince of Darkness that included a lot of Mina’s and Harker’s recollections; which is what made the novel such a great read.
Professor Abraham Van Helsing (Anthony Hopkins) is the lone narrator who begins the story in the 15th century when Oldman’s Prince Vlad, goes to war against a neighboring country. And in a scene that cleverly echoes the tragic ending in William Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet, the victorious warrior returns to Transylvania, only to learn that his wife, Elisabeta (Ryder in a dual role), committed suicide after reading a note from her husband’s enemies that he was killed in battle. In a rather confusing sequence, the vengeful prince drinks the blood that pours from a sacred cross and vows revenge against humanity for his wife’s death.
The two performances with the most depth and are the most fun to watch are Oldman and Hopkins. Oldman’s eccentric Count is a man of awe and mystery who is evil incarnate. In one unsettling scene, Dracula hands his family of women vampires a living infant for dinner that was enough to make me cringe.
When the film moves from 1462 to 1897, the prince is an old man whose face is a pale white and dons a 17th century wig that has a deep partition down the center. Oldman’s voice is eerily reminiscent to Bela Lugosi’s in the original 1931 version. When he moves to London, England, Dracula transforms himself into a young Englishman whose presence is both alarming and seductive.
As I watched the movie though, several questions about Dracula popped up in my mind that I knew would never be answered. How did Prince Vlad become Dracula and manage to live over four centuries? Was it through Satanism? Or did the warrior from the 15th century die and become something else?
Could he be the devil who can see into the future? The movie’s reason on why the Count is buying large pieces of real estate in London is because he knows his long lost fiancée, Elisabeta, who over 400 years later is now in the form of Mina, lives there. But how did he know this? And moreover, does he really have control over the weather? When Mina writes Dracula a note saying she is going to marry Harker, the heartbroken Prince raises his arms, calls upon the sky, and screams for his heavy winds and storms that arrive at a moment’s notice.
Hopkins’ Helsing is the movie’s much needed blood transfusion whose role bears resemblance to his academy award winning character, Dr. Hannibal Lecter, in Silence of the Lambs (1991); only not as sadistic. The educated doctor, who gives university lectures on the vampire bat, isn’t afraid to speak his mind. During a wake for one of Dracula’s victims (Sadie Frost), he asks a psychiatrist (Richard E. Grant) to meet him later that night at the cemetery and it is not to do an autopsy.
When Mina asks Helsing later if her friend suffered any pain in Dracula’s attack, Helsing, taking scant notice of her feelings, says yes. “She suffered,” he replies as he digs into a juicy red slab of roast beef. “Then we cut off her head, drove a stake through her heart, and she was at peace.”
I suspect Coppola wanted the audience to feel sorry for the characters of Mina and Dracula. I expected to be moved by their downfall since their relationship was one destined for tragedy but I wasn’t. Could the reason be that maybe romance and gothic horror don’t mix? Most horror movies I have seen never focused this deeply on relationships as this one does. There is a first time, however, for everything.
This is an ambitiously, good looking movie that had the potential to be a great one had Coppola been able to successfully hit that emotional high note.
I am certain many people who have read stories about vampires, maybe even some romantics, will say Dracula is one of the most faithful movie adaptations of the novel since the 1931 classic horror film. I was disappointed.
©11/14/92
No comments:
Post a Comment