Written by James Hart (based on the novel by Bram Stoker) Directed by Francis Ford Coppola Starring Gary Oldman Winona Ryder Anthony Hopkins Keanu Reeves Sadie Frost Bill Campbell Cary Elwes Richard Grant Tom Waits |
|
Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)There are some movies that transcend the conventions of
their genre
and become memorable films. Then there are some movies that think
they
transcend their genre and become pretentious messes. I think that
few would
say that Francis Ford Coppola's own take on the Dracula story,
Bram
Stoker's Dracula-or, as it is affectionately known in some
circles, I
Can't Believe It's Bram Stoker's Dracula- falls in the latter
category.
Sure, its departures from the source material aren't as radical as,
say,
Hammer Studios' Dracula or even the original Universal
film, which
borrowed more from the theatrical version anyway, but
what we do have is a Dracula movie that doesn't want to be
just a horror flick. 'Significant moments,' superimposed
images and
rampant symbolism litter this film, as well as a forced historical
background for the title character and a completely out-of-place
romantic
subplot, neither of which really even begin to follow what Stoker intended. There's nothing wrong, of course, with taking a new spin on
an old story (especially one that has already been brought to the
silver screen more times than most people dare realize)
but there is something to be said about
expressing something not far from shame in the source material.
Evidence of this comes right at the beginning,
when
Coppola adds a 'prelude' making a historical connection between
Prince Vlad
'the Impaler' of Wallachia and Count Dracula that has been pretty hotly debated, but
wasn't explicitly hinted at in the novel. It's more or less accepted that our man Vlad
provided Stoker with some inspiration for Dracula, if not the complete basis of
the
character. It's an argument with strong foundations; for one thing, one of
Vlad's
titles was actually Dracula, meaning 'Son of the Dragon' and, while
Vlad was
the ruler of the Romanian principality of Wallachia, he also had
strong ties
to Transylvania. Unfortunately, besides the fact that Stoker
didn't intend any direct connection between Dracula and Vlad in
the
context of the novel itself, this scene, while meant to maybe
'enrichen'
the character of Dracula, really only serves to launch the movie's
notorious romantic plot. We see Vlad going off on
campaign
against the Ottoman Empire while his wife Elisabetta, once she
receives
false news of Vlad's death, commits suicide by jumping in a river out
of
grief. What's interesting here is that the story of the suicide of Vlad's
wife, who is never named in any historical account, is true except for
one
big detail: she killed herself because she thought she and Vlad
were on the
verge of being captured by the Ottoman Turks, but because she
thought Vlad
was dead. Frankly I prefer the original account, but, you know, I
guess it
wasn't romantic enough. Anyway, when a priest informs Vlad
that his
wife's soul will be damned because of her suicide, Vlad flies into a
rage
and renounces the Church. Apparently this sacrilege provokes the
attention of the Almighty, even though countless greater
blasphemies and a great number of holy wars have not, and Vlad is
cursed into becoming the world’s first vampire.
With that history lesson out of the way (which, to be fair, was
considerably more accurate than anything out of the Book of Mel
Gibson), we start with the
actual business of “Bram Stoker’s Dracula.” Unfortunately, wary
viewers will stumble upon the true horror of this movie right away. Right after the prelude,
you’ll find that Keanu Reeves has a starring role.
Even after The Matrix trilogy supposedly redeemed
Keanu (although now it’s as fashionable to bash the last movie
in the trilogy as it was to idolize the first), it’s a bit cheap and easy to
go on a ‘mocking Keanu’ spree, especially on the Internet. And, to
be honest, Jonathan Harker, that listless, well-meaning little
Victorian, wouldn’t be too inconceivable a role for Reeves…if it didn’t
require Reeves to pretend he’s British. You just
haven’t lived until you’ve heard Reeves say something like ‘bloomin’ lights' with a flaming,
‘blimey, guv’nor, like a crumpet?’ accent. It’s rather likely that Reeves
was hired by studio decree and Coppola is a bit bitter about the fact,
which would definitely explain why, after the ‘Jonathan Harker finds
himself trapped in Castle Dracula’ chapter of the story is over, the
character becomes mere set dressing. He spouts off a line of
dialogue here and there, to remind the audience that he
still exists, but that’s the extent of it. So, and this is me being
generous, it probably isn’t entirely Reeves’ fault that Jonathan
Harker here doesn’t just seem to lack a personality, but even the
capability of a personality.
So there's a bit of a surreal element when Keanu Reeves’
Jonathan Harker matches wits with Gary Oldman’s Dracula. You
can’t help but cheer on the Count, especially when Harker goes
berserk over such a little thing as Dracula saying, “The children of
the night, such music they make!” Now, even with the almost
obscenely ridiculous wig that Oldman sports when playing the
‘elderly’ Dracula Harker finds waiting for him in the castle, Oldman’s
take on Dracula is not bad at all, to say the least. It isn’t – and
probably won’t be – as fondly remembered as Bela Lugosi or
Christopher Lee’s interpretations, mostly because it’s not as
bombastic as the former and not as subtle as the latter, yet it holds well
on its own. Unfortunately, his acting is also undermined by that
great enemy of all good actors: poor writing…
Admittedly, I can’t fault this film for trying to make Dracula a
more ambiguous or even a sympathetic character. It would be a
novel, if extremely risky, approach to the character. Now I have
little doubt that this approach was more inspired by the popularity of
Anne Rice’s mythos than anything having to do with ‘artistic integrity,’
but whatever. The problem is, though, that the film really does want
to have its cake and eat it too. It tries to have a plot that resembles the
original novel (with a lot of ‘improvements,’ of course), without
realizing that Stoker wrote Dracula, purely and simply, as a pure monster,
as a destructive force of the supernatural. The evil actions Stoker
gave Dracula to do are, to say the least, problematic when
committed by a character we’re supposed to view as tragic, instead
of purely horrific. The audience is bound for a collision course with
this identity crisis once Dracula kills and ‘vampirizes’ Lucy, the best
friend of his reincarnated love, Mina. Why was Lucy, out of all the
people in London, targeted, especially when Dracula later professes
his undying love for Mina? The film seems to want to suggest that
it’s a strange and cruel way for Dracula to get close to Mina, but
that’s blown out of the water when Dracula casually approaches and
woos Mina in his ‘mortal’ identity in one scene. It also doesn’t help that
Mina expresses one minute of fury at Dracula for killing her best
friend before, without explanation, she suddenly professes her
desire to become a vampire with – or for - him.
If the heroine Mina seems to be stuck in one extreme or the other, the same can be said of the film's other characters, including the prime victim, poor Lucy. For some reason, the scriptwriters saw fit to make Lucy a raging ball of estrogen, a shallow nymphomaniac, which is not exactly the most suitable character type you can throw into a Victorian setting. Apparently, though, that was the point; if people are expecting frail, docile females in a film in the Victorian period, then do the exact opposite (either that, or Coppola was just looking for an excuse to show some nineteenth century T&A). Nevertheless, it's a questionable, if not moronic, choice to try to have a 'serious' and 'thoughtful' adaptation of a story yet make one of the leading characters an absurd caricature.
The same can almost be said of Anthony Hopkins' Van Helsing. Admittedly, his performance is one of the reasons I have a grudging liking for this film, but the blunt, course personality Hopkins is asked to sport here borders on the cartoonish at times. In contrast to these scene-stealing characters, you have Lucy's three suitors, who later become vampire hunters in the name of their dead love - Arthur, Dr. Stewart, and Quincy. Aside from a few bones tossed their way here and there, these characters are complete ciphers. It seems more time and effort goes into fleshing out the few scenes involving Tom Waits' Renfield than these three heroes.
Then we come back to the film's pride and joy, the tacked-on 'romantic plot.' To be honest, and I can't help but feel I'm losing whatever cred I might have had by writing this, I don't think it really wasn't a bad idea on paper. Like I wrote, there was the inescapable fact that such a plot would not work unless the story was fundamentally reworked from Stoker's vision. Just as damaging is the fact that the plot seems to force Mina into acting bipolar with just a hint of schizophrenia. Beyond the "You killed Lucy, you bastard, yet I love you!" thing, the script can't make up its mind whether Mina is the victim of Dracula's hoodoo, in love with him because she actually is the reincarnation of Elisabetta, or a little bit of both. It's almost incredible seeing the fight to the death between the 'additional' plot and Stoker's original story. It's like seeing a sub-plot about a cute little orphan girl inserted in a film adaptation of "Richard III."
Having gone into all that, I should confess that I liked this movie when it first came out and I still have some affection for it. It has some good performances (mainly Anthony Hopkins and Gary Oldman) and none that are awful (depending on how obnoxious you find Keanu's shallow performance). The writing, while seriously flawed in a number of ways, could have been much worse. And while the direction is riddled with those annoying moments that scream "I'm significant!", there are some times when things work out beautifully, such as the juxtaposition between Mina and Jonathan's wedding, and Dracula's transformation of Lucy into the undead. With better scripting and some effort put into actually letting the romantic plot make sense, this could have been a memorable adaptation. Unfortunately, even with its big-name director and stars, it still doesn't quite hold up well against its more fondly remembered predecessors.
Elsewhere Zack at The Duck Speaks does a little comparing and contrasting between the 90s movie versions and the original novels of Bram Stoker's Dracula and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. Also check out Lyz's take on Kenneth Branagh's take on Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. Once you get done with all that, feel free to see our discussion on the whole mess. |