Bram Stoker's epic, Coppola style (Bram Stoker's Dracula (DVD))

Member Name: Going To California

Product:	Bram Stoker's Dracula (DVD)
Date:	23/07/01 (619 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Great cast, story, photography and acting, Francis Ford Coppola, Generally true to Stoker's novel

Disadvantages: Drags on in places

Bram Stoker created one of the most well-known and most commonly re-told stories of all time with his infamous “Dracula” novel in 1898. It is no surprise at all, then, to find out that it is the novel from which the most single cinema adaptations have been born. I do not know the exact amount, but there are (no doubt) hundreds of variations on the original novel committed to celluloid. However, despite the general popularity of the story, it is fair to say that none of those adaptations ever came close to challenging the original novel for authority in the Dracula hall-of-fame. Until, that is, in 1992 the acclaimed director Francis Ford Coppola decided to bring the classic story to the modern world his a big-budget cinema epic…the only adaptation of the novel that seriously challenges Stoker’s original as the most famous version (novel or film) of the “Dracula” story ever told. Taking three Academy Awards in 1992, Coppola’s version of the film is one of the real classics of the last decade…but it is not without its drawbacks, as will be explained here.

THE DIRECTOR:

Francis Ford Coppola is responsible for directing the classics “Apocalypse Now”, and the “Godfather” trilogy, and for being one of the better story-telling directors of his time. It is little surprise, then, that it was he who took on the mantle of converting Stoker’s masterpiece of Victorian literature into an “epic”. Perhaps sensibly Coppola strayed from the usual habits of movie-adaptation (i.e. a new script loosely fitted around the original story), and remained largely loyal to the original novel (with an extra emphasis on the love story side). Therefore, the title “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” is accurate…this is his book on the big screen.

And for once it is nice to find a movie adaptation capable of matching the original novel (see my “Interview Wi
th The Vampire” opinion for another good example, or “Hannibal” for the opposite). To reproduce Stoker’s intense vision, Coppola turned his film into one of the most visually stunning cinema releases of recent times. Special effects in 1992 were not what they are today, so do not go expecting hi-tech recreations of Gothic castles and elaborately computer-generated vampire death sequences. However you can expect subtle effects on a more artistic level (Count Dracula’s shadows are a prime example), and well presented photography that brings the novel to life. Coppola ensures that the movie is well balanced between “light” and “dark”. Dense grey fog, relentless rain, heavy clouds, black rocks and no sunlight are all the attributes of the Transylvanian residence of Count Dracula…whilst the presentation of London before his arrival is much brighter. To put it a simple way, you can tell when Dracula is around as the photography takes on a whole new effect to when he is absent (this is demonstrated well in just one scene, when he “appears” to Lucy and Mina in their garden). To round off his film, Coppola chose some of the best actors and actresses of their time (and anyone else’s) to play out the characters of Stoker’s novel.

THE CAST:

Gary Oldman is perfectly cast as the enigmatic Count Dracula, and gives one of the performances of his career. Taking on his role of the “baddy” once again (people familiar with his work will recall his long line of psychopathic characters) Oldman propelled himself to international stardom with his brilliant performance in this film…and it is rightly regarded by many as his finest effort yet. He plays, effectively, three characters; 1) the original Prince Vlad Dracula (“Vlad The Impaler”) –at the beginning and at the end of the film, 2) the ancient Dracula who lives in his Transylvanian castle, a
nd 3) the “devastatingly seductive” Prince Dracula who travels to London in search of his long lost love. He is perfect as all three incarnations of the character, and his success in Dracula confirmed his talent, already evident from superb performances in JFK (1991) and Sid & Nancy (1986). Just for the record, yes, Gary Oldman is my favourite actor…so if I seem bias it is because I am!

Winona Ryder plays Count Dracula’s love interest in two forms: Firstly as Princess Elizabeta, Prince Vlad’s princess at the start of the film. Then as a reincarnation of his old love as Mina in London. Mina is to marry Johnathan Harker (Keanu Reeves), but falls for her “long lost Prince”, Dracula, who appears to her as Prince Vlad in his original form (this complexity will be explained in “The Film”). Ryder gives a brilliant performance and manages to hold her own on stage against some very powerful male actors (Oldman, Hopkins, Reeves, Grant). She brings an intensity and a beauty to the love-story aspect of the film, and her on screen interaction with Oldman is superb. I will confess that I am not a real fan of any actress (not being sexist), but Ryder is excellent in this film and it simply would not work without her influence.

My second favourite actor, Sir Anthony Hopkins also has several characters to play in Coppola’s version. His principal role is of the famous “vampire hunter” Professor Abraham Van Helsing, a role that Hopkins plays somewhat tongue-in-cheek but nevertheless very effectively. In his version, Hopkins’ portrayal of Van Helsing is as an intellectual who respects and admires Dracula, trying to outwit him…rather than his portrayal in some films as the relentless hunter. Van Helsing is the rock behind the story in London, which without his pursuit of Dracula wouldn’t really make much sense. Hopkins has three other roles; the captain (unseen but hea
rd) of Dracula’s ship which he uses to move from the Continent to England, the priest in the late15th century Transylvania at the start, and as the main narrator of the story throughout the film.

Keanu Reeves plays Johnathan Harker, the ambitious young professional who is to be married to Mina (Ryder) when he returns from an important business trip abroad, to Dracula’s homeland. Reeve’s is not in the film as a leading character the whole time, because a lot of the film he is a prisoner in Dracula’s castle. Reeves is good, but is miscast and does not fit the English gentleman role as well as some other actors might have done. His accent is competent, but at times humorous (He is an American raised Canadian trying to sound like a Victorian Englishman). His hair is ridiculous throughout the film…he is supposed to be under stress, and that explains his hair changing to a grey colour, but Coppola cannot be forgiven for how Harker’s hair changes style from scene to scene (watch out for this at the end). Reeve’s is good, but is swamped somewhat by the on-screen presence of the above three; Oldman, Ryder, and Hopkins.


THE HISTORY:

Based on Bram Stoker’s timeless classic of Dracula, written in 1897 and published fully in 1900. The first modern day film retelling the story.

THE FILM: (upon the suggestions of some Dooyoo users, I warn that the following section gives away a significantly large portion of the plot)

Transylvania, (1497), Prince Vlad Dracula is fighting in the name of Christianity against the rampaging Mongol Turkish Empire. By his side is Elizabeta, his beautiful wife and the eternal love of his world. In battle, Prince Vlad defeats the Turks for his religion and realm, but the Turks, in an act of vengeance, fire an arrow carrying false news of his death into the castle. Elizabeta, fearing him dead, throws herself to her death from the castle walls. Upon
his return, Prince Vlad renounces Christ (“Is this my reward for defending your Church?”) and vows to rise again from his death to bring vengeance against the world with “all the powers of darkness”.

Move forward to London, 1897. Johnathan Harker is being briefed on a business task that will take him to Transylvania to close the deal on several houses that “the eccentric Count Dracula” is planning to purchase in the London area. Harker’s predecessor, Renfield, has had a nervous breakdown, and is now obsessed with “some foul blood-lust” and speaking of “The Master”. Renfield has become the slave of Dracula, and has been locked up for his troubles. Harker then, sent away, postpones his marriage to Mina Murray until he returns from duty. Mina goes to stay with her rich friend Lucy whilst Johnathan is away.

Harker arrives in Dracula’s homeland, on the border of Transylvania and Romania. Initially welcoming, Harker soon becomes fearful and suspicious of Dracula and his habits. Dracula shows an interest in Harker’s photograph of Mina…whom he recognises as his long lost love Elizabeta (this will become relevant later). Over the first days of his stay Harker realises he is a prisoner, the Count wishes for him to stay a month, and tries to plot his escape. The scenes with Harker in Dracula’s house feature some of the cleverest camera tricks in the entire film, so keep an eye on Dracula at all times.

Dracula travels to London in search of Mina/Elizabeta. He is the owner of Carthax Abbey and has large amounts of earth shipped there from his castle (later we learn this is because the Vampire must sleep in the earth of his homeland to sustain his powers). This is one of the main problems of Coppola’s film: we never actually learn why Dracula was going to London, why he bought Carthax Abbey, or why he planned to buy “ten houses in such preci
se locations over the city”. We take it for granted that he goes to London to find his love, but his plans to buy the houses and Carthax Abbey are already laid before he ever meets Harker and sees the picture of Mina. This is a let down in the film, maybe in the book (I have not read it all yet), and it is one of those niggling problems that annoys you throughout a movie. In London he finds Mina, and presents himself as the youthful Prince Vlad. The two quickly bond as soul mates (Mina does not know he is a vampire). At the same time though, Dracula’s alter ego, the killer, preys upon Mina’s best friend Lucy.

Lucy falls seriously ill and after several “attacks” (not that she resisted) from Dracula her blood is contaminated as a vampire. This leads to the arrival of the eccentric Professor (Doctor) Van Helsing, played by Anthony Hopkins. He identifies the presence of Dracula, “the un-dead, nosferatu” and promptly convinces the others that the force they are dealing with is evil rather than a medical disease.

Whilst all this is going on in London (a good half hour or so) we almost forget that Harker is still in Transylvania. He is trying to escape, but is weakened by Dracula’s mistresses constantly draining him of his blood. Eventually he makes it to the castle walls, stumbles into the river and is washed away. He then comes across a Christian nunnery (Church) and is nursed back to health – (another bad point, earlier in the film Dracula tells Harker that Christianity is not the way in his homeland, yet there is a nunnery…conveniently for Harker to find with its big lit cross).

Mina rushes to Romania to marry Johnathan, leaving Dracula behind. Needless to say he is devastated, then understandably angry. He goes to Lucy, kills several guards on the way, and then “kills” her (condemns her to eternal life as a vampire). Lucy “dies” (she then bec
omes un-dead) and the group of her would-be husbands and Van Helsing enter her tomb to kill the presence of Dracula once and for all. This they do in particularly gory style and the problem of Lucy is no more. Mina, however, becomes a problem in the near future.

Harker, using his knowledge gained in Translyvania, guides Van Helsing and the others to Carthax Abbey to flush out Dracula. Mina stays in the quarters of Dr Seward at the Asylum. She meets Renfield who recognises her as the one whom Dracula (“The Master” has come for, and tells her to flee. Dracula escapes the onslaught on Carthax Abbey and heads for the asylum. Renfield, after his betrayal of his master, is dealt with in an appropriately severe manner by Dracula, who then turns his attentions to his beloved Mina. The two share a passionate few moments before they are interrupted by Van Helsing and the others who have finished smashing Carthax Abbey and are now in pursuit of the Count. Dracula flees.

As his home in Carthax Abbey has been destroyed, Dracula has no choice but to head back to Transylvania to replenish his power. This is where the movie picks up pace again, as Van Helsing, Harker and the rest pursuit Dracula across Europe, with Mina along as bait. Van Helsing and Mina reach the Count’s castle first, with Dracula and the other hunters racing against the sunlight to get in. A brief battle, and Dracula is mortally wounded. He and Mina retreat into the castle and, with his dying love expressed on the under same altar upon which he turned his back on Christ centuries before, Dracula is set free from darkness into light. We do not know exactly what happens to Mina, but we can assume that she is also set free from darkness with Dracula’s death. A sad ending, and one that emphasises the love story of the film and the legend.

SUMMARY:

Francis Ford Coppola made an excellent job of turning Bram Stokers original novel into a major m
otion picture, and his directing and the performances of the actors are amongst the most revered in recent cinema history. It is certainly the best representation of the Stoker legend and serves as a good introduction to the story of Dracula. However, it has its problems. The plot often wanders with little sense of an ultimate direction, and after two hours you feel like you have been watching for somewhere closer to three hours time. The middle part of the film (mostly the relationship between Mina and Prince Vlad) drags on for a little too long, and this romantic element may dissuade some critics who are expecting a Dracula/vampire blood-lust action/horror film. The script is solid if not impeccable, and the acting is always very good. The photography is superb as is the presentation of the characters and their world, and the musical accompaniment to the film is brilliant – a worthy soundtrack purchase, and winner of the Best Music Oscar in 1992.

In general, an excellent film that deserves a place amongst anybody’s movie collection. It is available on both DVD and VHS format, the latter usually costing less than £5 as it is part of the “Cinema Club” range. For £5 you cannot go wrong, so go and get a copy if you haven’t seen it already. It is a film that deserves its place in cinema history, and one that is deserving of the acclaim that it still receives nearly ten years later. However, watch it sparingly or you may get bored in the long-run. This is a film to watch every so often when you browse through your video collection and remember it is there. Buy it, watch it, enjoy it, put it back on the shelf, forget you have it, find it, dig it out, and watch it again…repeat this so long as the video will continue to run. A timeless classic.

Summary: