Bram Stoker's Dracula

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

I was wondering if anyone had opinions that they would care to share about Coppola's 1992 version of Dracula.

Personally, I liked it. It was a bit over the top and played up certain aspects of the book while ignoring others, but, all in all, I thought it was an enjoyable adaptation of a classic Victorian novel. I liked the sets, cinematography and costumes very much, as well as Anthony Hopkins making a great Abraham Van Helsing.

Any thoughts?

[the-broken-harlequin]

Is that the one with Gary oldman in it?

[Vyvian Blackthorne]

I thought it was a beautiful film, espically the dramatic ending. Gary Oldman looks stunningly to Vlad the Impaler as a young man. The film's diretion and mood was very dark, as well as the lighting/colours. The gore was a good amount. I normally hate Coppola and big name directors films, but this was following the book and Bram's words-so I lured into the film generally.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Indeed. I really don't like Coppola's other work, but I'm a sucker for Victorian ambience. My biggest complaint was the casting of Keanu Reeves as Johnathon Harker. His pathetic attempt to parrot an English accent makes my head hurt.

[Vyvian Blackthorne]

Yeah, that's like Tom Cruise as Lestat. Only as a comparison. I think LeFanu's "Carmilla" would be another good adaption to be noticed-it DID come first.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Very true. I've never read Carmilla, so I'll have to add that one to my summer reading list. It's strange how some novels can tread similar ground with one gaining recognition and acclaim while the other fades into the background.

[Vyvian Blackthorne]

Yes, and the bizarre thing is John Polidori has been vaguely forgotten as well, and he wrote the first offical Vampyre story!

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Forgotten to the point that I'm not even aware of who that is. Apparently my education in the area of esoteric gothic literature is lacking.

[Minyaliel]

Tsk, tsk... how can you not know Polidori? ... He wrote a little story that today probably would've been considered horrible, but it being the original, I've read it. You can find it online.

As for the movie, the only thing I liked about it was how things looked. I was annoyed to the point of wanting to turn the whole thing off by the alterations done in the script, especially since it was supposed to be based off the book. I mean, the book has a happy ending where Jonathan and his wife get a child and live happily ever after. Where'd _that_ go? In addition to this I was mightily frustrated by the connection made between the fictional Dracula character and Vlad the Impaler; it is actually proved that Stoker had no knowledge about the Romanian emperor apart from his name, and so couldn't have made such a connection. He never travelled to Romania, not even once. His only source of information were the books he was studying in the public library.

[Vyvian Blackthorne]

Never could have guessed that, wow. Stoker took more folklore than I think, just took Vlad's penname and image I guess along with Irving's apperence.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

All very true, Min. The sexuality was also highly accentuated in the film; Lucy Westenra was not a slut, nor was Mina as helpless in the book as she was in the movie. In fact, in the book Mina was an active, empowered part of the Dracula hunting team, which was highly unusual for a female character in a Victorian novel. Furthermore, in the movie Renfield was the accountant despatched to Dracula's home prior to Harker, while in the novel he had no real connection with the Count; he also had a much greater role in the novel, and was more of a token figure in the film. This I excused, however, because Renfield was played by Tom Waits.

All in all, the movie is a bit of a guilty pleasure. I find that, despite all the accurate and compelling arguments stacked against it, the movie is... pretty. I like the way it was shot; I like the overblown nature of the production; also, Keanu Reeves aside, I like certain members of the cast. I can even reconcile myself to the perversion of Lucy Westenra because she's played by a scantily clad redhead. I like the film even when, logically, I shouldn't.

[Vyvian Blackthorne]

Reinfeld is sexy

[Kaz]

Bram Stoker's Dracula is one film that I can watch over and not become bored.
I love the atmosphere, from the scenery to the background music. I have to admit I can become quite lost in this classic story.
Visually, I find the whole film very watchable.

I think that the acting is played really well, although I do find Keanu Reeves a little wooden at times. Winona Ryder however, seems to pull off a really good English accent.

One of my favourites.

[CLV]

Tom Cruises as Lestat was amazing. I think it is his best film to date.
No one could have played it better than him.
In my humble opinion.

Dracula is sat staring at me from my bookshelf, i am desperate to read it, but I have about another 50 books I have to read first. It just sits there whispering 'reeeeead meeeee reeead me'.

[Haunted House]

To be honest I actually kinda liked this one. Anthony Hopkins IS Van Helsing to me. Hahahah. I can't take it seriously, though because its not too accurate to the original story and Keanu Reeves is in it.

[MollyMac]

I really only liked the old school cinematpgraphy and effects which lent an odd untimeliness about it- the story was fin de circle, the movie as about 100 years later and the effects were circa 1940-1950. Made for an odd set of imagery and anachronism.

Casting... Oldman was lovely. The man can do more with one twitch of his lips than most of Hollywood can at full throttle and scresm. he needs never speak. Turn down the sound, and watch him.

Tom Waits was THE inspired choice and Hopkins seemed to play himself overmuch, seemed too comfortable with the role.

Sadie Frost as Lucy was a strong choice, I think- but I have a question as in the book, her hair was mentioned as layin gin its "usual sunny ripples" and is later described as brown, darker... perhaps this has to do with te transformation and the reason Eiko the designer chose the frilled lizard neck and cap for the wedding/funeral- hides a vagarity in Stoker's work.

And what of the costimes?

Notice the embroidery of dragon, snakes... The costumes transform and tell the tale better tha the rest of the cast ever could.

[Minyaliel]

Originally Posted by CLV

Tom Cruises as Lestat was amazing. I think it is his best film to date.
No one could have played it better than him.
In my humble opinion.

Dracula is sat staring at me from my bookshelf, i am desperate to read it, but I have about another 50 books I have to read first. It just sits there whispering 'reeeeead meeeee reeead me'.

Ummm.... I have to ask - what's "Interview with the Vampire" got to do with Dracula? *looks puzzled*

[Vyvian Blackthorne]

Sorry, that was my fault. I compared Reeves to Harker in comparison to Cruise as Lestat. It was regarding mine I believe.

[Minyaliel]

Ah, that explains it. =)

[Cicero]

To me the film was a complete joke. What should have been a perfect cast, beautiful cinematography and lovely cosumes, and yet somehow it just didn't work. I was completely and utterly bored by it. And calling it 'Bram Stoker's' Dracula was misleading - it strayed too far from the book to call it that.

Also, (and this is probably something only my pedantic little brain can possibly be bothered by) bustles weren't in fashion during the time period the film is supposedly set in. Even if it's a fictional story the slightest bit of historical accuracy is always appreciated.

[MollyMac]

That's why many call it "Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula". But yeah, I liked it in piecemeal, in two minute increments, but it didn't congeal. Nothing wrong with dissonance in cinema, but there tends to be a progression or a certain texture to it.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula would, indeed, be an accurate assessment of the film. Still, even though it strays from the novel quite a bit, it still sticks closer than any other film version that I'm aware of. It seemed to be that Coppola took entire segments of the book, related segments not linked linearly by the narrative, and compressed them into single scenes. This, I think, is a forgivable trespass, a necessity even, given the limited time frame in which a film has to work. But, as others have already stated, I feel that the real strength of the film lies with its atmosphere; while it may take a great deal of artistic liberty in the portrayal of certain characters or rearranging of the plot, the film is visually stimulating. This may not always be a good thing, but, in any event, it never fails to elicit a response from the viewer, which, in my opinion, is one of the hallmarks of an interesting piece.

[CLV]

Miny

Ummm.... I have to ask - what's "Interview with the Vampire" got to do with Dracula? *looks puzzled*

Read back over previous posts, someone discussed Dracula, and another mentioned Lestat.

I was referring to two topics.

Hope this helps.

Thank you for your time.

__________________

[MollyMac]

I liekd that Coppola made use of the turn of the century technology both in the film and to make the film. That was rather quirky fun

[Subphonic]

As something fun to stare at this film is great, you just have to put the actual book out of your head!
Anthony Hopkins is disturbed enough to play a very good Van Helsing and Winona Ryder looks stunning in period costume (all be it the wrong era!).
It is a pity Tom Waits' Renfield has such a small part as I love the character but couldn't help comparing him to Roland Topor in Nosferatu who, I believe, gets it exactly right.

Stuart Townsend plays a better Lestat...flame away...