This is the one that follows the novel the closest but even Francis
Ford Coppola couldn’t resist making some changes. There are two that I would consider major and
the rest minor. The biggest minor change
would be the prologue. The film attempts
to explain why and how Dracula became who he is and it’s actually a pretty good
little illumination so I actually like this inclusion. As for the majors we have Mina being the
reincarnation of Dracula’s dead wife so therefore she kind of wants to be
turned into a vampire instead of being repulsed by it; and the ending is
different. In the novel it’s cut and dry
while the movie finishes on a more confusing note (is Mina a vampire or not? An early edit shows that she’s not but what
they ultimately went with doesn’t make it so clear). So as you can see even the big changes aren’t
ridiculous.
Stoker wrote his book in an epistolary format meaning that
the story is told through documents like diary entries, letters, news
clippings, etc. So not your usual
narrative work. This is important to
know because this picture keeps that format intact whenever it can. There will be times when Harker is reading
from his diary or Mina is reading from hers or whatever.
Gary Oldman was perfectly cast in the title role. He lays on the accent thick, displays the
various moods extremely well, is maniacal as shit and handles the man/monster
thing great.
Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing is wonderful too. Resolute as always and he’s got a couple of badass
subtle scars on his face implying that he’s dealt with some nasty forces in the
past. There’s one time that he almost
falters and that’s towards the end when Mina tries to seduce him. Pretty interesting to see Van Helsing give in
for a split second. With this
installment Van Helsing doubles as the comic relief. It may have been how the character was
written this time but I want to say that this is Hopkins’ doing. He likes to ham things up a bit but in a
charming, deadpan and, admittedly, often funny way. Hopkins’ temperament doesn’t take away from
the weightiness of the material though.
Certainly not. In fact I think it
only adds another layer to an already very cool character. Van Helsing is sort of eccentric in this and
I like the notion that it takes a madman to catch a madman. He’s jaunty and thrilled by the hunt but deadly
serious when it’s time to get down to business and kill some fucking vampires.
The two big blunders of this production however are Keanu
Reeves and Winona Ryder. I don’t think I
need to go into why Reeves was a pretty bad choice. After watching him for ten seconds you’ll get
it. Ryder also doesn’t turn in a good
performance. But then again I don’t
think she’s a good actress in general. She’s
not what this movie needed. This film
needed someone who would be totally absorbed by the part like Gary Oldman did
with his role or even Sadie Frost (Shopping)
did with hers (she plays Lucy here).
Ryder looks like too much of an amateur next to her costars only playing
Mina on the surface and not digging deep enough. But this was Winona’s ride. She brought the script to Coppola’s attention
and they agreed to work on it together. She
also gave suggestions of who to cast which Coppola went with. Ryder definitely doesn’t ruin the movie but
she seems to get worse every time I see her and I just wish they cast someone
better.
The one criticism I have of the castle though is that they
incorporated steel into the structure. It’s
supposed to resemble the painting “The Black Idol” by Frantisek Kupka which
is the image of a human figure sitting on a throne with its claw hand out. That’s a fucking great idea and I’ll admit
that I do think the gate looks cool made of sharp metal spikes but the rest of
it doesn’t fit. This is supposed to be
an ancient building and having the steel in there makes it look sorta like a
stupid steampunk castle.
My other favorite part of the movie is the vampire Lucy
scene. Damn does she look scary in that oversized
wedding gown, glass coffin, ghastly white makeup and huge fucking ruff neckwear. Most of the vampire Lucy stuff was shot in
reverse too which definitely makes the scene look abnormal and off. And the shot of Lucy’s head rolling away in
slow motion against a black backdrop looks phenomenal.
For the first time we actually get the ending that’s laid
out in the novel. It’s done well too
with a lot of tension and gypsies being taken out as our heroes go after
Dracula. It’s nice to finally get this
sequence and see the original conception of how this story was meant to
end. But it’s also strange that Coppola
came up with his own final moments instead of just going with what Stoker wrote
(SPOILER: although, Coppola does
credit George Lucas with the suggestion that Mina behead Dracula as he thought
a sword through the heart wasn’t definitive enough). But like I said earlier this is totally fine
and doesn’t ruin the movie at all.
Now on to the shit I found really fascinating about the
making of this Dracula. There’s an extra on the DVD that talks about
how all of the effects except for one were done in-camera. What?!
Yes. The blue flames were the
only things done as a post-production effect.
Everything else was done as a practical real effect. That’s un-fucking-believable. And it seems like almost every shot has some
sort of effect going on which must’ve been a huge undertaking. Coppola brought in his son, Roman (who wasn’t
even 30 yet), to do the work and boy oh boy did he do a bang up job. Like for instance there’s a part where Harker
is first reading from his diary on a train and there’s a shot of the train
going across the top of the diary. They
built a large diary and used a model train to go across the top. And when Harker is shaving in the castle the
shot is done straight on and we should see the camera’s reflection. Well that’s a very old trick that involves
using a double whose back is turned to the camera with Reeves standing on the other
side of the “mirror”. Coppola also says on
the commentary track that when Dracula is shaving Harker the walls move in a
little as the scene progresses to give a claustrophobic feeling. This is what makes this film so incredible
not only from a technical standpoint but doing the effects this way gives the
whole thing this very mysterious and unnerving feeling. A bunch of the time you can recognize that
there’s all sorts of crazy shit being put in front of you but the amount of it
and the execution makes for a fucking bizarre viewing experience. With Jurassic
Park signaling the start of the digital age just one year later this is
sort of a last hurrah for old fashioned effects. They used every trick in the goddamn book and
it’s astonishing.
Also as part of the extras Coppola says he originally wanted
this to be even weirder than it already is with almost no sets or props. It would be very impressionistic with shadows
and essentially just actors in their unbelievable costumes. The costumes would be the sets. I couldn’t help
but think of Cool World when I saw
that and I’m so glad the studio put their foot down. I don’t know if any movie should ever look
like Cool World. Man that was awful. There’s a scene in this though that
demonstrates what Coppola was talking about and it’s when Mina is going to marry
Harker in Europe and she’s tearing out pages of her diary and throwing them
into the ocean. She’s supposed to be on
a ship but all we see in the shot are a lantern and a rope. I never realized that that’s all there was
until Coppola pointed it out on the commentary track. My brain had filled in the rest of the ship
without me even realizing it. I never
found that scene confusing or weird with only a lantern and a rope. It was always very clear that Mina is on a
ship throwing diary pages into the water.
Then I startlingly realized that Coppola most likely would’ve made the
whole costumes-are-the-sets thing actually fucking work.
Another interesting angle to this production is that
everything was filmed on a soundstage.
The only part that wasn’t was the wedding ceremony with Harker and Mina. They filmed that at a Greek Orthodox Church
in California. But everything else was
done on a set including all those Transylvania and London streets shots.
After hearing the commentary track with Coppola it seems
that he has mixed feelings about this film.
He loves the special effects aspect of it, that he was faithful to the
book and he certainly did want to take this project on but I think at the same
time sort of felt he had to. Coppola’s
studio, American Zoetrope, was about to go under if he didn’t make another couple
of hits which forced him to do The
Godfather Part III and Dracula. He was hoping to retire and work on small
personal projects. Again, the material
was something Coppola was interested in but it comes across that he couldn’t do
it on his own terms exactly and that bothered him. He doesn’t give high praise to Winona Ryder
for instance saying that she was too smart for her own good and that she didn’t
give it her all. Oldman and Hopkins were
reportedly a bit hard to work with because they don’t like rehearsing. Remarkably Coppola makes no mention of Keanu
Reeves or his performance. Because there
were so many effects shots and just shooting to do in general the schedule was pretty
strictly enforced with the studio execs keeping Francis on a tight leash. This led to Roman Coppola basically
co-directing the picture. Remember, all
of the effects were done in-camera so Roman had to be there and take a very
hands on approach. And in addition to
this Francis also says that Roman shot a lot of the prologue and ending. With the soundtrack only three pieces of music
were written and recorded for the entire film much to Francis’ dismay. Fortunately because the score was recorded
with several mics he was able to drop out or add in whichever instrument
sections he wanted giving the illusion that variations on the lone three themes
had been laid down. All of this shit
made for a bittersweet experience and hearing the commentary track it seems
like Francis hadn’t thought about it in a long time and therefore hadn’t
totally resolved his feelings towards the film.
Sometimes he’ll get very into the notion that he envisioned and executed
nothing but in-camera effects and at others he’ll talk about his frustrations
that things were rough on set. I was
surprised to hear all of this because none of these complications come through
in the final product. When I see this
thing I marvel at how wacky, over the top yet cohesive it is. It works amazingly well.
The more I think about it and every time I see this version
of Dracula I like it more and
more. In fact I love it now. This is the film that keeps on giving. With each viewing I notice something new or
find yet another scene spookier than before.
And this was Coppola’s intent. He
said he knows that not every single thing will be caught by the viewer but the
accumulation of peculiar instances and camera tricks will amount to an
off-putting feeling. This piece is so
beautifully, meticulously and fucking crazily crafted that it demands
respect. Everything from the freakish
hairdo that Drac wears when he’s old to the shadow that has a mind of its own
to the camaraderie of Seward, Quincy and Arthur to the human sized bat and wolf
creatures that the Count turns into to the vampire brides seducing Harker scene
to the buckets of blood that are showered on Lucy when she dies (that’s an
homage to Kubrick by the way) to young Dracula looking like Jesus…this is a
masterpiece my friends. There will be
other movies made in the future that tackle this story but it’s difficult to
imagine this one being topped. This is
the Dracula to watch. I kind of want to go back and see it again
right now.
Creep factor: Off the fucking charts. I understand that what someone finds scary is
very subjective but the things in this picture are the kinda shit that sticks
with me.
Romance factor: High.
Dracula is both an extreme monster and an extremely tragic figure
here. Very difficult to get both across
but I think they do it. At times I fear
his wrath and at others I feel his pain.
I also love this movie. I enjoyed reading your opinion.
ReplyDeleteThanks
Delete