Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992), directed by Francis Ford Coppola, has become one of the most famed and iconic adaptations of the classic novel. Starring Gary Oldman as the vampire and Anthony Hopkins as his nemesis Van Helsing, the film has entered the cultural zeitgeist similar to the films featuring Bela Lugosi and Christopher Lee. However, in retrospect it is a film that is superb in some departments, while remaining quite flawed in others.
The core story remains the same as the novel: It is 1892, and solicitor Jonathan Harker (Keanu Reeves) is sent to Transylvania to manage the affairs of the mysterious Count Dracula (Gary Oldman), after the previous solicitor Mr Renfield (Tom Waits) went insane. There, he discovers that Dracula is not all he seems. As the Count heads for London, it seems that Harker's wife-to-be Mina (Winona Ryder) may be in great danger...
With this general structure in place, the film adds new several plot threads, most of which are intended to add depth Dracula's character. A love story angle is introduced, and although it succeeds in adding layers to Dracula's character, purists may be disappointed with some of the deviations presented here.
The film is most notable for its over-the-top, often theatrical atmosphere, which presents its own range of triumphs and pitfalls. The acting is often a mixed bag, with some less-than-stellar moments from Sadie Frost and Billy Campbell. Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing is very over-the-top, but he's clearly enjoying the role, as is Tom Waits as Renfield. Much has already been said about Keanu Reeves' accent, but he acquits himself quite well as the doomed Harker. The cast is rounded off with solid turns from the likes of Winona Ryder and Richard E Grant.
For the most part, Gary Oldman is actually quite understated, despite his outlandish costumes. His appearance subverts the popular images of Dracula made famous by Lugosi and Lee, and this helps to make him one of the most memorable takes on the vampire.
Although the acting and story may be a mixed bag, where this film truly shines is in its production values and effects. Francis Ford Coppola has long been held as one of the greatest directors of all time, and here it's easy to see why. The film is almost entirely constructed of interesting camera shots and uses of colour (Eyes appearing in the clouds, Renfield rising from his cell.) The special effects are refreshingly old-fashioned, with practical shots being favoured over CGI. There are a number of highly impressive moments, including the extending arm of the coachman, and Dracula's transformation into a massed pile of rats.
Wojciech Kilar's haunting and atmospheric soundtrack introduces several recurring themes, which also lend weight where the acting sometimes fails. Overall, Bram Stoker's Dracula has dated very well. Although it's not exactly the most faithful adaptation and the performances vary, it remains worth watching for its striking visuals alone.
Video uploaded by ClubeDoMedo
I would regard this as the "Citizen Kane" of horror movies, ie, like Welles classic, it is technically brilliant. Coppola's use of in camera effects is a sheer delight in an era where filmaking seems dominated by CGI obsessives. The movie does have an over the top theatricality to it,but that's part of it's enduring charm and overall I found it to be one of my most enjoyable cinematic experiences.
ReplyDelete