Bram Stoker's Dracula- 30 Year Retrospective

 

Bram Stoker’s Dracula- 30 Year Retrospective

1992

Director- Francis Ford Coppola

Cast- Gary Oldman, Winona Ryder, Keanu Reeves, Anthony Hopkins, Sadie Frost, Richard E. Grant, Cary Elwes, Bill Campbell, Tom Waits, Monica Bellucci, Michaela Bercu, Florina Kendrick

This was a sumptuous re-telling of the Dracula novel and the most ambitious cinematic adaptation. It was wildly popular in its day. However, a whole generation of horror fans have grown up since its release and it’s highly likely that many are only vaguely familiar with it.       

    This was a controversial movie among Dracula fans. For many fans that grew up on either Lugosi or Lee, this film is showy, pure Hollywood, and departs too far from what they loved growing up. For me (and I think a lot of my generation) this was the Dracula movie that instilled a love for Dracula. I had, of course, seen other versions, but this was the first one that I saw as an adult (well almost, I was 18).

            

    There is a lot to love about this film. First is the cast, a who’s who of the hottest stars of that era, many of whom are still in high demand almost 30 years later. And look at the level of talent. Winona Ryder has been nominated for 2 Oscars, Anthony Hopkins and Gary Oldman have each won Oscars, Coppola has won multiple Oscars. The film itself won 3 for make-up, costume design and sound editing. And all of this is evident on the screen and paid off. The film quintupled its budget in box office returns. It’s a very moody and artistic interpretation, utilizing beautiful and creative cinematography and a dramatic, evocative score. 

            

   It’s also very faithful to the book (the only adaptation that was more faithful was the 1977 BBC version).  It’s the only adaptation (that I know of) that features ALL off the characters and features them in the right context with no name and role swaps. Its also the only version to get the ages of the character's right. In the novel, all of the protagonists, except Van Helsing,  are in their 20s. Most cinematic versions (even the BBC version) portray Seward as an older man, (Van Helsing's peer rather than his pupil). Its also one of the few versions to give us all three of Dracula's Brides with appearances at the beginning and the end  of the film, (the BBC version gets that right as well).

    It’s one of the few adaptations to feature the entire epic scope of the book, beginning in Transylvania, then to England and then back to Transylvania.  It also gets a lot of the small details right, like the blue flames that Harker sees on his way to Castle Dracula and Dracula's ability to walk in the sun.. 

    Unfortunately, despite all of this attention to detail, it misses one very important thing. It tries to make Dracula a romance, which is simply not in the book. The book is erotic, yes. Romantic? Definitely not. Remember that, in the book, Dracula is repulsive with hairy palms and bad breath. There is certainly no prolonged relationship between Mina and the Count as seen here. So, if something is going to turn fans off, that’s it.

            

   I love Keanu Reeves, most of the time. As John Wick, Neo, or Ted Theodore Logan, no one could have been better. As Victorian solicitor Jonathan Harker, well, I think it was too far outside of his scope as an actor for that point in his career. Beyond that, I can’t see how anyone could complain about the other performances. Anthony Hopkins’ Van Helsing is not as straight laced as Peter Cushing’s, instead being a bit wild and possibly a tad crazy. Tom Waits’ Renfield is gritty.A real standout to me is Sadie Frost, who plays the best Lucy of any version that I've seen. She is vulnerable, tragic, sexy and scary, all rolled into one.

       

    

    Gary Oldman, as Dracula, steals every scene that he’s in. He also shows the versatility that would win him an Oscar as he transitions between the elderly, Transylvanian nobleman to suave, young, romantic, gentleman.  He does remarkable work with his voice sounding mysterious and sinister and nothing at all like an Englishman. The costumes, which very much deserved their Oscar, help sell his performances.

            

   There are many iconic images in this film; Lucy’s vampire form with her wide collared, ruffled, bridal dress, Dracula’s red wolf headed armor, the count’s long haired bespeckled Victorian costume. More than anything else, this film (for better or worse) finally stepped out of the very long shadow of Bela Lugosi. For the first time, we saw a Dracula not wearing a black tux and cape.

           

    For fans that just can’t get over how far it departs from the standard set by Universal and Hammer, I get it. But if you are open to a new experience, and want to be thoroughly entertained for 2 hours, I can’t recommend the film highly enough.

Want more Dracula? See which cinematic adaptations were the best and worst, HERE!