I would be lying to myself if I said I wasn't enticed the the romanticism of vampire lore. The ageless love of an established male character and the animalistic hunger for human flesh centered around the female bosom and wrist are just a few things that draw women into this stereotypical dynamic. Even though terrible teeny-bopper versions of this simple concept have bastardized the genre as of late, I have recently discovered that the Twilight series is not necessarily the first form of media to do so.
I began reading Bram Stoker's Dracula this past month, and have thoroughly enjoyed it. Even though there are several grammatical and dialectical differences, I find it to be one of the most interesting and innovative pieces of literature to date. Who knew that one hundred and fifty years ago they used plural verb conjugations for singular subjects? But, I digress; this isn't an English blog, after all.
In Bram Stoker's novel, the narrative is written out in diary entries of several characters, boat ledgers, personal letters, and newspaper articles. This format made me wary at first, and took me a long time to read through one solid plot event. Something that would be one chapter long in a normal novel lasted three times as long just so that everyone's point of view was expressed. The further I got into this book, however, the less I noticed the choppy form of writing. The more I read, the more I felt connected to each character as they lost their minds or a loved one. What an amazing way to write a book. What an intimate form of media!
No wonder this story is such an iconic tale in horror. No wonder movies such as Interview With the Vampire, Blade, and Underworld were all created to keep this supernatural high going through our cinematic society. No wonder the movie Bram Stoker's Dracula was made in 1992 to bring this imaginative delight to the silver screen. Bringing classic novels to films is something I have always enjoyed, and when I finally sat down to watch this one, I had surprisingly mixed emotions.
I am only three fourths of the way through the book right now, but I immediately noticed a major thematic difference from the book. Although the general storyline and characters are all the same, Hollywood decided to add in the most cliche plot line of all... a love story. Now, I don't know if anyone knows where the legend of Dracula actually came from, but it was NOT from a fucking love story. Vlad Dracula, or Vlad The Impaler, was the prince of Wallachia, and tortured victims of opposing countries by impaling them on stakes and letting them bleed to death. He was known to boil people alive and drink their blood after they passed away. He cut off the skin of his enemy's feet, poured salt on them, and had his goats lick it off for fun. He enslaved people to build his impenetrable fortress until their clothes fell off and then they died, naked, from exhaustion. I don't think this guy had the ability to love, let alone maintain a regal marriage. It just doesn't make sense.
In the prologue of the film, Gary Oldman's Dracula goes off to battle after sensually making out with Winona Rider's version of his bride. He goes off to battle in the Crusades and a false letter from the enemy informs Rider of Dracula's death. She promptly kills herself, and Dracula returns, enraged. He denounces God for which he was fighting, and stabs a cross with a sword. He claims that he will rise from the dead and defy God and live forever. This, apparently, is how one becomes a vampire?
The real Vlad Dracula never rose from the dead, or lived for hundreds of years. The origins of his malice matches up with the regional Romanian myths of blood-sucking, disease-spreading creatures before his time, and gave Bram Stoker enough material to create a frightening fictional villain. This , however, does not give Francis Ford Coppola license to make him a sex-driven, shape-shifting adulterer.
That being said, I have not finished the entire book. Is it possible for Dracula to give a long and telling monologue about his love for Mina at the end of the novel? Could this monologue include motivations and sex scenes that took place in platonic scenes I have already read? Could these scenes contradict Mina's most intimate diary accounts about seeing Dracula in a public place with her husband? Doubtful.
But I've been wrong before.
After this scene, the movie reflects the book almost to a T. The characters are cast perfectly (except for Keanu Reeves), and the cinematography is nothing short of breathtaking. The way Dracula's shadow reflects his true emotions while his body speaks otherwise is a very neat trick. Even Keanu couldn't ruin that part. Oldman delivers this heartbroken monster like only Oldman can, and makes Harker an understandably uncomfortable house guest.
The format of the book was displayed beautifully through scenes at telegraphs and typewriters with voice-overs for their diary entries. The horror scenes were filled with oceans of blood falling from the sky and dripping all over everyone. Van Helsing's nonchalance to the horrors that were happening before him was even more frightening. Everything was just as I had imagined it. The way the choppiness of the book was smoothed out in this film almost made me forgive Coppola for putting the love story in. Almost.
I understand that it is Hollywood, and you need to bring in as many people as possible. I also think that women are already going to see Dracula, because it is a sexy idea all by itself. I think they would have brought their husbands or boyfriends with them because it is a horror film, and everybody wins. For some reason, the legend of Dracula is the biggest female aphrodisiac this side of the Atlantic. No one needs him crying about finding his dead wife that happens to look like Winona Rider. He is supposed to be this smooth guy that can turn into smoke or a bat or anything he so desires, and suck your blood.
Maybe if Coppola hadn't put five pairs of naked breasts in this film for no reason, he wouldn't have to balance it out with a love story for the ladies. Or vise versa. Maybe he shouldn't have put this scene in the movie at all...
What the WHAT?
Is that Dracula in the form of a werewolf having bestial sex with Mina's (whom he is so in love with) best friend? Is a scene like this even necessary if your goal is to make Dracula seem like an educated, sensitive, loving man who just ran into some eternal bad luck? I don't think so. I would much rather deal with looking at naked breasts for two hours, cut out the love story, and not have seen this part at all. The image of Dracula seems to change so drastically in this film, it is hard to root for him or be attracted to him at all. Gary Oldman's ridiculously slow and broken speech doesn't help either. It is like talking to a three year-old who is also eighty five.
Besides all of the weird sex, broken English, and Keanu Reeves, this film is pretty good. The feel of the story was the same, and the ensemble cast was one of the best I have watched. The general idea of Dracula reigns supreme, and all of his limitations and transformations were portrayed better than any vampire flick I have yet to see. I know I complained a lot about it, but if it's not broke.... don't fix it.
I give this movie a B+.
Namaste.
