BLOOD WORK: HALLOWEEN HORROR DAYS ~ DAY 30: BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA (1992)

One of the most redone and reproduced horror stories in cinema is the story of Dracula. Starting way back in 1922 with F.W. Murnau's NOSFERATU, my personal favorite vampire film. Then of course there is Tod Browning's 1931 classic DRACULA starring the legendary BELA LUGOSI. Then the amazing JOHN CARRADINE played Dracula in HOUSE OF DRACULA (1945) and HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1944). Following those Hammer Studios in England released their version starring CHRISTOPHER LEE and PETER CUSHING known in America as THE HORROR OF DRACULA (1958). PAUL NASCHY, UDO KIER, and JACK PALANCE too donned the cape as Dracula in 1973 and 1974. And who could forget FRANK LANGELLA and KLAUS KINSKI in 1979. I could keep going but I think you get the point.

In 1992 Academy Award winning director FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA, infamous director of the GODFATHER, added his name to the long list of directors to have retold Bram Stoker's Dracula. His cast included Gary Oldman as Dracula, Keanu Reeves, Winona Ryder, and Anthony Hopkins (a year after winning the Academy Award for Silence of the Lambs). Coppola is admittedly a fan of the story and has long desired to do his own rendition of the Dracula mythos. What resulted was a truly unique interpretation of a story that has has been remade and redone to death.

THE PLOT

Count Dracula is looking to spread his sphere of influence beyond the borders of Transylvania and Romania. Through various intermediaries he has come into possession of Carfax Abbey in London. When hosting his real estate agent, Jonathan Harker, at Castle Dracula he sees a picture of Harker's fiancee, Mina. The Count believes that Mina is the reincarnation of his long dead love Elisabeta. Dracula moves to London with all haste, his vampiric brides keeping Harker captive. Harker escapes Castle Dracula and rallies a vampire hunting posse with the help of vampire expert Van Helsing. The battle for Mina's heart and the dual with the devil begins.

THE GOOD

The Style. I remember watching this film when I was inappropriately young and thinking it was brilliant. Then I next watched it in college and suddenly the film became absurd, rife with overacting, over-the-top effects (even for over-the-top horror films), and sheer moments of ludicrousness. Today while watching it I saw the film in yet another light. It seems obvious now that Coppola crafted his film in the style of his favorite Dracula renditions from the early 20th century. Looking at the acting styles adopted by the actors along with scene transitions reminiscent of silent films, the overwhelming sense of melodrama, it all feels like a film from the 1920's or 1930's if they had today's modern effects. It makes for an interesting experience. Speaking of effects...

Dracula in Werewolf form

The Effects. One of my biggest complaints with older Dracula films are the limitations of special effects. Bela Lugosi's Dracula never showed his fangs (can you believe that?). According to the story Dracula can shape-shift, climb along walls (spider-man style), fly, and all sorts of crazy things. One of the benefits of being an Academy Award winning director like Coppola is that movie studios practically throw money at you. This was just before Jurassic Park and the big CGI effects revolution so what we see in this film are some of the finest examples of miniature and scale models, matte paintings, suitmation, and trick photography ever seen. Dracula has never been more impressive and powerfully depicted. I love his monster forms of a bat and a wolf and green mist! The transformation into rats is awesome.

THE BAD

The Acting: I mentioned earlier that the film was done in a melodramatic style evocative of 1920's and 1930's horror films. That goes for the acting too. I'm sure the actors were instructed to act in this manner seeing as they're all doing it, but my god, some of them are just plain bad. The easy targets here are Winona Ryder and Keanu Reeves but even Gary Oldman and Anthony Hopkins are utterly ridiculous at times. Oldman in the "old Dracula" costume is downright laughable in instances. The "cursing God" scene during the prologue too is a little much. I understand what Coppola was trying to achieve by this approach but in retrospect perhaps more restraint should've been exercised here. Just my opinion. When Anthony Hopkins dry-humps another man's leg while spouting, "She is the devil's whore!" you know something went too far somewhere. It's no wonder Mel Brooks had some much material to work with when he made DRACULA: DEAD AND LOVING IT.

THE VERDICT

Of the countless film adaptations of Bram Stoker's Dracula in existence, Francis Ford Coppola's 1992 film stands as one of the best representations of the titular character. It also should be known that this film had more resources at its disposal than any other Dracula production, updated and advanced techniques too. The only thing that holds this film back is the ham-handed acting by its principle actors. It's all in keeping with Coppola's approach to the film though. The scenes of blood exploding from the walls could be a visual metaphor for the actors exploding with melodrama. While having an endless supply of resources with which to make this film amazing I still prefer what F.W. Murnau, Tod Browning, and Terence Fisher accomplished with so little. Still, Coppola's film is worth a look.