Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)

n

nTitle: Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992)

n

nDirector: Francis Ford Coppola

n

nCast: Gary Oldman, Wynona Ryder, Anthony Hopkins, SadienFrost, Tom Waits, Keanu Reeves, Cary Elwes, Billy Campbell

n

nDracula has been brought to cinematic life on more occasionsnthan any other character. I mean sure there’s tons of James Bond movies,nFrankenstein movies and Godzilla has its fare share of films (going on 28 as Inwrite this)…but even more films have used the character of Dracula in one formnor another. So it truly is one of the most iconic characters in cinematicnhistory, period. So naturally, the question inevitably arises: which of thesenadaptations is the best one? You ask me, my favorite, bar none is Francis FordnCoppola’s take on the character. It’s just so epic, so classy, so operatic, suchna well rounded production. But once upon a time, producers and critics thoughtnthe film would end up being a major flop. They even went as far as calling it “Vampirenof the Vanities” in allusion to that other major box office flop Bonfire of thenVanities (1990), some deemed it too weird and violent for mass audiences. Testnscreenings led to Coppola editing about 25 minutes of gory bits; of coursenCoppola must have been shaking in his boots, I mean, another flop? Even worsenis the fact that Coppola was hoping that this film would save American Zoetrope,nhis film studio, which was in bankruptcy. Was Bram Stoker’s Dracula destined tonbecome yet another flop in Francis Ford Coppola’s career?

n

n

nAll the negative pre-release buzz for Bram Stoker’s Draculanwas not without merits. True, Francis Ford Coppola is one of the greatestnAmerican directors who ever walked the face of the earth, but Coppola is alsonno stranger to box office disasters. For example, One from the Heart (1982) lostna lot of money as did Tetro (2009) and these are not the only turkeys in hisnresume. Thing is that even though some of Coppola’s films don’t exactly ignite thenbox office, you can’t deny their artistic merits. I mean, I look at films like Tetronand Youth Without Youth (2007) and I am mesmerized by them, I love every secondnof both of these films, but I also realize they are not for everyone. Inrecognize how incredibly ‘artsy fartsy’ they are and how they can in no way benconsidered “commercially viable” films, but damn, aren’t they beautiful filmsnwhen you really look at them? Same goes for many of Coppola’s films, and that’snprobably what producers and critics feared would happen with Bram Stoker’snDracula, they feared it would be another expensive, beautiful and artful flop. At the endnof the day, awesomeness prevailed and so the film went on to make a heftynprofit worldwide, saving Coppola and his studio in the process. I guess you can’tnreally compete with quality. A good film is a good film, and audiencesnrecognized that in Bram Stoker’s Dracula. 

n

n

nAmongst the ever increasing amount of Dracula films, Coppola’sntake on the character still stands at #1 for me for various reasons. The firstnreason is that it’s such a great production, I mean; here we have the cream ofnthe crop in every single department. It’s not surprising that the resulting filmnis such an artistic tour de force; Coppola gathered amazing talent to bring hisnvision to life. Bram Stoker’s Dracula was such an exquisite film that it markednone of the very few occassions in which a horror film actually got somenrecognition by the Academy, the only other one I can remember was Silence ofnthe Lambs (1991). Bram Stoker’s Dracula ended up winning three academy awards innthe areas in which it excels the most: costume design, sound editing and make-nup effects; but  If you ask me I wouldnhave also given them the Oscar for art direction, because it excels on this asnwell, the sets are wow, beautiful, epic, like the old Universal Horror Filmsnwhere everything was huge! One look at this film and you can tell it was donenwith great care and interest in making something that we’d never been seennbefore. Coppola managed to evoke a feeling of other worldliness, there’s alwaysnsomething not right, just a little off, as if the natural rules of physics didnnot apply. Coppola wanted the film to be bathed in a strange, surreal vibe  every time a vampire appears. This is why,nwhen we are in Dracula’s castle, characters walk on walls, shadows seem to havena life of their own and water drops fall upwards instead of down.  

n

n

nAnd the cast, well, for me it’s beyond amazing save for thenone weak link known as Keanu Reeves. On his behalf I will say that Keanu wasnworn down when he made Bram Stoker’s Dracula, he’d just made three films in anrow! Those films were Bill and Ted’s Bogus Journey (1991), My Own Private Idahon(1991) and Point Break (1991)! Nowadays Keanu recognizes his fault and excuses himselfnfor his poor performance in Bram Stoker’s Dracula; he admitted “I just didn’tnhave anything left to give”. But getting past that whole Keanu Reeves thing,nthe rest of the cast does an amazing job in my book. Gary Oldman is fantasticnas Count Dracula. Some people don’t seem to enjoy his performance for whatevernthe reason; probably because the film is a bit on the theatrical side. Some ofnthe performances might feel a bit over the top or overtly melodramatic to somenviewers, but to be honest, it’s what I like about this version of Dracula. Charactersnseem to feel more intensely, love without control, and in my book, this makesnall the perfect sense in the world because when we really look at it, this is anpassionate love story. This is a movie that speaks of the kind of passion thatnwill blind us and make us go crazy with lust and desire, so lines like “take menaway from all this DEATH!” and “The blood is the life!” are spoken with thenappropriate amount of intensity in my book. Mina and Dracula really feel forneach other, their love is not an ordinary love; this is a love that transcends bothntime and death! The rest of the cast is astoundingly good, of special note isnAnthony Hopkins as Van Helsing, who plays the character diametrically opposednto Oldman’s Dracula. This Van Helsing loves food, life, singing, dancing! He isnfull of life, as opposed to Dracula who represents death and decay.

n

n

nI love how the film serves as an allegory for the sexualnpolitics between male and female. For example, Mina and Lucy are characters thatnare in the prime of their youth; looking forward to getting married and exploringntheir sexuality by reading the Kamasutra. Both young girls are curious aboutnsex and its many possibilities, there’s even a hint of bisexuality in them whennthey share a secret kiss. So when an experienced dog like Dracula comes alongnand shows them how it’s done, they experience this sexual awakening andnsuddenly it’s a whole new world for both Mina and Lucy. Dracula has always beenna character that’s representative of mans sexual impulses and this film is nonexception. On this film Dracula satisfies his purely physical desires withnLucy, but it’s with Mina that he finds true love. So the film points this outnto us, the difference between a physical relationship, based solely on sexualnpleasure and a relationship that has its foundations on love. 

n

n

nOne of the things I love the most about this film is hownCoppola approached the production, the whole mentality behind making it. Coppolanwanted to hearken back to the old days of filmmaking, actually, Coppolanoriginally wanted to make this film with impressionistic sets, using a lot ofnlights and shadows, similar to what had been done in German Expressionisticncinema with films like Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920) and Nosferatu (1922), ofncourse the studio denied it, but he still went about making this film in thensame way movies where made back in the old days, when cinema was just gettingnstarted. He wanted to use modern special effects techniques as little asnpossible. 

n

n

nCoppola was given a special effects team which he ended upnfiring after they didn’t agree with his approach. He ended up using his son,nRoman Coppola for the visual effects of the film which consisted in the usagenof miniatures, matte paintings, forced perspective, mirrors…techniques as oldnas filmmaking itself. To be honest, the film looks way better than any of thenCGI we see so often in today’s films. The miniature work is incredibly wellndone, so much so you probably won’t even realize when they are being used. Onnthe makeup effects department, well, I have to give Kudos to the ones responsible;nthe makeup effects work is superb here as well! Same as in most Dracula films,nthe Count takes various forms, but my favorite has always been this giant vampirenbat; the way this creature looks in the film always knocks my socks off, it’snone of my favorite cinematic monsters ever, top that amazing makeup effectsnwork with Oldman’s performance and great sound effects and you’ve got yourselfnone amazing scene. But then again, the film is filled with many show stoppingnmoments that I won’t go into here. Suffice it to say that Coppola’s Dracula isnan amazing feat of filmmaking. It takes Dracula out of the campiness of the oldnHammer movies and puts him right in the middle of a class-a big budgetnproduction, and I savored every last bit of this bloody good time. This is anhighly regarded film in my book, perfect for a night of old fashion, passionatenhorror.  

n

nRating:  5 out of 5

n

n