31 (or so) Days of Terror: Bram Stoker's Dracula

It wouldn't be Halloween without at least one appearance by the Lord of the Vampires. Francis Ford Coppola's 1992 adaptation of Bram Stoker's classic novel has something of a mixed reputation which is appropriate given how schizophrenic it is. While in some respects it is the most faithful translation of the novel ever put to screen, the film does make some additions to the story which change the themes Stoker intended drastically. Purists were sent into a tizzy by it, but those changes aren't without merit and the end result is almost a deconstruction of Stoker's work.

A quick reminder on the basic story. Johnathan Harker, a real estate agent from London, journeys to Translyvania at the behest of the mysterious Count Dracula. The Count is interested in buying some property in London, but this is simply a ruse to lure the young Harker to his castle. Trapping the poor shmuck there, Dracula goes to England so he can stalk Harker's fiancee Mina and her friend Lucy. But as the attacks increase and vampire expert Van Helsing is called in, Mina finds herself inextricably drawn to the suave Romanian count. Could she be falling in love with the monster?


The first thing you'll notice about this Dracula is the visuals. Coppola eschews any semblance of "realism", instead drenching the scenery in lush, saturated colors to invoke a feeling of phantasmagoria. His refusal to use any CGI trickery also adds to the striking look of the film, in particular the scenes of Harker's journey to the castle, which showcase the beautiful in-camera effects. And Coppola's use of these centuries-old editing tricks is yet another element that strengthens the Victorian Gothic look of the piece, creating great iconic images like Dracula's self-moving shadow or his Brides rising out of Harker's silk sheets. All this beauty does come somewhat at the expense of the plot, which is left very broad in the first half to let the visuals shine. But the first half of the story, where Harker visits Dracula's castle, is much simpler than later events so taking a backseat doesn't hurt the proceedings. Indeed, the opposite is true. In the second half where the plot comes to the forefront and the fun visual experimentation moves to the background is in my opinion the weaker part of the film, becoming less engaging and more conventional than the film was up to that point.

Gary Oldman as Count Dracula. Welcoming you to his castle.

The plot, or at least adherence to the novel, may actually be one Dracula's greatest weaknesses. While the basic structure of Stoker's book is still intact, Coppola and his writers bring over several elements that don't translate very well from prose to film. For instance, at several points the filmmakers use snippets of voice-over and on-screen titles to emulate the epistolary nature of the novel. That worked in the novel to create a broader view of the events as they were happening to help build the suspense and terror. But in the faster-paced, more streamlined medium of film the use of all these narrators and plot points just muddies the plot and draws the audience's attention away from the main conflict. This leaves several characters and plot points feeling superfluous. The most glaring example of this would Renfield, Dracula's brainwashed servant. Played by a stuntcast Tom Waits, in the novel Renfield was Dracula's harbinger in London and served to hint at the Count's greater evil. But here he's kind of pointless. Dracula doesn't dissappear from the action for the long stretches he does in the novel, so Renfield is kind of unnecessary to keep the dread up. The same goes for Lucy's three suitors. In most adaptations, two of them are cut because they al serve largely the same role in the plot so keeping them all in this film is only for fidelity to the book.

Those issues with fidelity are what I mean when I say this movie feels schizophrenic. It was marketed for its adherence to Bram Stoker's novel, they even put it in the damn title, but it's clearly more interested in its own changes to the Dracula story than in particularly following the book. Things like suggesting that Dracula is also Vlad the Impaler, the historical inspiration for the famous vampire, and the reincarnation love story. This love story is mostly set up in the backstory; Dracula's wife kills herself believing he's died in combat against the Turks and Dracula is distraught after learning her suicide will keep her soul out of heaven, so he denounces God and is turned into a vampire. 400 years later, Dracula decides to come to London when he learns of Mina Harker who he believes is the reincarnation of his dead wife. Many hate the love story aspect of this film, but I actually think it's one of the stronger elements. While she's often lambasted for this role, Winona Ryder as Mina Harker actually plays her part rather well. She portrays Mina's conflict between her fidelity to Johnathan and her attraction to Dracula quite believably, her falling into vampirism in the latter half is fun, and the love she shows for the dying Dracula at the climax feels very genuine.

It's a waltzing in a room full of candles kind of sexy.

It helps that she actually has some good chemistry with Gary Oldman. Her emotional journey from falling for this mysterious stranger to having to push him away for her husband's sake and the sorrow she feels when she learns the truth about Dracula are all excellent portrayed. Speaking of Gary Oldman,  he is unsurprisingly magnificent as Dracula. Dracula's form is ever-changing throughout the film, so it requires Oldman to be chameleonic. But such is Oldman's skill as an actor that he can make the disparate faces of Dracula, from the genteel old monster Harker meets in the castle to the romantic aristocrat Mina falls in love with and even the weird rapey bat-creature, and makes them all organic and true to the character. Part of the fun of the film is just seeing how Oldman mutates his Dracula from scene to scene.

But what really earns the love story the central focus the film gives it is a certain thematic change from the novel. Now Dracula was always a story about sex, Stoker's book was extended metaphor for Victorian repression and the dangers of unbridled sexuality. The change Coppola's film makes is to make that theme explicit, he amps up the sexuality. This is a really sexy movie. But not sexy in a sleazy pornographic way. No, it's more of a classy old-school sexy. The kind of sexy where women's bosoms heave with passion and they moan with pleasure, a gauzy and bodice-ripping sexy. And that sexiness is what gives the love story its strength. By making the sexual aspect of vampirism explicit, by making Stoker's subtext text, the film humanizes Dracula and makes Mina's attraction to him more understandable. In this light, even casting Keanu Reeves as Johnathan makes a certain sense. Johnathan is set up as the safe, boring contrast to the dangerous but sensual Dracula and Reeves plays him as that kind of unaffectionate but stable husband smart young women like Mina are often saddled with. That's what this film needs him to be, it's a Harlequin Romance with Dracula in place of Fabio.

Bram Stoker's Dracula is much different kind of Dracula film. Purists of Stoker's novel will hate it for the changes it makes despite its other fidelities and those seeking a straight up blood and guts vampire flick will be equally disappointed. But those of you who can dig on its romance and fantastic visuals should have a great time with this film. Oldman's Dracula is definitely the highlight but there's also great turns by a delightfully hammy Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing and the underrated performance of Winona Ryder. Equal parts creepy and heartfelt, it'd be a great date movie for fans of classic horror.

Not for everyone, but it's fantastic visuals still earn it a recommendation.

Final Score: 4/5