Bram Stoker’s Dracula (Francis Ford Coppola, 1992)

In the spirit of Friday the 13th, I settled down to watch this film. I am a big fan of the book, which I read about a month ago, so not surprisingly, I had high expectations for a film that refers to the original book’s author in its title (and the fact it was made by Coppola only increased those expectations). I was curious to see how it would compare with the visuals I created in my mind while reading the novel and how it would unravel in a two-hour film.

I don’t know if it was because I really wanted it to be faithful to a novel I consider one of my favourites − which is kind of an impossible feat − but I was slightly disappointed in this film. The main problem for me was that the complex plot line was condensed into the film in such a way that made it seemed like it was constantly moving to the next event. As a result, you never really understand the characters or get to know them. The book was full of suspense but this film didn’t have that same level. For instance, it’s not long after Jonathon Harker goes to Count Dracula’s castle that he starts to suspect his strange behaviour.

Unfortunately, the Dracula portrayed by Gary Oldman was also not how I imagined the character from reading his description in the book. To me, in the novel Dracula initially seemed like a gracious, intelligent, perhaps misunderstood and isolated character. There are descriptions of his curiosity about the world and the discussions he had with Harker. He was a good host to Harker in the beginning, whereas in the film we immediately see this old, frightening unhuman creation in front of our eyes, who seems to make almost no effort to be hospitable. Both the physical appearance and behaviour were just surprising for me, although, it does fit in with the stereotypical image of Dracula and vampires. I guess in my mind, Dracula was more relatable and as a result, Harker doesn’t immediately suspect him as some evil being (unlike in the film). In the book, I almost felt sympathy for Dracula in the beginning and was more realistic I suppose. Instead of the wild, hairy beast and bat-like creature we see in the film, I think the book gave him this slightly supernatural element (and that’s why Harker just deems him a little strange when he first sees him). He seemed decent enough in the book (at least at the beginning) but in the film we don’t even get a chance to understand him − this man with big grey hair, long nails and freaky white skin leaves you with almost no choice but to despise him as your typical villain.

Also, there’s no way I can’t mention the other actors in the film. Winona did quite a good job, particularly near the end, and Gary Oldman showed his mastery as Dracula, although I was slightly lost when we first see him talking to Mina on the street (as a Prince) and then meets up with her various times later on − I don’t remember that in the book or maybe it wasn’t that explicit. I found that personally, the book wasn’t that much about love and seduction. so maybe I missed some undertones in the novel but there was no doubt of this raw lust in the film.

But I have mixed feelings about Keanu Reeves as Harker. Whenever I see him I always think The Matrix and it was just hard to relate to his character because he seemed a little cold and it was just a little odd to see him in such a role. Anthony Hopkins brought his own representation of Van Helsing to the screen, however, though the character was one of my favourites in the book, I didn’t particularly like him in the film. The moment when the men are about to set off to kill Dracula, Van Helsing says something about Lucy being the demon’s lover and is so upbeat about it just really put me off.

However, on a more positive note, I admire the film’s artistic vision and the cinematography was pleasing to watch. I like Coppola’s unique interpretation of the atmosphere and tone of the film, with some surreal scenes, such as Harker being seduced by the female vampires in Dracula’s castle. Each time a victim is bitten, it is definitely not your stereotypical bite on the neck but a sensual and otherworldly experience that just mesmerises you − clearly this is not meant to be a grounded interpretation. Other interesting features, were Dracula’s shadows on the wall, which had a life of their own, as well as the clever cuts and fades in the film, such as the match cut between the severed head and the roast on a table.

The film had a positive reception when it was released and I think it was largely because as a film it is sufficiently engaging and has some admirable camerawork. However, that saying about books being better than films seems to hold true for this movie and I think many fans of the book would agree. Maybe the title should have been “Coppola’s Dracula” instead?

3/5