Bram Stoker’s Dracula
With the name of Francis Ford Coppola as director and an all-star cast including Anthony Hopkins, Winona Rider, Gary Oldman and Keanu Reeves, this is a film that definitely shows promise. Including the name of Bram Stoker himself in the title also implies that this adaptation is making an extra effort to stay faithful to the original story; it appears that this is indeed the case.
There are literally dozens of films that have played around with the most well-known of vampire myths but few have attempted to recreate the atmosphere and power of Stoker’s novel. Coppola went right back to the original for his screenplay and employed big name talent to pull the project off. The idea sounds perfect on paper but as so often happens, even to the most promising ideas, the end result is a mixed bag.
Firstly, there’s the cast. The interpretation of Dracula in this film is that of a tortured soul, consumed by the longing for lost love: Gary Oldman performs brilliantly here, portraying both the dark and human aspects of his character. Anthony Hopkins almost steals the show as the Count’s nemesis, Van Helsing, with his performance as the man who made hunting Dracula down his life’s work straddling the fine line between genius and eccentricity. These two actors alone almost make the film worth watching, which is fortunate considering some of the other characters are not so well cast. Winona Rider makes a fairly decent job as the innocent Mima Harker (her English accent could have been a lot worse) but Keanu Reeves is not at all convincing as her husband Jonathan and merely goes through the motions, presumably in the hope that his popularity with his fans will see him through.
In terms of the adaptation itself, the tragic romance side of the novel is given more emphasis, resulting in a tale that is more of a love story than a horror. In fairness though, it makes more of an effort than most films that go under the Dracula name to stay faithful to Stoker’s vision where possible. The melodramatic and theatrical prose of the novel for instance transfers well to the screen and Coppola makes use of this numerous times throughout the film. The scenery is superb, and gives the all-important dark, gothic atmosphere that the subject matter requires but there is still the nagging feeling that the romance side is overdone and not entirely necessary.
If you are going to make such an effort to keep to an eternally popular story, there is no need to complicate things with new ideas: if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it. As much as Oldman’s performance is perfect for this particular interpretation, is this really the same character that Stoker envisaged? It’s an interesting take and almost works perfectly but purists might be disappointed.
In Summary
An A-list director, working with an A-list cast and taking inspiration from a classic story has the potential to be a classic in its own right, but is not a guaranteed success either. As it is, Coppola’s Dracula is a visually impressive and (mostly) well acted retelling of one of the most famous stories in horror literature, even if it turns out as more of a love story than a straightforward horror. Because of this and one or two acts of miscasting it can’t be considered perfect but is closer to the original novel than most.
Leave a Reply