“Dracula” both disappoints and annoys, particularly if you are an individual who has read the book beforehand. Everyone knows the story of the vampire count and his evil ways, but Coppola subverts the original and makes it both erotic and erratic. At turns surreal, thrilling, horrific and bewilderingly inchorent, Francis Ford Coppola’s adaptation of the original vampire story is visually amazing, but in every other sense unintentionally hilarious and incredibly hammy. Whether this is Coppola’s intent, or another example of his faded skills as a filmmaker, this reviewer cannot tell. What is clear is that this is a film of indulgence and nothing more.
The saddest thing about this film is the wealth of acting talent on display. Gary Oldman is great here as the eponymous Count, and quite rightly is the best thing about the film. It’s a shame that the rest of the cast cannot live up to his standards, particularly Anthony Hopkins, who seems to have stumbled on-set with no idea of what he was doing. Hiring Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder to play posh, British characters was also a pretty foolish move, as you might imagine. Reeves and Grant could be said to be the stars here, but as Dracula, Oldman is the main character of focus, and his performance is brilliant, if camp. He has the rare ability to become a totally different person in any role, with any performance, and you really forget that it’s Lt. Stansfield/Sirius Black/James Gordon hamming it up as Count Dracula. As said before, Oldman is failed by the rest of the cast and the fact that Coppola had decided not to adapt the story as it was, but to create an erotic thriller with the legend of Dracula thrown in.
Keanu Reeves, Richard E. Grant, Anthony Hopkins, Cary Elwes and even Tom Waits are the more than excellent support for Gary Oldman. But as no-one but Reeves and Hopkins are given much time on-screen, it can be seen as a real waste of talent. Reeves is terrible at convincing us that he’s English, and like Ryder, it’s a shame they’ve been taken out of their comfort zone and forced to play totally different characters to any they have before. Hopkins is just ridiculous as Van Helsing, the man who just might be able to solve the mystery surrounding Dracula, and his over-the top performance means that Grant and Waits, who both play interesting and detailed characters, are in mere short scenes that only hint at what could have been.
Winona Ryder is one of two women featured in the film, and as such should probably be considered the female “star”. Though her performance suggests the name is a little undeserved!
Unlike Keira Knightley has managed to achieve, Ryder can’t be taken seriously in period dramas, and her accent is terrible. Her and Reeves, in this film at least, are a match for each other in their staid performances, when they should be leading the film and making you care for them; something that never happened for this reviewer. Sadie Frost (yup, Jude Law’s ex) plays Lucy Westenra, who succumbs to Dracula’s charms. And despite this being quite a good acting performance, she doesn’t have much to do, and disappeared from films after making this one. It’s a shame, as she plays Lucy as the fun-loving, man-chasing woman that she is made out to be in the book, but Coppola makes her a whore, and it’s a shame to see that a good performance is lost through a bad adaptation.
The film, for what it’s worth, looks fantastic, with the physical effects in particular quite impressive. However, some aspects of the film are overlooked so that others may appear more sensational and sumptuous, and so the film loses out even from the one thing that it actually has going for it. Coppola had a turbulent time leading up to this film and after “Apocalypse Now”, going bankrupt. This film was likely not cheap, and some of the visuals (epic castle sets, a recreated 18th century London) certainly reflect that. But whilst focusing on this, and on the new, erotic bent to the story, Coppola loses what makes the original book so good; its characters, and the ambiguity of the Count. Throwing it all out for the audience to see takes away the menace and power of Stoker’s narrative.
Most of what Oldman says is in some sort of awful, Romanian accent that can’t actually be understood, and that takes away from his performance somewhat. However, the parts of the film that adhere to the book’s epistolary structure (ie. when letters and diaries convey plot to the reader) are that much more dramatic because they’re taken from the book wholesale; in short, Coppola does best when he ACTUALLY adapts from the book. Disturbing, grim and heavy are the best words to describe the soundtrack; just as it should be in a film like this, about such a figure. Tragedy and horror aplenty is conveyed through the soundtrack, and this is one of the better parts of the film. Shame about that Annie Lennox song in the credits though.
This is where Coppola strikes gold; just as with the horse’s head in “Godfather” and with the ‘Ride of the Valkyries’ scene in “Apocalypse Now”, the director provides some visuals that stick in the mind. Whether it is the shadow of the wizened count having a life of its own in the castle, or the heroes’ discovery of the Count’s first victim, and their meeting, Coppola manages somehow to make it both memorable and disturbing. It’s a shame that in his quest for this, he has neglected the story, as the film could have been much, much better if he had got a balance.
For such a famous and revered literary classic as “Dracula”, Coppola’s film is a poor adaptation, despite its few bright lights, Oldman in particular.
4/10
No comments:
Post a Comment