Bram Stoker's Dracula (1897 & 1992)

Though Bram Stoker's Dracula is considered by many to be a permanent fixture of English literature, having just finished it, I find myself torn on how I feel about it. On the one hand, the opening third or so is pretty creepy at points, and I love the folklore aspect, arbitrary and silly as it can sometimes be; on the other, it may be one of the most dreadfully boring and irritating books I've ever read, with most of the story consisting of the characters standing around discussing what their plan of action should be while Dracula runs around off-screen. That perhaps wouldn't be a serious issue were it not for the characters themselves, especially the women in attendance, and the way they repeat themselves endlessly from one chapter to the next. So, not my favorite, needless to say.

However, we're not talking about the book today. No, sir, we've gathered here to talk about Francis Ford Coppola's wonderful, operatic retelling of the novel; an adaptation that stays fairly faithful to the novel, especially in its imagery and structure, but still takes plenty of liberties with it, starting with the very opening of the film. Gary Oldman's Dracula isn't a gothic monster like Count Orlok, but instead a romantic beast at the heart of a twisted love story that spans centuries. Hollywood adaptations and pasted-on love stories are nothing new, and are something usually unfortunate, but here it breathes new life into a story that, at least in my opinion, really needed it.

I have to say upfront that I didn't love Winona Ryder's character. I think her acting is alright, and looking back I can see ways you could explain away her more unpleasant qualities as being the result of possession or even just memory of previous lives coming back to her, but the way she floats between the man she is betrothed to marry and a stranger she's only just met makes her seem a little heartless. Perhaps more scenes of her with Dracula or indeed with her fiance wouldn't have gone amiss to make a few things clearer, but then I remember that her fiance is played by Keanu Reeves, suffering through the worst British accent a professional actor has ever attempted, and so retract my suggestion. On the whole though, performances are excellent: Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing, Tom frikkin' Waits as Renfield, and best of all, as previously mentioned, Gary Oldman as the best Count Dracula to ever grace the screen.

The visuals and music are the film's strongest qualities. Practical effects dazzle and cause one to lament that films just aren't made like this anymore. The brilliant ambers and crimsons of the film, along with ornate costuming, interior decoration, and wonderful orchestral scoring make this a film that felt classic as soon as it landed in '92. An appreciation for retro cinema, however, is the truest stroke of genius the film has up its sleeve. It's historically appropriate, but it also fits the retro feel of the story. 

In the end, the film left me wishing for a bit more with some of its story elements, but in the broad strokes this is the best adaptation of Dracula I've ever seen, and that rare Hollywood epic with lots of money and talent behind it that actually knows how to utilize it. It feels like it comes from a bygone era, the likes of which we may never see again. For now though, I'm perfectly satisfied with it as the definitive Dracula.