Secure Immaturity

One Christmas, my parents gave me a copy of Dracula illustrated by Charles Keeping. These Frankenstein illustrations give a taste of what the illustrations felt like, but the Dracula ones were so much better. The Count looked old and appropriately creepy, and I stared at the picture of Renfield and his flies over and over again. (To this day, I hate flies.) I loved that book, and I read it and reread it.

The film adaptations of Dracula didn’t do much for me. The films cut Renfield, Mina, or Jonathan, and sometimes, they cut all three. I was solidly a fan of the book, and none of the films held up to it.

I don’t remember what spurred me to see Bram Stoker’s Dracula, but I was floored. Finally, a movie finally tried to faithfully adapt the book to the screen, and I fell in love. The Count looked like a scary old man in Transylvania. Lucy Westenra was delicate and tragic, and finally, we had a Renfield. I couldn’t stop gushing about this movie, but please forgive me, I was only 13. I was just happy to see something that looked like the Dracula that I knew.

I went back to have a look at Bram Stoker’s Dracula for the first time in years, and well… it’s OK. Most people complain about Keanu Reeves, and he’s not very good. But, Keanu isn’t the real weak link in the movie. After the first third of the the story, Jonathan Harker mostly serves as a exposition, and he’s not really that essential.

As far as the actors go, Winona Ryder’s performance harms Dracula more than Reeves. Her Mina doesn’t have any fire, and her accent fades in and out strangely. She pales next to the other actors losing the character’s strength in the process.

Anthony Hopkins’ Van Helsing presents a more complicated problem. He doesn’t express any of the kindly charm that Stoker’s Van Helsing has. Hopkins’ Van Helsing does not seem like a rational man who has come to the conclusion that monsters walk the Earth. He only embodies a sinister, anti-feminist religion. (Joe Hill taps into for his most excellent story Abraham’s Boys.)

Aside from that, The film loses the thread of the novel’s most important theme. In Dracula, nature works as force of corruption and evil, and the Carpathians some of the attractive vistas should look so beautiful. The heroes conquer Dracula through the power of civilization and Anglicanism, and Coppola’s England is just a little too real and a little too sinister. Dr. Seward’s asylum illustrates the films problems the case for it. The hospital is just too Bedlam for it, and John Seward is not enough of a rational scientist. The film emphasizes his weaknesses at the cost of the his basic rationality.

The themes are certainly contained in the book, but the problems romanticize Dracula. He’s not longer a monster; he’s a misunderstood hero from Transylvanian legend. The origin undercuts Dracula’s unexplainable evil by, well, explaining it.

Bram Stoker’s Dracula worth a watch for Gary Oldman, the costumes, and the complete lack of digital effects, which is somehow soothing and innovative. But, the acting and the thematic choices mar the overall movie.

Comments RSS