Coppola's Dracula Movie

 

I will say that the running time clocking in just at 2 hours would probably not happen if Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) would have been made today. So to wrap up my fresh viewing of Coppola's lavish retelling of the Stoker novel, while I agree that Reeves as Harker is probably not the wisest casting choice, he's surprisingly not in it as much as I thought I remembered. He's more or less a nuisance to Dracula. Quite frankly Harker has almost always been a boring character regardless of adaptation. But I personally like Ryder as Mina, while many others found disregard for her performance. She's certainly beautiful, and to me had chemistry with Oldman. Well, they seemed to fit within how Coppola wanted to frame the romantic side of the story he dedicates a ton of inspiration to. Crossing the oceans of time and all that so Dracula could find his Elisabeta again. And there is this grand seduction scene where Dracula bites Mina, she begs to feel what he does, seemingly surrendering to the undead eternity. He reluctantly accepts it, having sliced his chest for her to drink his blood. It's one of those scenes where it very much favors a blow job as Oldman is quite orgasmic while she drinks from his chest wound. And at the end, it isn't Van Helsing who actually confronts and defeats Dracula in a change of direction, with Harker surprisingly slicing his throat while Quincy stabs him right in the chest. But to keep with the romantic tragedy side of this overall adaptation, Coppola wants to follow through with Mina "releasing" Dracula, allowing him to be at peace while she decapitates him in the name of love. There's a rather badly acted moment by Reeves who tells his fellow heroes that their job is finished and Mina's isn't. His line deliveries just aren't particularly convincing. This just wasn't his film. But the film lays the romance on thick. I think that side of the film, so important to Coppola, could and does still alienate certain Dracula and horror fans. But this is a respectable story for the Academy to take the film seriously. All the excerpts of Elisabeta's death, Dracula's pain and forsaking God, and Mina's current dilemma at loving both Vlad and Harker is chum for Hollywood elites and the Academy. Coppola is distinguished while the horror genre is not.

But with all that being said, I got plenty of cool monsters Dracula transforms into, such as a hairy beast, shriveled green bat with wings, even a green mist. A green mist takes care of blabbermouth Tom Waits' padded cell Renfield, tended to from time to time by Grant's addict sanitarium head, Seward. Waits' fans got a unique interpretation of Renfield, Harker's superior who returned from Transylvania an insect-eating loon. This film leaves Harker behind to be a blood supply for Dracula's brides while we get quite a trip from Transylvania on the boat to London where Vlad feeds from crew members with strong blood spray scattering throughout the sails.

There are some nice winks and nods to the adaptations of the past. I appreciate the nod to "children of the night" and "blood is the life". That this vampirism isn't easy to deal with despite its advantages, with the lure of blood particularly daunting as an aged Dracula faces plenty of temptation with Harker around, is quite satisfyingly elaborated. The shaving moment and the dinner table where even Dracula's shadow reaches for Harker's throat are strong representatives of that. And as far as the romance goes, we even seen Dracula so broken, he cries tears of unusual color while his form is both man and creature. His second chance ruined by Mina's marriage to her ill fiance who happens to reach a convent after he escaped Dracula's castle. 

With how Oldman seems to be having quite a lark as the much older Dracula, so bereft of sustenance he slices his own tongue for blood fulfillment, he seems so much less entertaining in a youthful form, doting on Mina during a courtship by having her try absinthe as many Londoners enjoy silent film projected on a screen set up in a club like atmosphere.

So the studio spared no expense and Coppola knowing this got all his luxuries presented in exquisite detail on screen. It has its flaws and issues, different critics and horror fans targeting this or that. I've seen different critiques regarding characters, story decisions, the editing, overabundance on production (the budget could have probably funded ten of the usual films in the horror genre at the time), etc. Look through reviews on Letterboxd or the IMDb user comments...plenty are quite unkind.

I've spent three blog posts on it so I guess I like it enough. I wish I loved it. I certainly felt catered to as a lover of the Gothic horror aesthetic. Oldman is a great Dracula to me and rolls his Rs sufficiently. Hopkins has good stone-face crazy-eyes when thinking about Dracula. And Sadie Frost definitely writhes on her bed, hisses with face painted white, and kisses Ryder very well. So I will give it that. ***½ / *****