Though this film probably bears more resemblance to the original novel than any other film version, a movie called BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA should remain relatively faithful to the original story.
This film starts with the story of Vlad the Impaler, a sequence that is filmed well and gives a context for the story. After that, it starts where Bram Stoker starts the novel and for about twenty or so minutes, is faithful. Though Keanu Reeves clearly cannot do a British accent, this portion of the film is done well.
But then, things start to change. The novel and the film start to go their separate ways. The novel provides a motive for Dracula's desire to go to England; the film does not. There is also absolutely nothing resembling a love story in the novel, but considering that this film is made by Francis Ford Coppola, I am not surprised that there is one in the film.
I don't mind Coppola changing the story, though I wish he had picked some other title if he was going to do that. Where this film fails is in the ability to tell that story.
This film depicts a series of events that have very little linking them. If I had not read the novel right before watching this film, I would surely have been lost. Things happen, but we don't really know why or how. The best example I can think of for this is Arthur's change from a complete skeptic to a vampire hunter in less than five minutes. The film also makes heavy use of superimposed and flashing imagery that confused me as to what was real, what was dreamed, what was imagined, and what was "real but unreal."
This brings me to one of the strengths of the film. The depiction of the Gothic environment and terrifying moments of the story are laden with special effects. This, at the same time, is one of the film's flaws. The subtlety of the Dracula story and its many aspects--the hints towards the vampire's true nature, the transformation of Lucy, and the sexual innuendos--are lost. There is nothing subtle about this film, especially with the sexuality.
There is no doubt that one of the keys to the Dracula story is its sexual overtones. The bite of a vampire is, in many ways, a form of rape. But this film depicts the concept so explicitly that it loses the mysterious and Gothic mood. (Mina is probably the only female character we do not see topless.)
The same holds true for the film's depiction of blood. Blood, the root of the vampire, is also shown so frequently and in such high quantities that its subtle and mysterious nature is lost.
There are certain things that are true strengths for the film. I happen to really like one scene where a vampire is destroyed with the standard stake-through-the-heart with decapitation. In this scene, the vampire is decapitated, the head goes flying, and the scene immediately cuts to a dinner scene. A flying decapitated head is juxtaposed with roast beef. Enough to make you go vegetarian, no?
Also, even though the love story does not hold much as a story, it has a very fitting and suitable ending with heavy religious overtones. It tries to end the way it begins, and though it doesn't succeed, it gets pretty close.
As far as the characters go, I don't know what to say. None of them are developed, except maybe Dracula. It's hard to discuss characters or even care for them when we know so little about them from the way they are depicted. From what I saw, I can say the following: Van Helsing is an eccentric and unrealistically well-versed old man, Jonathan Harker is mute and weak (and suffers from unexplained hair color loss), Lucy is a playful and somewhat rebellious young lady, Mina is slightly uptight and very seduceable (is that a word?), and Dracula is an extremely emotional tragic villain (that's right, I feel sorry for the monster).
I still hope for the day when a film will be made that depicts Bram Stoker's novel faithfully. Until then, this film is the closest thing to it, but it's still far enough away that I don't think it deserves to bear the name of Dracula.
This film starts with the story of Vlad the Impaler, a sequence that is filmed well and gives a context for the story. After that, it starts where Bram Stoker starts the novel and for about twenty or so minutes, is faithful. Though Keanu Reeves clearly cannot do a British accent, this portion of the film is done well.
But then, things start to change. The novel and the film start to go their separate ways. The novel provides a motive for Dracula's desire to go to England; the film does not. There is also absolutely nothing resembling a love story in the novel, but considering that this film is made by Francis Ford Coppola, I am not surprised that there is one in the film.
I don't mind Coppola changing the story, though I wish he had picked some other title if he was going to do that. Where this film fails is in the ability to tell that story.
This film depicts a series of events that have very little linking them. If I had not read the novel right before watching this film, I would surely have been lost. Things happen, but we don't really know why or how. The best example I can think of for this is Arthur's change from a complete skeptic to a vampire hunter in less than five minutes. The film also makes heavy use of superimposed and flashing imagery that confused me as to what was real, what was dreamed, what was imagined, and what was "real but unreal."
This brings me to one of the strengths of the film. The depiction of the Gothic environment and terrifying moments of the story are laden with special effects. This, at the same time, is one of the film's flaws. The subtlety of the Dracula story and its many aspects--the hints towards the vampire's true nature, the transformation of Lucy, and the sexual innuendos--are lost. There is nothing subtle about this film, especially with the sexuality.
There is no doubt that one of the keys to the Dracula story is its sexual overtones. The bite of a vampire is, in many ways, a form of rape. But this film depicts the concept so explicitly that it loses the mysterious and Gothic mood. (Mina is probably the only female character we do not see topless.)
The same holds true for the film's depiction of blood. Blood, the root of the vampire, is also shown so frequently and in such high quantities that its subtle and mysterious nature is lost.
There are certain things that are true strengths for the film. I happen to really like one scene where a vampire is destroyed with the standard stake-through-the-heart with decapitation. In this scene, the vampire is decapitated, the head goes flying, and the scene immediately cuts to a dinner scene. A flying decapitated head is juxtaposed with roast beef. Enough to make you go vegetarian, no?
Also, even though the love story does not hold much as a story, it has a very fitting and suitable ending with heavy religious overtones. It tries to end the way it begins, and though it doesn't succeed, it gets pretty close.
As far as the characters go, I don't know what to say. None of them are developed, except maybe Dracula. It's hard to discuss characters or even care for them when we know so little about them from the way they are depicted. From what I saw, I can say the following: Van Helsing is an eccentric and unrealistically well-versed old man, Jonathan Harker is mute and weak (and suffers from unexplained hair color loss), Lucy is a playful and somewhat rebellious young lady, Mina is slightly uptight and very seduceable (is that a word?), and Dracula is an extremely emotional tragic villain (that's right, I feel sorry for the monster).
I still hope for the day when a film will be made that depicts Bram Stoker's novel faithfully. Until then, this film is the closest thing to it, but it's still far enough away that I don't think it deserves to bear the name of Dracula.