From: david.vaughan@rose.com (david vaughan)
Subject: Bram Stoker's Dracula
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 06:31:35 GMT
X-Gated-By: Usenet <==> RoseMail Gateway (v1.70)


Date Entered: 11-16-92 01:24
*** I have tried to avoid spoilers, but there may be some
*** which slipped in inadvertently.  Read at own risk.







I saw the new Dracula on opening night, and was generally pleased. 
The look and feel was incredible, perfect for a gothic piece like 
Dracula.  From a story standpoint, it worked best in the places, such 
as Harker's visit to Transylvania and the killing of Lucy, where it 
followed the book closely.  The whole reincarnation and romance 
plotline, as interesting as it was, didn't really fit well with the 
material that was lifted straight from Stoker.

I liked Hopkins as Van Helsing, although he certainly emphasized the 
characters darker aspects, such as his bluntness and obsessive 
personality.  Ryder, and most of the Vampire Killers were quite good. 
My only exception was Reeves as Jonathan.  I would have prefered to 
see Cary Elwes in the part.  Oldman's Dracula blew hot and cold for 
me.  He was at his best during Jonathan's visit to Transylvania.  The 
dark, cold, manipulative creature he played in this sequence was 
Dracula to a tee.  However, once the romance with Mina got under way, 
elements clearly influence by Rice began to creep in.  I don't have 
any problem with this, except I felt it was done in such a way as to 
weaken Dracula as a character.

The fact is, even the historical Vlad Tepes was a very unpleasant, 
thoroughly nasty character, and I have always felt that any 
'humanization' of Dracula would still have to account for the fact 
that he was based on one of history's most notorious tyrants. 
Ultimately, in the novel, Dracula functioned not so much as a 
character as a force of darkness whose lusts and schemes permeated 
every page, even though he was offstage most of the time. While I like 
the idea of putting more character into Dracula, I don't think there 
is really room for turning him 180 degrees into a reluctant, 
self-pitying vampire like Louis au Pointe du Lac, something that 
threatened to happen several times (he actually resisted putting the 
bite on Mina, and tried to talk her out of accepting his blood).  I 
would picture Dracula as somewhat wornout after 400 years of undeath, 
but determined to use his move to England as a chance to renew his 
lust for life.  Furthermore, while he may be world-weary, he is still 
Vlad the Impaler, a powerful warlord, who is more than willing to take 
what he wants, destroying physically or spiritually those who get in 
his way.

In summary, then, I felt that Bram Stoker's Dracula is probably as 
good a film version of the novel as we are likely to see.  While the 
characterizations were not always faithful, the gothic atmosphere was 
very well done, and it was a pleasure to see the basic plot of the 
novel on the big screen along with many scenes that just never seemed 
to make into the other versions.  It is my sincere hope that Hollywood 
will now let the old beast rest, and start putting some original 
pieces and adaptations of modern vampire classics (eg. Rice's 
Chronicles and Collins' Sunglasses After Dark) on the screen. 
Unfortunately, if this one makes money, the industry is likely to opt 
for more of the same.

David Vaughan
Hamilton, Ont., Canada
david.vaughan@rose.com
---
   RR 1.60 P002365: I never drink ... wine.   --  Dracula
                                       
---
   RR 1.60 P002365: I never drink ... wine.   --  Dracula
   RoseMail 2.00 : Usenet: Rose Media - Hamilton (416) 575-5363
Newsgroups: alt.hypertext