From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: BSD (Dracula) - Who to root for? (SPOILERS)
Date: 16 Nov 92 18:23:19 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1992Nov16.154846.5645@b8.b8.ingr.com>  
anthony@panzer.b17b.ingr.com (Anthony Shipman) writes:
> Bravo, Andrew, Bravo! I'm damn tired of hearing these whiners pick  
apart Coppola's
> film ("But Madame Curie wasn't famous in 1897..." et al.) when it  
is obviously
> greatly superior to any Vampire film since 1932's "Vampyre." Some  
of these morons
> seem to be complaining because the movie has sympathetic anti-hero  
instead of a
> caped cliche; while others complain because "it's not the way I  
would
> have made the movie." I can't believe some have actually complained  
about Dracula
> changing forms TOO MANY TIMES! Gee, Dracula's only taken multiple  
forms in
> every movie since Lugosi's 1931 version.

AH, I see. Anybody that didn't share your view of Dracula is
a whiner and a moron.  I'm so glad you can discuss the film
on such intellectual terms.  

By the way, there have been other complaints other than the
ones you mentioned. I liked the film, but thought it was
flawed for several reasons:

-- Coppola's pacing is off. The movie seems to drag in parts.
-- Van Helsing is all wrong, particularly when he seems to 
   be used for comic relief. In these cases, he comes off as 
   plain silly. ("No, I don't want to perform an autopsy. I just
   want to take out her heart and cut off her head."  A rather
   dumb line to utter, when you are trying to convince several
   very upset people of the necessity of performing an illogical
   and seemingly insensitive act.)

By the way, whoever complained about the number of form changes had
a valid point, for a very important reason. You're right that
in the older movies, Dracula also changes form a lot. However,
in those, the possible extent of these changes are defined (as
are the rest of Dracula's powers).  In Coppola's film, the
extent of these powers are not defined. We don't have Van Hesling
(as he did in the book and in the Lugosi film) explain that
the vampire can appear as mist, as a bat, as a wolf, etc. Thus,
the audience is left with the feeling that he can change to
any old form he wants to, which hurts the realism. Fantasy works
best when the powers of the character (supernatural or not) are
known, so that he can't just pull another rabbit out of his hat.

> 
> Take the movie on it's own terms, not yours! By any intelligent  
standards,
> Coppola's Dracula is an excellent film. Turning Dracula into a  
tragic, even
> Byronic, hero is not easy by any means, and I dare say it is beyond  
the
> capability of anyone reading this net!
> 

I won't try to debate all the absurdities in your last paragraph,
but will just pick on one: taking the film on its own terms.
Any film that is a remake or that is based on  a well-known character
CANNOT be simply taken on its own terms. In the case of Dracula,
it is even harder to do so since even some of the dialogue
is from the play or the earlier versions of the film (or from
the book).  Unless you're not a movie fan and have thus never
seen the previous versions (the Lugosi version, in particular),
there is no way you can't compare it to those, and to think of
the older versions as you watch.

By the way, this evocation of earlier versions is not a bad 
thing. Copolla obviously intended it; why else would he
emphasize the two most famous lines from the Lugosi Dracula
("I never drink .... wine" and "The children of the night ....   ")?


--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com