From: kuchling@mgm.lan.mcgill.ca (Andrew KUCHLING)
Subject: REVIEW: BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA
Reply-To: kuchling@mgm.lan.mcgill.ca (Andrew KUCHLING)
Organization: SOCS - Mcgill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:35:52 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.movies
Summary: r.a.m.r. #01603
Keywords: author=Kuchling

                            BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA
		       A film review by Andrew Kuchling
			Copyright 1992 Andrew Kuchling

Directed by Francis Ford Coppola

     My foremost memory from this movie: The batlike form of the Count
has vanished, and the vampire hunters tense, waiting for the next
onslaught.  Soon enough, it comes; suddenly a horrid mass appears, a
shape of grey covered with pinkish--what, exactly?  Tentacles?
Worms?  The form remains standing long enough for memories of all the
myriad revolting creatures of Lovecraft's Cthulhu mythos to come 
rushing back, and then it collapses into a squirming mound of rats
which run in all directions, seeking for escape and darkness in which
to pool their various fragments of Dracula's evil.

     Point:  Movies, like all works of art and literature, are distant
mirrors in which we see our own concerns reflected.  Thus, an
optimistic person tends to put the most positive highlight on things,
preferring to see reminders of good in the most depressing tragedy;
other people also impose their own interpretations upon the story.  But
in order for this to be possible, a movie must be complex enough,
loosely structured enough, to allow us flexibility in twisting its 
events to our point of view.  Simple movies one can forget five minutes
after walking out of the theater; intricate movies can be brooded over
for weeks and watched repeatedly, increasingly pleasurable with each
viewing.  

     In my pretentiously ornate style, the previous paragraph is
leading up to my opinion that DRACULA is one such wonderfully
multi-leveled movie.  Coppola has managed to evoke many memories
throughout the movie; it resonates exactly with my subconscious,
reminding me of H. P. Lovecraft and Conan Doyle, of paintings and myths
and dreams.  Don't take any of this to mean the storyline is hard to
follow; scriptwriter James V. Hart has done his job very well and kept
me fascinated throughout the film's course.  I recommend it highly,
and suggest you see it at once, for I'm not sure how well it will do
at the box office.  I don't think The Phantom would like it much, since
while there are a few truly frightening moments, there is no sustained
terror building toward a climax.  Indeed, Prince Vlad (as perfectly
played by Gary Oldman) doesn't seem very terrifying; you feel sorry for
him, stuck in an undead state he no longer desires, pining for a dead
love.  This is not a classical horror film; it feels more like a
Dickens Dracula, a story of character development.  

     <Small spoilers follow-- if you've read the novel, you know about
them already.>

     This is also not the Bram Stoker novel, either in the fine details
of the plot or in the approach.  This is not a portrayal of real events;
it is emphatically a film, designed to tell a story while adding subtext
to it.  As a train carrying Jonathan Harker passes through the
Carpathians, an eye appears in the sky to watch him.  Dracula's shadow
doesn't match the actions of his body, instead seeming to act out his
inner thoughts.  Scenes meld into one another;  dissolves leave just
enough overlap between transitions to blur the boundaries.  Humourous
juxtapositions are made, but you hate yourself for laughing when, just
after Lucy has been decapitated, we cut to a roast being carved in a
London public house.  Anthony Hopkin's Van Helsing has a knack for
inappropriate jokes, and there are numerous suspicious details in his
portrayal, actions and lines that lead me to  suspect an old connection
between him and his undead foe.  It is not a completely naturalistic
relation of events, and I fear this will alienate some audiences,
although I fervently hope I'm underestimating their tolerance of
cinematic games.   Expect long discussions of DRACULA in
rec.arts.movies, rivalling the "Deckard is a replicant" topics in length
of argument and counterargument.  

     Overall, this is not a movie to be missed.  It has immediately
leapt into my list of favorite movies, and I expect to be seeing it many
times.  Everything about BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA demonstrates Coppola's
mastery.  

Andrew Kuchling
fnord@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca