From: mvburke@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (mary virginia burke)
Subject: Re: Dracula?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:44:43 GMT

In <Jan11.054553.58982@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> hillyard@CS.ColoState.EDU (kevin paul hillyard) writes:

>In article <C0o5L6.Ewy@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> burdickd@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Dakin Burdick) writes:
>>Well, I'll discuss it, if only to get it out of my system!
>>
>>I was appalled by the movie.  I almost walked out of it, and I 
>>would have if I hadn't been on a date at the time.  The following
>>problems applied:
>>
>>1.  Stoker's version was savaged, changed into a teen-slasher with
>>    blood vomiting and breasty women in negligees.  The characters
>>    were all transformed into angst-ridden characters with little
>>    redeeming virtue.  The women were sluttish, but the guys were too,
>>    and actually so was Van Helsing!  And naturally the doctor was
>>    was turned into a drug addict (another tidbit that never went
>>    anywhere).

>Ahhhmmm... excuse me, but have you even read the novel?  It's a VERY sexual
>and erotica story, especially for that time period... I thought the outfits
>were very appropriate...

Ahhhmmm yourself--I've read it a number of times, most recently right after 
seeing this appalling travesty, and sure, it's got plenty of eroticism in it;
the vital difference is that Stoker doesn't lay it on with a trowel the way 
Coppola does. Lucy and Mina and the rest of them are portrayed in the novel
as genuinely virtuous people in whom unaccustomed passions are stirred; they
do NOT spend their time talking in double entendres, flitting around the garden
in wet chiffon gowns, and looking at dirty pictures.  Van Helsing is a much
less eccentric/crude character than FFC makes him, Dr. Seward is NOT a junkie,
Arthur and Quincey are NOT caricatures of English nobility and Texan macho,
respectively. 

>>2.  The plot never got going; Coppola tried to cram too much in and
>>    the result was a confusing mess.  Renfield was well-played, but
>>    never did much, and Dracula's various appearances were more
>>    amusing than scary.  In fact, there was little thrill in the movie
>>    at all.

>Crammed too much in?  Have you seen any of the other so-called Dracula movies
>out there?  The only thing they have in common is the main characters' name...
>They didn't even try to get his looks right....  Last time I checked, Coppola's
>rendition was set to be a faithful adaptaion of the novel.... and he "crammed
>too much in" to follow the original storyline... granted, the movie could have
>been a little longer, but at a little over 2 hours already, it was pushing it.

I don't believe that FFC even took a look at the damn book; he said he got the
script from Winona Ryder, who got it from a friend who assured her that THIS
was the Real McCoy--the fact that either of them fell for it would seem to 
indicates that they haven't read it.  The screenplay is liberally larded with
incidents that have nothing whatsoever to do with the book, e.g.:

-Mina's encounters with Drac/Prince Vlad in England--ALL of them.  She never
met the guy except as an enemy.  The absinthe-drinking and teardrops-into-
diamonds and pet-the-wolf and nudies-at-the cinematograph nonsense were com-
plete fabrications, which I can only assume were put in to add Victorian
flavor. Why not have Jack the Ripper make an appearance while we're in the
neighborhood?  Or the Elephant Man?
-The material at the beginning about the "historic" Vlad, apart from being
fairly inaccurate (I don't believe he had a wife who committed suicide nor
that he ever renounced his religion), has nothing to do with the story; Stoker
KNEW something about Vlad, but never framed the tale as Dracula's search for
his lost love.
-Dracula is supposedly a fairly normal-seeming old geezer when Jonathan first
meets him, rather than this bizarre caftan-clad freak FFC gives us; there is no
room with the magical bed for Jonathan to stumble upon.  The place is spooky,
but not psychedelic.  
-The whole quasi-Messianic nonsense at Drac's death is also interpolated; he
is never portrayed by Stoker as anything but an evil, unnatural thing to be
exterminated for the sake of his victims' souls.

>>
>>3.  The acting was appalling.  The hero was completely unconvincing
>>    and had a british accent like that of Kevin Costner in Robin Hood
>>    (BAD!).  The only two characters that were well-done were Van 
>>    Helsing and Winona Ryder's characters, although the actors weren't
>>    given much to work with.

>Acting comments are always opinions, but here I disagree again.... mainly 
>because Coppola has been around long enough not to let his actors act 
>"appalling", as you put it...

I don't think it's strictly legit to argue that FFC wouldn't  "let" his actors
act badly; there have certainly been cases of good directors and good actors
combining to create seriously non-good movies.  And considering how dreadful 
the script was, FFC was fighting quite an uphill battle this time....At any
rate, I thought the acting was pretty strange at best, and laughable at times.
Oldman in particular left me cold--he seems quite unable to convey deep,
timeless passion by any means except a) bellowing (at the beginning) and b)
going all glassy-eyed.  I mean, I saw a change of facial expression, but really
couldn't feel that there was much of anyone living behind those eyes.  Reeves
was also a complete lox, Winona slightly less so--she also seems to lack that
depth of passion that she's supposed to be feeling.  Fatally twisted casting
on this one.


>I'm not trying to be a jerk, just stating my two cent's worth, as you did...
>but I think that a lot of people would agree with me...

Well, I guess a lot of people must have, given the number of raves I've seen
this flick get (enough to make me wonder if we'd seen the same movie).  I 
can't deny that I WAS perversely entertained by the whole thing, but really,
it was completely impossible for me to take it in the spirit in which it was
intended, whether as a seriously scary, seriously suspenseful, or seriously
romantic movie.  I admit that a large part of my distaste springs from the
fact that FFC purports to have done us the favor of FINALLY producing the
definitive, true, straight-from-Stoker's-mouth Dracula when in fact the film
has little in common with the source beyond the names and occupations of the
main characters; it just strikes me as being really cavalier and irresponsible
about one's art when a director can't take the trouble to READ THE GODDAMN BOOK
in the first place.  The rummage-sale Victoriana and crudely overstated sexual
tensions also irritated me, not to mention the ghastly seriousness of this
supposedly grand love story they've conjured up out of a hat.  What a mess.

Cheers--MVB

"Be varned."--Dracula (FFC's)







Newsgroups: alt.horror