From: wildman@athena.mit.edu (Timothy Worsley)
Subject: Re: Dracula - Francis Ford Coppola
Reply-To: eprice@sybase.com
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:48:24 GMT

(Warning: Mostly I'm just gonna agree with the quoted article.
Thanks, Yong-Mi, whoever you are, for sparing me the effort to write
my own "review"!  So this is going to be a pretty boring posting...)

In article <1992Nov15.022930.17538@wam.umd.edu>
kimy@wam.umd.edu (Yong-Mi Kim) writes:

>First, I wouldn't classify this movie under the headings of horror or
>thriller.  It's a very Romantic (not in the Harlequin books sense, but
>as used by lit crits) fever dream.  The movie has a feverish
>quality to it, a very decadent, fin-de-siecle feel.  In that sense the
>sets are not required to be realistic, but rather they should reflect
>the inner turmoil of the characters (consider the set design in the
>original _The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari_).

I agree with every point.

>The use of shadows seemed to be an explicit reference to Murnau's
>_Nosferatu_.  In general, Coppola seemed to have decided to go overboard
>with everything: cinematography, camerawork, special effects, costumes,
>fake blood.  I liked this display of excess; in fact, I wished he'd
>gone further, and thought the movie might have been more interesting,
>though probably less commercially viable, if he had collaborated with
>Ken Russell (the impaled bodies reminded me of a scene in Russell's
>_The Lair of the White Worm_).  Also, the atmosphere of the movie
>reminded me a bit of Russell's _Gothic_.

The shadows, yeah.  Also "I don't drink ... wine", which I thought was
a well-delivered line.  One could argue that there may even be some
Lam Ching Ying ("Mr. Vampire") influence in a scene or two...  I can't
say that having Ken Russell involved occurred to me.  I'm not so sure
about that.

Anyway, I'm hardly an expert on vampires, vampire movies, Stoker's
original story, or anything.  But the point that I really find the
most interesting is what was said above, that the film was excessive,
but could have been a lot more excessive.  I had the feeling that
Coppola made a *very* "safe" film, one that gives the impression of
strangeness without really challenging anyone's ideas or conventions,
with respect to the story, the characters, the themes, or the filmic
technique (which was stylish, but not at all radical).  Although I
enjoyed the movie, I ended up thinking that it could have been just as
entertaining but *also* ten times more interesting if Coppola had
really pulled out all the stops and tried to freak me out.  For pure
entertainment it was fun, but I'm not sure this will be something I
will want to watch again and again.

>I did not find the movie confusing or hard to follow; I think some
>degree of cinematic literacy is required of the viewer of this
>_Dracula_, as well as some awareness of the cultural/social milieu
>of Victorian England.  I do wholeheartedly recommend watching Murnau's
>_Nosferatu_, which I consider one of the best film treatments of the
>vampire legend.

I agree with all of this too.  Except I don't know anything about the
cultural/social milieu of Victorian England...  I wouldn't worry about
it.  In some ways it's possible that the *less* you know the more
you'll enjoy the movie, because it will seem more original.
("Ignorance is bliss.")  At least, I got the feeling I was seeing
something fairly different from the usual Dracula/vampire flick.

Oh, one more thing: I didn't like the acting for the most part.  In
particular I thought Keanu Reeves was not believable.  Whether this is
because I'm a fool, or Keanu is a lousy actor, or he was badly cast,
or the script sucked, or (this is the answer I think) because he's
such a recognizable personality -- a star -- that one cannot accept
the reality of his character when it is so far-removed from the actor.
(ie, POINT BREAK, for example, did not have this problem because the
character he played did not conflict with my knowledge of his other
roles or what may or may not be his real personality, etc.).

Anthony Hopkins also had this problem.  There were at least two lines
that seemed like an obvious reference to his character in Silence of
the Lambs.  At least, the audience certainly took them that way (lots
o' intertextual hilarity).  I didn't like that at all, because (1) I
hate Silence of the Lambs, and (2) it interfered with being involved
in the film itself.  (These things call attention to the man behind
the curtain, so to speak...)  Actually, I was having such a good time
during the opening part of Dracula (the pre-credit sequence) that I
was kind of annoyed by the appearance of the title on the screen.

I wonder if the director's cut will be better -- ie, more excessive?
There were times when it seemed obvious that there had been material
cut from the movie.  Maybe nothing quite so outrageous as certain
atrocities perpetrated against Argento's work (eg the hanging sequence
from SUSPIRIA) but still, it's becoming very annoying that it is
impossible to see so many films the way they were intended to be in a
theater, on the Big Screen (at least in the United States).
Laserdiscs are ok but can't compare to the real thing.

Anyway, thumbs up from me.  Not a perfect film but perfectly enjoyable.

$0.02,

-Ed (not Tim), eprice@sybase.com (not wildman@...), avoiding mention
of the "drug factor" in these film discussions so far, but don't let
that fool you.