What next? Himmler as a Salvation Army worker?

Rating: 7/10 (23 November 2004)

I was hardly 13 when I first borrowed the book from my local library. Stoker's language is thoroughly Victorian but much better than that of a Henry James. But he does have the knack for building up the atmosphere for terror and horror. He is a master of that, not just in this classic but in short stories such as The Squaw and Judge's House. I will not be surprised if there is universal consensus that the book made a lasting impression on all those who read it. My first Dracula film was also around that time. It was the Lee/ Cushing classic 'Horror of Dracula' on one of the many re-run tours. That was an effectively terrifying film which can deprive a young lad of sleep for many nights, when just a rustling curtain on a moonless night makes you pee. The story was not exactly faithful to Stoker but the broad outline conformed. Most people know the story or would have read a synopsis elsewhere, so I will not get into that. It is not easy to translate that horror to screen, and to avoid getting cheap like the Elm Street folks. Sequels followed and several other versions appeared with different actors, but none came to close this one (Salem's Lot was a reasonably good rendition of the book but commercially available tapes and DVDs are severely edited).
Then in 1992 Coppola made his 'Dracula'. Coppola's Dracula had the best visuals. I think no one can surpass this master film-maker for the sets of the castle, the use of visual signals, the final chase and so many other things. Take the scene where the masked horseman picks up Harker at the pass. That was one great scene. And then, when Harker enters the castle for the first time. Nice touches like the Count's letter signed 'D' (people don't write like that anymore, do they?), the doomed schooner, I can go on. All these make this film visually an intensely satisfying experience, at least for fans of classic horror like me. When I think of the ill-conceived and inconsistent story lines, and bad direction of recent films like Sixth Sense and The Others (let alone your teenager slasher films), I think this film stands out. To repeat, visually, this is the best Dracula ever made.
Do I have any reservations about this movie? A big one, and posing as an influential critic for a moment, I will cut one full star, hold that, a star and a half, from five stars for that big reservation. Coppola, paying homage to the touchy-feely, post-modern and politically correct early 1990s, wants us to 'understand' Dracula. He humanizes the fellow. And that robs Dracula of his character; his entire character, and leaves the story an insipid, tame one. It is all the more disappointing because the opening sequences are so good that you hope to see more. I do not think I am giving away anything (I hope not).
According to Coppola, Prince Vlad (Stoker based his Dracula on this ruthless Slavic prince) is a regular sort of chap. He is a defender of Christianity against the advancing Ottoman Turks. Some Turkish chicanery leads to his wife committing suicide (to be reincarnated as Minna in an English Household). Vlad (not yet 'Dracul' the 'vampyr') returns home and mourns. In his anger, he loses faith and desecrates the church; and of course, because of that becomes the undead. About two to three hundred years later, he realizes that his darling is growing up as Minna in London. He wants to be reunited. So the ruse for buying a house in London. He has no plans for a British green card or work permit. He just wants to get her and come back home to Transylvania. If he has to bite a few lasses on the way for sustenance, so be it. He is really not a bad guy you know!
This is the cheesiest part of the movie's script, and it really damages an otherwise excellent film. Vlad was only an outline for Dracula. The character of Dracula derives from unmitigating evil. As Stoker tells us, he practised the arts of necromancy during his 'life', and was condemned to be the undead for all his deeds. The undead have no feelings of mercy. They only have feelings of pleasure and survival. Both derive from from eternal existence and blood sucking. It is hinted in the book that the Count has three consorts for sensual pleasures too. Until Harker gets rid of them! The Count wants to move to London because the locals in Transylvania are getting hostile, and London is a naively scientific place where he can go about unfettered and undiscovered. The Count goes after Minna in particular for revenge and for a replacement companion. Not because he always wanted her. That is the essence of Dracula. He is condemned to be the eternal undead until someone decides to liberate his soul. Till then, he will spread his evil because that is the only thing he knows, can think of and does. That is the vampire for you!
Unfortunately, all this is lost in Coppola. I think he could have made an even better film without the cheesy concession to the post-modernists. Teenybop Romance has no place in a serious work like this. That said, casting is pretty good in this film. Gary Oldman is very good as the older Dracula. I am not so sure about his Slavic look with those dreadlocks. Keanu Reeves never looks reassuring to anyone, and he fits the role of the whining Harker very well. Anthony Hopkins does a good job as Van Helsing.
All in all, I would recommend you watch this movie with minimal lighting and no interruptions. It is a decent movie.