fantastic film - decent adaptation

Rating: 9/10 (24 March 2017)

Being a fan of Gothic literature, it often bothers me that these famous stories are so often misrepresented by Hollywood and edited so the only recognisable thing left in them is the monster itself and maybe a certain lead hero. Such examples of this can be found with Dr Frankenstein and his monster, Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, and Dracula and Van Helsing. As a result on certain occasions a film adaptation will come along, claiming to be actually 'accurate' to the novel it's based on. Such is the case with Francis Ford Coppola's 1992 adaptation: Bram Stoker's Dracula.
What's interesting about this adaptation is that while it follows the plot of the book very accurately, it fails to match the tone or the mood of the novel entirely – a feat previously accomplished much better in Hammer's 1958 film version. The Gothic element is almost entirely lost in this adaptation as Coppola seems to be more fixated on adapting the sexual undertones of the book rather than its atmosphere. While the book will simply imply some sexual moments between certain characters, Coppola overtly sexualises certain characters in peculiar ways (this is most notable when looking at the character of Lucy). Yet despite this emphasis on sex, he seems to deliberately leave out many homosexual messages the book contains.
This is my main problem with this film as, despite Gary Oldman delivering a fantastic performance of the infamous character, Dracula here is written as too heterosexual in my opinion. When studying the book, I noted many hints that strongly imply that the Count has a strong sexual attraction to Johnathon – something which would have considered horrifying to the Victorian audience it was written for.
Most of the other casting choices are sheer perfection. Anthony Hopkins, Winona Ryder, and Richard E. Grant all deliver performances so suited to their novel counterparts, that when I read the book now, I can hear their voices in my mind whenever their respective characters speak. The castings of Keanu Reeves and Saddie Frost as Johnathon and Lucy just do not work however, as one simply cannot do a British accent to save his life, and the other is over acting to a point where you would never believe she would be allowed out of the house in the Victorian England setting. In a modern setting I wouldn't have a problem with her performance, however it tears me out of the believability.
From an artist's perspective of the world, this film truly is spectacular. Visually this film is a treat: choosing to focus on practical effects rather than computers, and making every scene and transition between fascinating to look at. As a film on its own, it is masterfully crafted, and dripping with atmosphere – even it's so over the top that it stretches beyond believability and does not accurately represent that which the book created. For students who wish to watch a film adaptation of the book they're studying, I would redirect them to Jesse Franco's Count Dracula (1970) starring legend Christopher Lee as the title character and Klaus Kinski; who plays the best Renfield ever put to screen. The budget, and art direction may not be up to par with this film, resulting in a much lower quality movie, however it is more successful of matching the tone of the book and follows the actual plot line just as well as this film does.