I don't remember too much of the movie, but I remember being anxious to see it because all of the publicity beforehand indicated that this was "Bram Stoker's" Dracula - presumably really faithful to the book for a change.
The only thing I specifically recall is the scene when Dracula has Mina drink from his vein. Â In the book I would compare that to a rape. Â He forced her to do this horrid thing. Â In the movie they made it like a love scene and she was quite willing. Â I don't remember whether the rest was fairly close to the book or not, that one drastic change infuriated me!
Oh-oh, Josette! Â You've pushed one of my hot buttons! Â But since you pose the question, I feel obligated to elaborate.
WARNING: I have strong views on the subject of Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula. Â I don't wish to antagonize anyone, so if you're a fan of this movie, please realize that this
is my honest
opinion and hopefully we can agree to disagree on this
one matter. Â That caveat aside ...
I, too, heard all the studio (and, alas, critical) hype when this movie came out. Â I was immediately skeptical, though, upon hearing/reading the breathless descriptions of the movie by various critics. Â What they said indicated to me that the movie diverged sharply from Bram Stoker's novel. Â Because of my high regard for the novel, I refused to see the movie for years. Â Finally, when it aired on cable a few years ago, my curiosity got the better of me. Â I tuned in, but I couldn't make it past the first half hour or so. Â I tried a second time some months later with the same results. Â Finally, perhaps a year or so later, I forced myself to sit through the entire thing.
To see a favorite book trivialized, mocked, and destroyed was sickening. Â The movie
generally followed the plot of the novel and the characters had the same names. Â
All similarities end there. Â The characters bore no relation to the characters Stoker created. Â The entire focus/intent of the book was turned upside-down. Â In Stoker's vision, Dracula is a force of horrifying evil who must be destroyed. Â Instead of the powerful but aged warrior Stoker describes at the beginning of the novel (and depicted quite well in the Dan Curtis version and to a "T" in the Spanish-made Christopher Lee version), Coppola presents a bizarre-looking freak. Â In place of the powerful figure of unmitigated evil who cuts a swath of destruction in England, Coppolla depicts a dandified, lovestruck romantic. Â Lucy Westenra is portrayed as a silly, shallow fool in place of Stoker's tragic, estimable woman. Â Mina fares no better, nor do any of the other characters.
IMO, the film was a mockery of the greatest vampire novel ever written.
The film's writer appeared on the "Dracula" segment of TLC's great books series a couple of years ago. Â From what he said, he must truly have hated Stoker's views to have degraded them so. Â Instead of the heroic figures of Arthur, Jonathan Harker and Van Helsing, who valianty fight against the darkness, the Coppolla-movie writer saw them as simplistic Christians (perhaps this was his key problem with the book) who hypocritcally are "gang-banging" Lucy when they stake her.
All I can say is I found this disgusting in the extreme, and as I said earlier, a complete perversion of what Stoker wrote.
I think a major problem was the writer's (and presumably Coppola's) lack of respect or understanding for the whole Victorian era. Â They preferred to mock it, while showing the "superiority" of their own "enlightened" 20th century attitudes (this was clear in the interview).
It's not that I'm a narrow-minded purist when it comes to translating literature for the screen. Â Of course I hope for a faithful adaptation, but I also think creative use of the source is possible. Â I had similar reservations about seeing the Ethan Hawke-Gwenyth Paltrow version of "Great Expectations" a couple of years ago. Â I finally saw it on video last year and was pleasantly surprised. Â
That movie shows how a Victorian-era novel can be updated to incorporate today's sensibilities without destroying all semblance of the author's intent and meaning. Â It isn't exactly "Charles Dickens' "
Great Expectations, but then it didn't claim to be the most faithful adaptation of Dickens' work, either. Â Rather, it was a smart updating and variation on the original. Â No one was confused or mislead into thinking that they were viewing Dickens' "original" work just as he wrote it.
Another movie that does an excellent job looking at the Victorian era, with all of its drawbacks and hypocrasies, but while maintaining integrity, through a 20th century lens is "The French Lieutenant's Woman." Â (Which, incidentally, very creatively re-imagines the novel in cinematic terms.) Â And the upcoming "Possession" (again, with Paltrow) based on the novel by A.S. Byatt should be another interesting look at the Victorian period through the eyes of two 20th-century characters.
