 "Photo:")
There's a fine line between greatness and cheesiness. Well, maybe not always but definitely with Bram Stoker's Dracula, the 1992 film directed by Francis Ford Coppola. Late at night, from the comfort of your own common room, it could be possible to overlook the big name actors and expensive sets and find yourself wondering if you've stumbled onto an especially ambitious episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer - but make no mistake, this is highbrow entertainment. Anthony Hopkins is in it, after all.
The Victorian-gothic (and overtly sexual) tone of the story apparently seeped into the way Coppola decided to film it. With over-the-top set design, deep shadows, dramatic lighting, and, of course, Dracula, this is not a study in subtlety. Gary Oldman, at times completely unrecognizable, stars as the man (spirit? undead guy?) himself, and in this version, we get some back story: Dracula was once a warrior in the name of God until a false enemy report sent to his bride at home caused her to commit suicide. The knight curses the God whom he had so recently served and becomes the blood-drinking creature we've all come to recognize.
After this the story gets a little convoluted. Time passes, the 19th century arrives, and suddenly there's Keanu Reeves on the screen looking a little confused. Whether this is due to the fact that he's found himself in the outer reaches of Transylvania, or if it's just something he ate, is hard to say. Reeves is about to marry an uptight schoolteacher, the seeming incarnation of Dracula's bride, played by Winona Ryder. It is Dracula's discovery of this resemblance that sets the story in motion and that provides a thematic core revolving around love, lust, sex, and temptation.
This darkness under the surface of staid English society is the most interesting thing about the film - that, and the werewolves, demonic women, and getting to see Hopkins ham it up as a vampire hunter. Coppola creates a real sense of unease and disorder underneath the conventions of the plot, with Dracula morphing into an insect-like creature who'd look comfortable in The Ring. There are the standard scary movie thrills and goriness but also an unsettling drive of violence and lust behind the events.
The way that characters either embrace desire and love or try to repress it serves as an indicator of whether society will accept them. The film, however, doesn't seem to judge the characters, at least not on the basis of sexuality. There is real affection between Dracula and his lover (and her "modern" counterpart), and the ending seems to condemn the repression of society as much as it does the excesses of Dracula.
Unfortunately, the DVD doesn't live up to the film. The only extras are the run-of-the-mill language and subtitle options. For a movie like this, where the director's choices mean just as much as the performances and storyline, that's really a shame. To hear what compelled Coppolla to create this gothic horror/love story would have been just as interesting to watch as the film itself.
Be the first to comment on this article!