This is my 19th horror film for November 2019. I feel awkward about writing this review. After watching it today I had a good idea what I wanted to write about it. Then I read
my last review, which I wrote seven years ago, and guess what? Everything that I wanted to write today was already in my old review. This meant that I could either rack my brains trying to figure out something new to write, or I could just give up and write practically nothing, which is what I usually do when I write multiple reviews of a film.
There's one new factor that influences my review. A few months ago I read Bram Stoker's novel "Dracula" for the first time, so I understand more of the film's background than I did when I wrote my last review. I was rather shocked – I use the word deliberately – when I found that the whole novel is told by stringing together letters and diary entries. I've read other novels where letters and similar documents are quoted, but never any where the whole book is a series of quoted documents. It works very effectively, for the most part. My only criticism is of a newspaper article that's quoted, which is very eloquent and elaborate in its details. I think that a real newspaper article would stick to the facts of the case and not use too many flourishes. Maybe I'm being too pedantic. It's only one small fault in an otherwise perfect novel.
The film quotes diaries and letters through the voice of Anthony Hopkins as a narrator. That is borrowed directly from the novel. I didn't recognise it last time.
I don't know whether it's correct to say that this is the most accurate presentation of the novel in film. It's certainly more accurate than
"Nosferatu" (1922),
the 1931 version with Bela Lugosi and
the 1958 version with Christopher Lee, but some of the minor, less well known adaptations may be more faithful to the book. The version that I'm reviewing now is more sexual than any of the other versions, and definitely more sexual than the book. This is something I like about the film. In the 1922 and 1958 versions Dracula is a harsh, unlikable character. In the 1931 version he's strangely quaint, but still not someone appealing to the viewer. The one played by Gary Oldman is a tragic character, and the viewer feels sympathy with him. He has an almost child-like naivety about him. He arrives in London, and the first thing he wants to do is go to the cinema, which in those days was all about showing short clips that only lasted a few minutes each. He sees naked women on screen, and he marvels at the advances of science. He doesn't understand how these images might seem immoral to Mina.
In the novel Mina's best friend Lucy is playful. In the film her portrayal hints that she's sexually promiscuous. At the very least, she likes to tease the men around her. This is her nature from the beginning of the film, but it becomes more exaggerated after she's bitten by Count Dracula.
The most sexual women in the film are the three brides of Dracula. In the book they aren't described in much detail, so the director Francis Ford Coppola is
filling in the blanks. The way they seduce Jonathan Harker is so thrilling that I can't understand why he wanted to return to his fiancée Mina. Yes, he loved her, but I don't understand how any man could resist three scatily clothed vampiresses who caress him while they drink his blood. I would have forgotten Mina. Does that mean I'm a heartless rogue? No, it means I'm a man.
Whether it's the most accurate adaptation of Bram Stoker's book is a question for scholars to discuss. For me there's no doubt that this is the best adaptation, i.e. the most enjoyable adaptation. It's the Dracula film that I feel most willing to watch repeatedly.
Success Rate: + 3.4
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
