“Bram Stoker’s ‘Dracula’” (1992) Review
A Review by Victor DeBonis
Director Francis Ford Coppola is a beloved and much renowned name in film. Along with directing the masterpieces that are the first and second “Godfather” movies, he also wrote the script for a golden example of the biopic, “Patton” and also made “The Conversation” and made one of the great war movies, “Apocalpyse Now.” Yet, another movie that many remember and love him for is his cinematic vison of “Dracula.” Aside from being the most faithful, cinematic adaptation to the classic novel written by Bram Stoker, this film amazes by the sheer size of its visual scope and craftmanship utilized to bring this haunting story and characters to life. It’s the type of experience that not only makes me happy to write about film but to be as deep of an admirer for the horror genre as I am.
Coppola made it a firm rule from the very beginning that he didn’t want to use computer-generated effects of any type for his production. Part of the reason can be seen from his previous movies (even if it’s not outwardly stated) that he is always a filmmaker who does everything in his power to bring as natural or realistic a feeling to his movies as possible. The huger reason, however, is that much of the setting of the movie takes place around the year that film was said to be invented (around 1895, for those wondering), and he wanted to use filming techniques that would pay an homage to those that were used by the likes of cinematic pioneer Georges Melies and others.
This results in one of the most amazing looking movies that I’d ever seen. That early scene involved the battle was done through the use of shadow puppets, for instance, and the imagery of all of those soldiers being viciously killed against a blood-red background makes for a small hint of not only the bloodshed to later come but, also, the impressive, practical wizardry to come, too. The matte paintings look incredible, too. From the gorgeously sunlit valley that the soldiers roam across in the beginning to that ominous castle towering against that dreary, purple sky, there are so many scenes that you could literally hang on a wall because of just how much detail and color and atmosphere breathes from them.
The make-up effects from the team consisting of Greg Cannon, Michele Burke, and Matthew W. Mungle, are remarkable, too. As bizarre as Oldman’s wig is, that, along with his bright-red costume and his sharp nails, bring a different appearance to Dracula that none of us had seen or read about at the time. Elements, such as the wolf suit that Oldman had to wear, look amazingly detailed, too, from all of the synthetic hair covering his body and revealing such a ravenous creature of the night. These are effects that stay as practical as possible and help create a world that feels all the more terrifying and real, even if it’s done on something that’s based from a creature novel.
An old saying gets tossed around a bunch about how filmmakers couldn’t make a movie in a certain way today, but that especially rings true for Coppola’s version of “Dracula.” As much as I like and even love several of the recent blockbusters that fill the screen, I see so much CGI utilized on a near-constant basis. And, while I certainly have nothing against computer-generated effects, there’s just something more special about effects, such as puppetry or special prosthetic effects, that, arguably, feel more impressive because of how they’re actually there and feel more fully realized. People, at the time, thought that this approach to filmmaking for this film was unusual, but it says even more that this film turned out to look and stand out as incredibly as it does all these years partly because Coppola stood true to his vision in ways, such as these.
As far as the acting goes, it’s interesting because much of it is not the type of performing that one would find from a movie but, rather, from a heavily assembled play. Normally, I scratch my head when this performance is found in a film, but, given the atmosphere of the book, it actually makes sense here. You see, when it comes to gothic romances or horror stories, they tend to focus less on the reality of the situation, since they deal with strange creatures and situations, and place more emphasis on the emotions or mood, which often leans towards an over-the-top vibe that remains prominent for most of the story. So, when Gary Oldman occasionally goes over-the-top as the titular monster, it’s a little silly at times for how much he embraces his pauses and randomly shouts in certain places, but it actually works in the favor of the movie because everything else in the rest of the movie has this slightly extreme feel but is breathing with such strange passion that it actually works.
It’s similar to when you watch the Raimi Spider-Man movies and love them (Well, the third is bad, but I digress.), even when they have their silly or over-the-top moments. You recognize that they have their odd moments, but you also understand it because they’re embracing a director’s unique, passionate voice, along with how strange their source material (ie: original comic books) is.
Knowing this, it makes Oldman’s performance all the more enjoyable to watch because he is incredibly entertaining whenever he’s on screen. Those quieter whispers and how he slowly glides into a room leave for vastly unpredictable moments when he lashes out or attacks an unsuspecting human. Oldman plays his character to such extremes of a monster who can be sly and charming to disguise the vicious creature that he truly is, and he makes no apologies for it.
The only actor who doesn’t have a more goofy vibe to him is Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing. He’s always been an incredible actor, and this role is no exception. What I find interesting about his take on the character here is that he’s incredibly brilliant and handles medicine and mystical tools with great ease as the novel’s version does. Here, however, he has a hint of an unhinged demeanor to him when he speaks and when he bellows for religious powers to assist him as he tries to vanquish these creatures of the night. Hopkins brings so much power and wit to his presence and speaks with the rapid rhythm of any doctor worth his salt, and he’s wonderful.
Winona Ryder is decent in her role, but she does have a few moments in which she comes across as a community college actress trying mainly to read lines, and her British accent, trying to disguise her American accent, can be noticeable. Yet, to her credit, she brings plenty of passion to when she speaks to Reeves and, even more so, when Dracula finds her, thus helping the romantic scenes appear more memorable when you witness her deep chemistry with Oldman. And, the way that she writes in her journal or reflects with shock when Dracula first tries to advance upon her shows that she’s every bit as aware as the director that this is a bit of a campy story, and she goes along with it rather well.
(Sigh…) And, yeah, let’s talk about Keanu Reeves’ performance. Let me make it clear that I am a huge Keanu Reeves fan. He comes across as one of the nicest guys in Hollywood, based on everything that I’ve heard and read about him, and I’m of the opinion that, when he’s in a specific role in, say, “Point Blank” or “Permanent Record” or, of course, the “John Wick” movies, he’s not only good but great. He has such a magnetic charisma and likability that it’s hard not to see him as a big movie star.
However, in this movie, his performance is rather off. The British accent never feels the least bit believable. Half of the time, it sounds as though his California “Bill and Ted” accent is fighting with his attempt at a British period accent, and it’s strange. Even putting that aside, there are moments when he should be terrified, such as when Dracula’s long, shadowy hand reaches to grab him, but he looks about as invested or startled as one would be at watching an ant cross the sidewalk for a moment.
Since I know that his performance has been lambasted as much as it has been, I recognize that this performance is not good in the slightest. It might arguably be his worst. Yet, I want to say a few things to his credit.
One is that his character, Jonathan Harker, was never the most interesting character in the book, so it was already going to be a challenge to see what any actor could bring to someone that was never that complex or fascinating to start out with. Even Coppola himself admitted that he didn’t envy the job of the person that had to cast an actor for the role. The second thing is that, reportedly, Reeves tried his hardest off-set to get the accent down, and it’s stated that Coppola even gave him the option of not performing with it, but the option was refused. So, there was a definite sense of effort but, also, an understanding from this experience that, while Reeves is a good actor and a terrific action star, I think that many can agree that, similar to other actors and actresses, it’s not in his cards to be a performer in a period piece.
Coppola, of course, directs this movie like the master that he is. He is terrific at evoking this rich, Gothic atmosphere that floods every frame, but he also knows how to bring equal levels of horror and vast romance that the story was well known for. Many shots feel that they could have easily stepped out of either a tranquil dream or a brutal nightmare. The length to which he had to get shots, such as the first-person perspective of Dracula as a wolf-like monster racing from the ground to the doorstep of Ryder or the shot in which an actual twenty-foot sized book was created to provide a closer image of a journal scribbling vivid thoughts to the backdrop of an amazing sunset, is astounding to say the least. He is fantastic at telling this story that is about going to stranger (and gravely unusual) lengths for the love of another but, also, using techniques from both science and more unusual sources to deal with a conflict or demon.
The costume design is great, too, and perfectly fits the time period that the characters come from. When it comes to the costumes for the city that the human characters come from, Oldman appears mysterious with his circular, darkened glasses and top hat, and Winona Ryder, who is already pretty, appears lovely in her elegant dresses. It’s also worth noting that, in order to help create more of the otherworldly atmosphere for the movie, the designers were asked to focus on creating designs for costumes that were weird. Typically, they used inspiration either from research or their own nightmares, and it shows with outfits, such as Dracula’s bright-red, lined armor that, for lack of a better comparison to another form of material, looks like something made from Twizzlers. That sounds funny, but it actually works like a charm for how this creature appears in the movie.
Wojciech Kilar composed the music for the movie, and I love his work here. He knows how to amplify horror with certain revelations or moments involving creatures with how he effectively heightens the volume with his orchestra, and he’s also fantastic at setting tranquil melodies that complement the romantic scenes when needed. His music adds to the dream-like vibe of the film, and it’s awesome to listen to.
It’s also interesting seeing this twisted but fascinating romance take place between Oldman and Ryder. There is something weird but also strangely passionate about this monster being so devastated over love lost that he’s willing to give up his faith but also use his new powers to see if his deceased love is still alive in some way. So, the film has a fascinating blend of horror, mystery, and romance that seals it further as a powerful work. It also helps that Ryder and Oldman have terrific chemistry with each other on screen. When they’re first meeting in the 1800’s and developing a further love for each other, there is a genuine feeling that these two are giving into their desires and falling deeply for one another in spite of the apparent strangeness of their situation. It’s odd because, for various reasons, Ryder and Oldman found it harder and even uncomfortable to work with each other through production. So, it’s even more impressive that these two could pull off their romantic scenes as well as they did.
Coppola’s version of Dracula is a movie that I love to its core. The acting may have some hiccups, but everything else is done so wonderfully that it feels fairly minor upon reflection. When the performances work to suit what the film needs, it only adds to the entertainment and fantastic spectacle of what is going on. The direction is amazing. The atmosphere is effectively dream-like and terrifying. The special effects are incredible. Honestly, this is one of those older movies that makes me wish further that more filmmakers would try to take a few notes from this movie in terms of the practical effects on display. So much passion is put into making this dark tale of romance and horror and mystery and suspense come together so well. Coppola has experienced his ups and downs with his career, but this is another title from his filmography as a shining example of why he’ll always be regarded as a cinematic master in my eyes.
This is also another one of those movies that reminds me why I love writing about film as much as I do. Heck, just watching the videos discussing the making behind it and how it turned out makes me wonder if some other person might stumble upon this movie and be inspired to make a film of their own, due to noticing so much of the craftmanship that is on display here. It’s a horror classic and one that still haunts and intrigues me with its creation and presence to this very day.
Grade: A