Bram Stoker’s Dracula (Francis Ford Coppola, 1992)

After losing his wife (Winona Ryder), and cursed with immortality, Dracula (Gary Oldman) sees a chance to rekindle his love when he sees a photograph of Mina (Ryder again) in the possession of estate agent Jonathan Harker (Keane Reeves).

Travelling to London, Dracula plots to reclaim his bride...

As a purely audiovisual  experience Bram Stoker’s Dracula is unique. For the first 30-40 minutes I am just in awe.

 

Utilising a variety of old cinematic and theatrical effects techniques, the film is completely disconnected from its context.

Because so many of the effects are accomplished in-camera, they still look good now.

The film is filled with sexuality, with characters barely suppressing their urges.

Sex and vampirism are aligned as a release from Victorian probity. Vampire bites are accompanied by orgasmic moaning (and in one case, geysers of blood). The scene of Mina and Lucy running through the maze as winds whip their lace garments; Harker falling under the spell of the Brides; Dracula lustfully licking Harker’s blood off his razor. This film is not so much a romance as a monument to pure, base desire.

Sensuality is also aligned with the story’s medium - Coppola’s desire to utilise the techniques (and in one case, the cameras) of early cinematic effects evokes a tactile vitality - even without the titular character, this world is on the precipice of massive changes that will shake it free of its bodice.  

The focus on the visual over the verbal should play to Keane Reeves’ gifts. 

Reeves is so focused on hitting his accent he throws himself off-base - you can see him reaching for pathos, and it dissipates as soon as he opens his mouth. 

It is depressing because no one is a better match for this kind of filmmaking.

There are a few moments where he does work - I thought the moment he has for himself after Van Helsing advises him he has not been infected.

 

Bizarrely, Tom Waits’ accent is far better.

On this watch, I was impressed with how funny Hopkins' Van Helsing is. 

He is a deadpan delight - casually offending everyone around him with frank explanations of what has happened.

The movie runs out of steam around the point Mina meets Dracula.

The actors do not have the chemistry to make their connection believable. And the story goes from a love story to just following the narrative of the book, so it loses the sense of catharsis it is aiming for.

Related

Dracula (1931 Anglo version)

Dracula (1931 Spanish version) 

Horror of Dracula (1958)

Count Dracula (1977)

Dracula (1979)

The Last Voyage of the Demeter

Nosferatu (2024)

If you are new to this blog, I also co-host a podcast on James Bond, The James Bond Cocktail Hour. 

You can subscribe on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

If you enjoy something I wrote, and want to support my writing, here’s a link for tips!