A quarter century ago, I saw the second half of this thanks to my roommate. I felt like I'd seen enough, but more recently, I've wanted the complete picture. It was one of the most popular Netflix horror offerings I hadn't seen in full and one of the last influential and arguably great works of Francis Ford Coppola, with only The Rainmaker for competition since.
Toward the end of the 19th century, the Romanian count (Gary Oldman) gets help from suspicious English lawyer Jonathan Harker (Keanu Reeves) to move to England. Dracula sees a picture of Harker's fiancée, Wilhelmina Murray (Winona Ryder), and is strongly reminded of his own bygone wife. He sees fit to let his harem restrain Harker by exsanguination while he goes off to court Mina, in addition to satisfying his infamous other appetite. When Mina's friend Lucy Westenra (Sadie Frost) exhibits strange physical and mental symptoms, fiancé Arthur Holmwood (Cary Elwes) reluctantly turns to the expertise of Professor Abraham Van Helsing (Anthony Hopkins), who quickly determines the cause....
I have yet to read the novel, but from what I found, as the title implies, this is a relatively faithful screen adaptation. Occasional narration reflects the epistolary basis. There is a premise of Dracula moving Transylvanian soil to England for his replenishment in coffins. Harker affiliate and Dracula toady R.M. Renfield (Tom Waits), often the second most popular character in the mythos, makes little difference to the plot this time as he spends the entire movie in an asylum (a horror in its own right).
I can think of no more powerful version of Dracula this side of Castlevania. He can control the weather, use telepathy, move super fast, and assume possibly any form, even fog. Sunlight only slightly reduces his power level. His shadow moves independently, like Dr. Facilier's in The Princess and the Frog. And crosses do only so much when a vampire can telekinetically melt them.
At the same time, Dracula seems more human than usual in some ways. He passes for a normal man when he wants to. We get his backstory, loosely based on the life of Vlad the Impaler. He was once a faithful Romanian Orthodox soldier, however bloodthirsty (not yet literally), until his disinformed wife committed suicide and a priest declares her bound for hell. Apparently, he gains powers the moment he renounces God. Eh, can't expect anything scientifically plausible in a Dracula story.
Furthermore, despite his claim to be lifeless and soulless, he develops a genuine love for Mina. They get the idea that this love can redeem him in the end. Maybe we're supposed to believe it, but it's only slightly more credible than the power-up by misotheistic declaration. Dude feeds a baby to his brides and laughs at Harker's reaction; how do you come back from that?
I said "apparently" above because I'm not entirely sure how much is meant to be real. The pic is utterly loaded with artistic flourishes. Honestly, it's one of the few films I'd call too artistic. "Art for art's sake" may make a good MGM motto, but there comes a point when it gets distractingly inauthentic. Admittedly, anything with vampires can't help being over the top, but some details don't even add to the creep factor or symbolic messaging.
Speaking of over the top, the '90s sure were a salacious period in cinema history. Just see how many Best Pictures showed bare female breasts compared with other decades. BSD is no exception. I for one do not find it sexy in such a monstrous context, and I hope Coppola intended for it to be disturbing.
If there's any comic relief, it's in Van Helsing's tactlessness, not least in his excitement to be finally hunting a legendary vampire. In some moments, he reminds me of Dracula himself, as when he performs hypnosis or other tricks and expresses attraction to the same women. Maybe the parallels should have been played up more.
BSD still brings a lot of flair to the genre. I did care who lived and who died. It's just not on par with Coppola's '70s classics.
No comments:
Post a Comment