Halloween Shelf: Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)

I've seen Bram Stoker's Dracula twice now -- and it's never what I want it to be.



Plot: First we get the backstory: Dracula was once a successful king/warrior thing in the middle ages. But then his enemies sent word home that he'd died (he hadn't) so his overly impulsive wife jumped out a window. When he got home from the war and saw what had happened, he (also overly impulsively) decided to stab a cross and declare that he would never die out of sheer spite at God for letting bad things happen. Evidently, at this point God turns him into a vampire out of spite (??)... Then, several centuries later: Jonathan Harker is a lawyer who going to Transylvania to help out an old weirdo with some property purchasing. (SHOCK! IT'S DRACULA). Dracula notices that the photo of Jonathan's fiancee, Mina, looks just like his old, overly-impulsive wife, and from there the story spools out... 

Okay, it's worth noting that not only have I watched another version of Dracula already this year, I'm actually reading the book "Dracula" by Bram Stoker. I've never read it before; it's a first. And reading it makes me really... perturbed at this movie.

Mainly, because -- why call your movie "Bram Stoker's Dracula" (thus implying it's the author's true vision) when you are totally going to jack with the story?

"What are you talking about? I totally wear a muscle suit
in the book!"And I'm not talking about minor points of dissension, like leaving out a certain character or abbreviating certain moments -- or even making things bloodier or sexier than they were in the book. (Did you know the primary symptoms of vampirism in ladies are writhing around in red lingerie and breast-exposing?)

(Wrestler Bret Hart added to this scene for modesty.)One simply must allow, in literary adaptation to film, for the freedom of the filmmakers to make certain scenes more "visual" than they might have been previously (even if, on a personal level, I don't think we needed quite so much writhing around, or quite so many boobies). I acknowledge that a strict adaptation of the book would be twelve hours of people sitting around writing in their diaries, and probably not very interesting.

THAT SAID, my problems go far beyond issues of translating the written word to the screen.

2. Characterisation:

It seems like almost every character in this movie has elements that make them the moral inverse of the character that they are in the book. Let's go down the list, shall we?

Book Dr. Seward: A kind doctor who runs a mental institution, and is very in love with Lucy.
Film Dr. Seward: More or less the same... except now he's kind of a jerk, a stumble-bum and a morphine addict.
"AND a steampunk icon, thank you."Book Van Helsing: A kindly old man who happens to know all the ins and outs of vampire killin'.
Film Van Helsing: A blunt, inconsiderate old perv (who happens to know all the ins-and-outs of vampire killin'.)

(Not pictured: Actual scene where he humps someone's leg
I'm not even joking.)Book Jonathan Harker: The strong, true-love of Mina Murray. He is tempted to kiss the vampire brides of Dracula but doesn't.
Film Jonathan Harker: Keanu Reeves with a bad accent (I don't blame him; it wasn't a matter of not having the pronunciation -- it was a matter of not having the right inflection) who allows his parts (all his parts, if you get my gist) to be chewed on by the vampire brides of Dracula. Movie Jonathan Harker is a wimpy, easily-swayed non-entity.

"What? What did you say? I'm just, like, mellow, man."Book Lucy: A character very much like Mina. She's good and pure, and beloved by all -- until Dracula drinks her to death, at which point she becomes a gross vampire.
Film Lucy: She flirts with all the guys, makes out with her female best friend, has sex with Dracula when he's half-transformed into an ape thing, writhes around in a red neglige and exposes her boobs to all and sundry -- and then is transformed into a vampire. (There would be little difference, except that vampire Lucy has terrible taste in clothes and is actually somewhat less skanky.)

This is her when she's not a vampire.Book Dracula: An evil monster who drinks people's blood until they also transform into monsters.
Film Dracula: A poor guy with a broken heart. (Who drinks people's blood until they transform into monsters.)
He just wants to be loved, folks!1. The Love Story: Okay, so, in the movie Dracula sees the picture of Harker's fiancee, Mina, and she's the spitting image of his dear dead wife -- so, that definitely means that she is the reincarnation of dear, dead wife (because that's how it works in movies).

"Couldn't possibly just be a superficial physical resemblance!"So, Dracula goes to London, seeks her, romances her, (and because she is, of course, definitely the reincarnation she totally falls for him) and isn't even really concerned with drinking her blood -- he just really, really likes her (and in the meantime, wants to get it on with some other gals, too. Which doesn't really work with this iteration of the plot, but, you know -- don't let a minor thing like "plot making sense" get in the way of taking people's clothes off). This climaxes (literally, it would appear) with Dracula swooshing into her bedroom and the most heinously self-indulgent "Dracula turning girl into vampire by making her drink his blood" scene ever. This is how it's described in the book:

"His face was turned from us, but the instant we saw we all recognized the Count, in every way, even to the scar on his forehead. With his left hand he held both Mrs. Harker's hands, keeping them away with her arms at full tension. His right hand gripped her by the back of the neck, forcing her face down on his bosom. Her white nightdress was smeared with blood, and a thin stream trickled down the man's bare chest which was shown by his torn-open dress. The attitude of the two had a terrible resemblance to a child forcing a kitten's nose into a saucer of milk to compel it to drink. As we burst into the room, the Count turned his face, and the hellish look that I had heard described seemed to leap into it." (Chapter 21, Dracula.)

...In other words, Dracula is a gross monster and victimizing Mina. She's being forced into vampirism not because she's his long-lost reincarnated love (a plot element not in the book)... but because Dracula is a creep and he really wants to hurt the people who are bent on taking him down (i.e. all Mina's friends).

Whereas, in this movie, she's in love with him so she's totally into it, and Dracula appears to get a lot more enjoyment out of the process than one would be comfortable with one's grandmother watching...


Bret Hart intervenes again to keep it from looking quite so dirty.
(He's also kind of disappointed with you for looking at pictures like this.).... AND THE SCENE GOES ON FOR A REALLY, REALLY LONG TIME. Long to the point of you checking your watch, wondering when this embarrassing hot mess is going to end.

Turning Dracula from a horror into a sympathetic character (and turning Mina from an unwilling participant into a... well, willing participant), completely messes with the tone of the film. Dracula's not the least bit scary anymore -- he's just a pathetic person who wants some lady action. It turns this from a horror movie into a really lame, overwrought love story about a total sad-sack who doesn't get how theology works (and turns Mina from a chaste victim into a nasty, monster-sucking weirdo who doesn't mind cheating on her husband and is just mildly put out that her handsome prince also murdered her best friend).

IN OTHER WORDS, the "romance" COMPLETELY RUINS THE STORY. It's ruined. It's done. It doesn't even matter that the ending is a wash-out now, with a lame wrap-up and a child's understanding of how Christian theology is supposed to work -- because the story was irrevocably broken from the point that Dracula is introduced at the very beginning as a sympathetic character. You need moral absolutes in a proper horror movie in order to make it really work; this movie is a murky, morally-confused mess.

Ultimately...
I have to give this movie props for its visual look (which is a treat for the eyes); they include more of the book than most adaptations (although they also ruin some of the elements they did include); and for some of its casting -- Gary Oldman is always good to watch, of course, and basically makes a good Dracula (in spite of the fact that they ruined him with the changes they made to the story).

So, in a nutshell -- the liberties they took with the story just ruin it. That's all there is to say. I'm not going to tell you not to watch it, because the movie does have surprises, good acting, and isn't a terrible film -- but it is a terrible adaptation of the book Dracula. In the end I can tell you that you will be entertained if you watch this movie... but maybe not for the right reasons, and you might not find it a wholly satisfactory experience.

RECOMMENDED(With Severe Reservations)