Bram Stoker’s Dracula by cristina Rota
When you choose to watch “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” you may have preconceptions, but they will be dispelled by the images on the screen.
The prologue may perplex an audience expecting the usual vampire film. It may seem slow and tedious, with its voice-over that might may sound like a documentary film. But the (film’s) narrative pace accelerates soon and soon skepticism will be overcome.
The first striking element is the perfect union between love, mystery and terror. This strange composition at times frightens and at times makes you wonder. This theme will be there until the end of the film. In most of the bloody scenes there is always the perception that there is a certain love.
From the beginning, the presence of the supernatural bursts onto the screen, however, as you proceed you can see how the horrific moments sometimes are allusive: they create a sense of mystery that makes a common vampire film into something special.
Speaking of allusions the most striking example is Dracula’s shadow. It appears to have a life of its own like in some old story.
There can be a few disorienting moments. One is Dracula’s sudden rejuvenation. At first glance it could leave you perplexed, you may think two figures are interpreted by Gary Oldman, maybe two relatives. Soon you will realize it was the same person.
This Dracula t shows almost any image of vampires one may have. In combination with this, there is a great work in keeping the picture of London in the 1890’s very realistic. The settings are extremely detailed and so are the costumes. The language, too, is pertinent to the late 19th Century.
In conclusion, It is really a great film from all points of view; even though it was released in 1992 it holds the audience’s attention just like a more recent movie would. has a remarkable quality: it amuses and educates at the same time. It is not a horror that has entertainment as its sole purpose.
The prologue may perplex an audience expecting the usual vampire film. It may seem slow and tedious, with its voice-over that might may sound like a documentary film. But the (film’s) narrative pace accelerates soon and soon skepticism will be overcome.
The first striking element is the perfect union between love, mystery and terror. This strange composition at times frightens and at times makes you wonder. This theme will be there until the end of the film. In most of the bloody scenes there is always the perception that there is a certain love.
From the beginning, the presence of the supernatural bursts onto the screen, however, as you proceed you can see how the horrific moments sometimes are allusive: they create a sense of mystery that makes a common vampire film into something special.
Speaking of allusions the most striking example is Dracula’s shadow. It appears to have a life of its own like in some old story.
There can be a few disorienting moments. One is Dracula’s sudden rejuvenation. At first glance it could leave you perplexed, you may think two figures are interpreted by Gary Oldman, maybe two relatives. Soon you will realize it was the same person.
This Dracula t shows almost any image of vampires one may have. In combination with this, there is a great work in keeping the picture of London in the 1890’s very realistic. The settings are extremely detailed and so are the costumes. The language, too, is pertinent to the late 19th Century.
In conclusion, It is really a great film from all points of view; even though it was released in 1992 it holds the audience’s attention just like a more recent movie would. has a remarkable quality: it amuses and educates at the same time. It is not a horror that has entertainment as its sole purpose.
Bram Stoker’s Dracula – an analysis by Marco Zubani
INTRODUCTION
I would like to be honest, I started watching this movie only because I had to; I would never have imagined that I could appreciate it in any way.
I don’t know why, but a first I thought that this film would be really scary and at the same time really plain, so I started watching it without expecting much. In addition to this, romantic horror is not my favourite film genre at all: I usually hate horror movies and neither do I like romantic onesso I had thought that this film would be a total disaster for me.
Nevertheless, it was a fantastic surprise: I really loved it because it give an image of elegant, powerful, beautiful and human vampires. The cast is fantastic, the plot is pressing, the music is very good and it creates great pathos.
I really didn’t expect anything of that, I was really positively surprised.
In addition to the standard elements in the film, such as general information, plot, cast, music and costumes, I am going to cover some “strange things” that I liked a lot.
THE CAST
Gary Oldman (Dracula) has his own very peculiar style in this role. I think it is one of the most difficult roles to be played in the last films I’ve seen. However, it is played very well, and in some scenes, you can see Oldman’s experience and bravura. Gary Olman is my favourite actor in this film.
You fear his Dracula, you hate him, but at the same time you will be on his side, you will almost love him and you will even be overwhelmed by his emotions at the end of the film. You can’t help him but you feel his pain.
Anthony Hopkins as Professor Van Helsing also give a tremendous performance. His character appears late and is not central to the plot, which does not allow all of his acting ability to be seen, however Van Helsing is an important character and Hopkins is
spectacular in that role.
As for Keanu Reeves (Harker) and Winona Ryder (Mina), I didn’t particularly like them in this film, not because they aren’t god at acting, of course, but because I was so attracted by Oldman’s and Hopkins’s performances (one each) which anyway outshine everyone
else’s.
COSTUMES
The costumes, by Eiko Ishioka, are very well designed. and the effect they reach in that context and with that music is fantastic. I think Lucy’s costume when she is a vampire and Dracula’s one in the beginning of the film are the best two.
Coppola and his costume designer didn’t only use costumes that are in everyone’s mind, like Dracula’s cloak when Harker enters the castle for the first time: there are other really surprising ones, like his three wives’, because they are almost nude.
MUSIC AND SPECIAL EFFECTS
Music and special effects are the two things that really involve the viewers, drawing them into the film. They help us understand the characters’ feelings of the characters, and they can be really distressing at times. Typically for a horror film, but untypically for a romantic story the music is dark and inspiring dread. Special effects are well done, considering that this film was produced in the early 90s and that not a single digital effect was used: everything we see was made on film.
The no spoiler part ends here…
THE COLOUR RED
Red is absolutely predominant in this film, it is in almost all scenes from the beginning to the end, It is the colour of blood, the colour of passion. It’s repeated appearance during the film it is hypnotic: we can find it everywhere, from Lucy’s clothes to Dracula’s
eyes.
I was amazed but, at the same time, I was really fascinatedwhen Dracula in its monkey aspect stare at the camera for a few terrible seconds. It made me shiver.
FAVOURITE SCENE
My favourite scene for sure is Dracula’s pursuit, the race against the sunset, after which the vampire will regain all his powers. The music in this scene is fantastic, and the actors are really phenomenal. Dracula’s almost dying is Oldman’s best scene.
What I liked most about this scene was how involving it was: we wish we could push the sun upwards, to keep it from setting to allow the killing of the monster. But that “My love” in the end, with that kiss is something that breaks your heart, in every sense.
“Our love is stronger than death” is an incredible sentence, that makes us cry even if, until a moment before, we had favoured “the good guys”.
Dracula the vampire, in the end, is very human, he has emotions. That’s something that I would have never expected before watching the film.
by Marco Zubani
Bram Stoker’s Dracula – A review by Filippo Brembilla
“Bram Stoker’s Dracula” was released in 1992 as an adaptation of the timeless gothic novel “Dracula”, which was written by Irish writer Bram Stoker, as the title reminds us. This successful horror movie was produced and directed by the Oscar-winning Francis Ford Coppola, and it quickly became one of his most famous works.
This out-of-the-ordinary cult movie is often referred to as a simple horror movie, but we should not trust those hasty genre classifications. In fact, those who have actually seen the film will almost surely affirm that this “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” is concerned with much more than a common horror story is: love, pain, religion, and many other things that only a great director like Coppola could have mixed together with so much mastery.
But let’s take a deeper look at this unusual adaptation, to prevent its popularity from influencing us too much.
At the beginning of the film we come to know Jonathan, an English lawyer played by a very young Keanu Reeves, and his beloved fiancée, Mina, interpreted by Winona Ryder. They seem to be very happy together and they are planning to get married, until Jonathan is given an unexpected job that he has to complete at all costs, which will keep him far away from his beloved for a long time. He must conclude the acquisition of some estates in London by a mysterious count that lives in Transylvania, in Eastern Europe. He starts a long journey, convinced that this operation will improve his life. But when he reaches his destination, he discovers that nothing is as he imagined: Transylvania is a dark land, populated by packs of wolves, and Count Dracula’s home is an ominous castle. The count is played by a brilliant Gary Oldman.
Many people in the audience already know for sure that Dracula is a vampire, a human-like creature that must feed on blood to survive. The film provides us with an explanation for his condition: we see a younger Dracula losing his wife and falling in a desperate rage, before rejecting forever the Christian God, for whom he has fought all his life. This episode is an example of the liberties that Coppola decided to take from the original novel, which do contribute to make the film more interesting
As the movie goes on, Dracula appears to be interested in Mina, since she seems to have a spiritual bond with his dead wife, so the count uses his supernatural powers to trap Jonathan in his castle and leaves for England, where he can get close to the young woman.
The most suprising thing about this movie is the director’s choice to narrate the story with a constant alternation of completely different scenes, a technique that Coppola picks from the Russian master Eysenstein.We can find, for example, many intense and frightening moments with lots of blood immediately followed by scenes of pure and holy love. This keeps happening until the two moods – the bloody and the romantic – seem to merge when Dracula manages to approach Mina and love blooms between them.
The count seems also able to keep people’s minds under control, sometimes by awakening their sexual instincts. That way, he can establish his power in faraway places, helped by terrible monsters that he can create.
The unsettling soundtrack makes the narration more intense, especially in the ending, when Jonathan and the other characters who escaped from Dracula’s rage make plans to kill the demonic count.
Many scenes are filled with visual effects – none of which digital – that still look great, even after almost thirty years since the film’s release.
The most important way in which this movie gives us many distinct sensations, however, could be that the actors brought to the screen a great variety of performances. Some of them were much less charismatic than others, though.
Winona Ryder’s role, for example, perfectly fits her, but sometimes she doesn’t seem to have enough personality to be one of the main characters. The same thing could be said for Keanu Reeves, who, for most of the movie, gives the impression of not knowing what to do or even what he was there for, which somehow makes the his early scenes less frightening. If the film has a weak point it’s their performance.
Maybe it’s just that young actors such as these two were overwhelmed by the performances of the older ones. Consider for instance the character of a very unusual scientist who believes in supernatural phenomena, Van Helsing, played by Anthony Hopkins. With his interpretation of this crazy figure, he added slight irony to the movie without becoming annoying.
But the actor that brought this film to another level altogether is Gary Oldman, with his outstanding representation of Dracula, with his imitation of the Romanian accent that characterizes the old count. He did his job very well from the beginning to the end, and, in both the older and younger forms of himself. Oldman/Dracula is always the most amazing character on the screen.
Some of the secondary characters were essential for the story development too; Mina’s friend Lucy (Sadie Frost), for example, is the first to suffer from Dracula’s powers, and we should also mention Renfield, played by the musician Tom Waits, is a crazy man who is betrayed by the count and warns people of his wickedness.
“Bram Stoker’s Dracula” has become a cinema cult over years, but not every fan of the original novel would probably like it, since it is very different from it. But if you’re not concerned about the presence of a large amount of blood, it is definetely a movie to watch.
Guyscrapers 