Today, Flames Rising.com author Monica Valentinelli brings her talented quill to the Crackle blog, and gives us her take on the ultimate bloodsucker in Bram Stoker’s Dracula.
Although the original novel was told through a series of letters, Bram Stoker’s Dracula has been told and reinvented so many times that the original nature of Dracula is often lost. Originally, Dracula was a relentless monster: not only did his obsession with sorcery allow him to return from the dead, he had no trouble using any mortal or animal to further his desire to take over the world.
By the time the movie version Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992) debuted in theaters, almost a hundred years had passed since Stoker’s novel was first published. Dracula was a household name; he inspired puppet-characters (Count von Count), breakfast cereal (Count Chocula) and, of course, the obligatory cheesy Halloween costumes. As a result, there was a lot of pressure back then for director Francis Ford Coppola. I remember when the movie came out, because there was a lot of criticism around the casting of Keanu Reeves as Jonathan Harker. Back then, the Matrix didn’t exist, so the audience only had Point Break and Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure to base their opinions on. Winona Ryder seemed the perfect choice to play Mina Harker; we knew her from Beetle Juice and Edward Scissorhands. Even though Gary Oldman had some credits to his name, we all wondered — who was this guy chosen to play Dracula? The guy from JFK?
Needless to say, it was kind of a surprise to many movie-goers when Dracula debuted, partially because this Dracula was not entirely inhuman — he was someone we could relate to. Heartbroken over the death of his beloved princess and angry at the Church he tried so hard to protect, we immediately watch the transformation from Vlad Dracul the man, to Dracula the Wampyr. We also see that Dracula wasn’t always a monster, but a “hero” who felt betrayed. Instead of being pre-destined to become a monster, he was misguided, taking vengeance into his own hands.
Gary Oldman’s representation of Dracula was — in a word — breathtaking. Playing victim, hero and villain, this Dracula showed us a broad range of emotions, supernatural powers and ages. Of course, this deep characterization was necessary because this plot wasn’t just about hunting the monster — it’s about “true love.”
In the novel, Mina does not return the Count’s love. In the film, she not only returns his love, she pities him and fights for him. This is an important difference between the two because this version of Dracula does eventually find forgiveness from the same God he turned his back on centuries ago. The phrase “the blood is the life” holds layers of significance here as well: the blood of God and the vampires’ primary sustenance. Yes, there is also a fair amount of sexual over-and-undertones in this movie, but here those scenes are necessary. Remember, not only does the film takes place in the repressed Victorian age, but being a “virgin” before marriage had religious significance as well. Those scenes contribute to Dracula’s defiant nature, and also highlight the very human side to these characters.
Rife with symbolism and allegory, the film focuses so much on the romantic relationships — especially toward the end — that the horror is, in my opinion, downplayed. As viewers, we expected the horror because we already knew “who” Dracula was before we walked into the theatre. So there was some of that to establish the mood, but not enough to keep us on the edge of our seats. While the cinematography and the “epic” feel to the film was a fresh take on the story, without the romance the ending would not have been as satisfying. Here, the emphasis wasn’t on the mortals fighting an insurmountable evil, but on Dracula’s war with his own conscience. After all, when Quincey Morris dies, we don’t “feel” his loss – at least, not in the same way as Vlad Dracul’s.
Rich with authentic costumes and atmospheric sets, the award-winning Bram Stoker’s Dracula is my favorite movie adaptation of the novel to date.
Monica Valentinelli – Contributing Author, Flamesrising.com
Tags: Bram Stoker's Dracula, Flamesrising.com, Gary Oldman, Keanu Reeves, Winona Ryder
[...] When they asked me what vampire movie I wanted to write about, I initially chose FRIGHT NIGHT as my first pick. When they had mentioned that they needed someone to write about BRAM STOKER’S DRACULA, I was interested because I’ve often considered the film to be a “paranormal romance.” In the novel, Mina does not return the Count’s love. In the film, she not only returns his love, she pities him and fights for him. This is an important difference between the two because this version of Dracula does eventually find forgiveness from the same God he turned his back on centuries ago. The phrase “the blood is the life” holds layers of significance here as well: the blood of God and the vampires’ primary sustenance. — SOURCE: Love, Blood and Fangs: Bram Stoker’s Dracula at Crackle.com [...]
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by dobraworks: Love Bram Stoker’s Dracula? Check out the newest Crackle Blog post from http://www.flamesrising.com author @mlvalentine: http://bit.ly/2zAwbY…