everything is much better even though loosely adapted still take Lee over Oldman
shareOr the 1977 effort from the BBC Count Dracula. Louis Jourdan is a surprisingly good Count and the script follows the book quite closely as well.
share"Horror of Dracula" has one of the most stunning horror scores by James Bernard. Unfortunately, the abridged story loosely based on Stoker's novel is somehow unsatisfactory and there are too many 50's limitations.
Here's one curious abbreviation: In the book the story starts in Transylvania, switches to England with Dracula voyaging to London, but ends up back in Transylvania for the climax. Coppola's 1992 film adhered to this European globetrotting, but Hammer decided to simplify the geography where travel time is condensed to something akin to a European theme park rather than reality. The tale starts outside of Klausenburg, the capital of Transylvania in Central Romania at the time, with Drac's castle nearby, then switches to Karlstadt, in South-Central Germany, which is roughly 750 miles from Klausenburg in reality, yet a mere carriage drive away in this film, perhaps 20 miles.
It goes without saying, Watch "Bram Stoker's Dracula" instead.
"It goes without saying, Watch "Bram Stoker's Dracula" instead."
Because it is more faithful to the novel? Because that would be inaccurate: Vlad Tepes cursed by God (after cursing god for his wife's suicide), reincarnated wife/Mina Harker, Dracula being a love sick puppy instead of a vicious monster? ; basically the only thing that "Coppola's Dracula" gets right is the settings, some of the dialogue and the character's names and general description. Other than that it is even less faithful to the actual characters and themes of the novel than any adaptation that came before. Maybe only Frank Langella's Dracula (1979) comes as close to unfaithfulness.
Don't get me wrong I love Oldman and Hopkins and they give solid performances; but Coppola was too influenced by the more modern Ann Rice Romanticizing vampires and also the modern sentiment of looking negatively on Victorian values; thus his Dracula film is basically the antithesis of Bram Stoker's novel.
I read the book so I understand your qualms, but this is still the most faithful movie to the book on a whole (at least up to that time, 1992).
Also, it wasn't Coppola who was "too influenced by the more modern... romanticizing vampires" but rather writer James V. Hart who gave the movie an interesting new twist vis-à-vis the theme of redemption and "love conquers all." The basic tale had been done to death up to that point and so Hart felt a fresh element was necessary; Coppola obviously agreed.
"Bram Stoker's Dracula" is intricate and features depth & mood while "Horror of Dracula" is a shallow 50's quickie with an iconic score, good cast and colorful sets. The former is more than a monster flick while the latter is just that.
I get what you mean but it depends on what you mean by "faithful"
The Dracula novel is about love conquering the influences of the embodiment of evil. The love is NOT between Dracula who is in love with Mina because she is the reincarnation of his dead (by suicide when she heard he died in battle) wife. The love was a pure Victorian love between Harker and Mina that defeats the evil Count who is supposed to be basically equivalent to the devil and have no redeeming qualities. Okay so the combination of Hart and Coppola were influenced by the Ann Rice trend of romanticizing Vampires. If they wanted to change the basic tale add in this twist of redemption then they should NOT have called it Bram Stoker's Dracula. I think I might like the film if I didn't look at as such an insult to the writer's intent. If it was just it's own adaptation I might not have cared as much; but by putting "Bram Stoker's" in front of it the expectation is that you at least respect the author's intent.
You might enjoy the deviations from the novel; but it is basically the antithesis of Stoker's intent and themes. Hence why I feel it is actually the most unfaithful adaptation I have scene (right next to Dracula 2000) and it is almost an insult to call it "Bram Stoker's" Dracula.
It has the most details from Stoker's novel compared to any Dracula flick up to that time, by far (and probably since then too, I don't know). That right there justifies the title to a large degree. But maybe it will help you to accept it by realizing that its working title was simply "D" and it's original title is "Dracula," which is how it was released in several countries and how it's known to this day: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103874/releaseinfo?ref_=tt_dt_dt#akas The title was likely changed to "Bram Stoker's Dracula" in the USA & UK to distinguish it from the gazillion other versions of the tale.
So you're dismissing a quality Dracula flick -- which contains a lot of Bram Stoker -- on relatively loose grounds.
Yet I know where you're coming from since I was angry at the movie the first time I viewed it for the very reasons you cite and rigidly dismissed it for years. But, giving it a fresh watch several years ago, I changed my mind and enjoyed the details from Stoker's book while also appreciating the deviations.
Like I said, the yarn had been done to death in film up to that point and Hart wanted to add some potent ideas. Winona Ryder initially brought Hart's script with the love story angle -- not called "Bram Stoker's Dracula" -- to Coppola's attention and his eyes lit up because he was a fan of the novel since youth camp. He enjoyed it because it stuck close to the source material, but he obviously also approved of Hart's intriguing new spin.
I think the changes give the film more depth. It's a refreshing innovation after the one-note Christopher Lee series and the ones that followed, e.g. the versions by Jack Palance and Frank Langella. I like those renditions as well, but this is my favorite for several reasons -- the Gothic feel, the colors, the images, the spirituality, the score, the details from Stoker's book and the fact that Coppola is an eminent filmmaker.
Okay that is a fair assessment. I think if I was not so insulted by the themes deviation from the source material I would see the high quality film. It is a high quality film; and it does follow the structure of the novel almost exactly. I would not say that I dismissed it because of the deviation though. I legitimately don't like it because of the deviation; I don't like interview with the vampire or Ann Rice or the idea of romanticizing what are supposed to be monstrous entities. Dracula is not supposed to 'ever' be a redeemable character in my eyes.
"I think the changes give the film more depth"
It might have more depth than the other adaptions but IMO it has less depth than the novel. B.S. Dracula has this very superficial love/redemption story tied into it that basically rejects and dismisses the Christian Victorian values. In the novel is the "pure love" of Mina/HArker that defeats the evils of seduction. Mina and Harker are not driven by passion, they are driven by duty and a pure (not primarily about physical attraction) love. Coppola and Hart basically piss on this in their version. It is the passionate love (more like seductive lust) between the evil seductive Dracula and the seemingly horny/infatuated Mina, that redeems the evil count in their version; that is just a slap in the face of the Victorian values of Stoker's novel. I think too many people have this misconception that old Victorian Christian values was boring and simplistic; when actually there is so much depth, art and beauty to it. IMO some of those values should be treasured not rejected or mocked; and that is what I feel Coppola does in his version, he is basically mocking the themes of the novel. (BTW I am not christian but I don't have to be to see the beauty and value of those morals and lessons from what is now treated as a bygone era)
Coppola and Hart basically piss on this in their version. It is the passionate love (more like seductive lust) between the evil seductive Dracula and the seemingly horny/infatuated Mina, that redeems the evil count in their version; that is just a slap in the face of the Victorian values of Stoker's novel.
"Hart kept the faint love angle of Harker/Mina"
faint is the key word; so faint it is undetectable.
"added the Vlad/Elisabeta dynamic with Mina"
But it was demonstrated to be a love; it was more of a possessive physical infatuation. Neither Vlad or Mina demonstrated anything remotely close to a true/pure love; it was all passion.
"the rebirth of Elisabeta 400 years later. To embrace this Gothic fantasy, you have to accept the idea of reincarnation on some mysterious level."
reincarnation has little to do with Gothic fantasies; in fact the idea of it is antithetical to the idea of staying alive on earth away from God is a curse. Reincarnation is about as far removed from Gothic lore as can be. It seems they conflated the idea of reincarnation with rebirth; which are not even close to the same thing.
"but he's not the paragon of unadulterated evil of the novel."
I don't like this; I prefer the unadulterated evil of the novel. And this was kind of the key to Bram Stoker's theme. to change this fundamentally changes Stoker's intent.
"go back to the prologue of the film and it's clear that he deeply loves his wife (and vice versa) and so her suicide grieves him greatly."
Yes they both loved each other so much that without the other being alive and in their life they become unimaginably selfish (suicide is ultimately a selfish act, and so is embracing what you know to be evil out of spite). I don't think that is love; that is possessiveness.
" but rather the dubious traditional doctrines of this particular religious faction"
But then how is he cursed? if he was not rejecting christ what cursed him to be a vampire?
"As such, the possibility of redemption remains and the pathway to redemption is love; in this case, Mina's love, aka the rebirthed Elisabeta, not to mention God's love."
I do not agree that what was between Vald/Elisabeth or Dracula/Mina was love; it was a possessive passion based infatuation.
". As such, the possibility of redemption remains and the pathway to redemption is love; in this case, Mina's love, aka the rebirthed Elisabeta, not to mention God's love.
You can have the last word."
Also one last word on this; the idea that one person's love can redeem the soul of another person without that person actually repenting is also completely and totally antithetical to the Gothic Victorian Christian morals that was the center of Stoker's theme in this novel.
Again, I think B.S. Dracula might have been a more tolerable film if it didn't try to do it both ways (pretend to faithfully adapt the novel while at the same time undermining arguable the most important themes).
Faint or not, it was there, just like it was faint in the novel.
The love of Vlad/Elisabeta was plainly established in the prologue: Elisabeta was so heartbroken when she heard of Vlad's death via a false report that she killed herself because she couldn't bear to live without him. Vlad was so enraged when the religious idiots insisted she was damned that he was willing to renounce God. In the fantasy of the film, these are the same people as Dracula/Mina later on. Their love for each other was clearly more than just carnal lust. For instance, Drac says to Mina: "I have crossed oceans of time to find you."
The literal definition of reincarnation is "the rebirth of a soul in a new body," which fits the fantasy of the movie.
reincarnation has little to do with Gothic fantasies
"Artists like Coppola & Hart could care less about these nonexistent rules of storytelling you strap on to Gothic fantasies. They only care about telling a good story the way they want to in order to entertain and convey the message they have in mind. That's being an artist."
Then they should NOT be calling this film "Bram Stoker's Dracula" because it is not.
" but this movie is an interpretation of that yarn,"
Exactly; then don't call the Film "Bram Stoker's" by assigning the name of the author they are suggesting they were going to faithfully adapt his work; when actually they did the opposite.
"The beginning plainly exhibits Vlad & Elisabeta's love as deep & genuine"
you mean the less than 3 minute long prologue that focused half the time on his military conquests? It does not show it as deep and genuine; it shows it as possessive and passion based; hence why she kills herself and then he renounces god and his religion. Such conditional devoution being tied into the person being physically with you is not love. Maybe the love Vald has for Elizabeth was real and he wanted to be with her in 'hell' or didn't want to be in heaven without her. But her killing herself was not an act of love (because she should want to stay loyal to him and Christ so she can be reunited with Vlad in heaven). It is pretty hard to show this type of christian and Victorian themes when the film creators either didn't understand them or despised them.
Again, which is fine for them to do their own thing but they don't get to call it "Bram Stoker's" while basically slapping Stoker's moral lesson across the face.
they should NOT be calling this film "Bram Stoker's Dracula" because it is not.
then don't call the Film "Bram Stoker's" by assigning the name of the author they are suggesting they were going to faithfully adapt his work; when actually they did the opposite.
Maybe the love Vlad has for Elizabeth was real and he wanted to be with her in 'hell' or didn't want to be in heaven without her.
", I encourage you to just imagine it called "Dracula." Problem solved"
That doesn't solve the problem; the problem is with the only being faithful on a surface (superficial) level only and was actually the opposite in terms of morals and values. So to call it Bram Stoker's in wrong. It doesn't matter how 'close' it got to the book in terms of characters and settings and structure; the deeper themes of the novel are gone. Or in one way to put it, it is like a corpse of the novel.
"Theological concepts mean little when one's mind is clouded like this."
Again that is NOT love; that is physical based possesiveness. My great grandmother lost her husband at 42 years old. after about 10 years she was dating a man (a very wealthy man) that wanted to marry her but she turned him down because she still loved her husband too much. She went on to live to 97 years old and never re-married and was utterly devoted to her husband until her death 55 years later. THAT IS LOVE. And that is the type of love Stoker was writing about. Not this superficial pansy ass "i can't live without him/her" B.S. that Coppola and Hart injected in.
"It was real and it revealed that there was a glimmer of light in him despite his fallen, corrupted condition. He was redeemed when he "saw the light" at the end and thus wasn't going to be condemned to the lake of fire and everlasting destruction."
That is not how redemption works; he was not redeemed by God or repentence; he was redeemed because of Mina's "love". Like I said, that is an insult to the values Stoker was writing about.
"It's useless to keep dialoguing with you because you're so stuck on the film's title -- in some countries -- that you can't see its many attributes. That's your choice. Goodbye."
It is not just the title but the fact that they really tried hard to keep the same superficial structure while significantly undermining the main themes.
and was actually the opposite in terms of morals and values
Or in one way to put it, it is like a corpse of the novel.
that is the type of love Stoker was writing about. Not this superficial pansy ass "i can't live without him/her" B.S. that Coppola and Hart injected in.
That is not how redemption works; he was not redeemed by God or repentence; he was redeemed because of Mina's "love".
"No it wasn't. There's a palpable spirituality to the film that you obviously missed."
There was no spirituality in the film until the last 5 minutes. The rest was all materialistic physical based. I have no idea where you are getting this "palpable spirituality", what I tasted in the 'air' of that film was palpable shite.
"Coppola/Hart version actually makes the story weightier..."
Wow, you claim that I missed the 'deeper' themes of Coppola's dracula. You clearly missed the deeper themes of Stoker's novel. The sotry needed no love angle to make it deep; there is already a redemption story in it; that of Harker and Mina who were both falling under the evil spell. Coppola's version romanticizes what is supposed to be the antagonist and have it steal the redemption story for itself. I get this impression you just like the romanticizing of vampires because you like "emo" feel of it. That totally pansy "wouldn't it be cool to be vampire" you see in the Ann Rice/Twilight fans.
" not this imaginary film you feel should have been made"
The film that should have been made was "Bram Stoker's Dracula" and should be true to the themes of the novel and not just the surface level structure. Otherwise it is a phony adaptation
." the added love & redemption theme"
They didn't add a love & red. story; they stole it from Harker and Mina and gave it to the evil count. That undermines the whole point of the novel.
" respects the intelligence of the viewer to put the pieces together and not spell everything out."
Nice passive aggressive insult. I don't think Coppola or you understand God's love. In greek there are 7 different words for love. the love god has for us is Agape love; the love of Vlad(dracula)/Elisabeth(MIna) is called Eros. So it is not them being intelligent and not spelling things out; it is them not understanding the themes they are adapting. And because you don't know them either, you got caught up in there romanticize of Eros love
I hope this won't give you a coronary, my friend, but this well-done video covering the top 10 vampire movies of all time puts Coppola & Hart's "Dracula" at #6, even above Hammer's overrated "Horror of Dracula": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgBCK3NB8Pw
By the way, I just saw Jess Franco's "Count Dracula" (1970) with Christopher Lee followed by Coppola & Hart's "Dracula" the next night. They're only 22 years apart, but the latter version is so superior to the former it's unbelievable. But you are so stuck on the love & redemption angle you stubbornly don't give the film the credit it's due. I encourage you to give it a fresh viewing with new eyes.
To be fair to your point; you are right; the Hammer's Dracula film is not great either; the production value just does not compare to Coppola's Dracula. There are many things that Coppola's version got right. My biggest complaint is not really with the quality but with the themes. I don't think there has been a single great adaptation of the novel but IMO it is important to get the themes right.
"But you are so stuck on the love & redemption angle you stubbornly don't give the film the credit it's due"
I do not like the idea of the 'monster' being redeemed. IMO there is such a thing as 'unforgivable sin'. Dracula you can say blasphemed against the holy spirit and embraced pure evil (a person such as this SHOULD NOT be redeemable). And I don't like this romantic view of vampires (that became popularized by the Ann Rice novels. That is not the type of story Bram Stoker was telling. There is a love and redemption angle in the novel but it is far more subtle and based in the Agape love of Mina/Harker and God (or you could say their religious believe associated with 'the love of God'). Cappolo's Dracula steals this love story from God as an idea and from Mina and Harker and then twists it to that Eros form of love. This I find unforgivable in Coppola's version.
Or to put it simply; I think it makes Dracula a sappy love sick characters instead of the powerful terrifying monster he is supposed to be.