True to the novel? Yes! - Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) Discussion

[–] Ace_Spade (9546) 2 years ago

I've long thought that Coppola's film is best when it sticks to the source material, and I love those parts dearly. I do think it goes "off" with that middle section where Dracula and Mina go to the movies. Coppola tried to hammer in a misunderstood monster message and a romance plot, and I don't think it entirely worked; in fact, I think they should have changed more of the story to suit that idea if they wanted to pursue it.

But it is nice that the film largely keeps to the original story (even if the misplacement of the "God's madmen" line really alters its meaning and use).

Overall, I like the movie, but with reservations. For every amazing choice they make, they seem to make a bad one. Gary Oldman plays Dracula, Keanu Reeves is Jonathan - for instance - or the aforementioned "stick to the novel right up until there's a HUGE digression in the middle".

reply

[–] Cherubino1 (101) 2 years ago

Reply (Part 1/2)

“I’ve long thought that Coppola’s film is best when it sticks to the source material, and I love those parts dearly. I do think it goes ‘off’ with that middle section where Dracula and Mina go to the movies. Coppola tried to hammer in a misunderstood monster message and a romance plot, and I don’t think it entirely worked; in fact, I think they should have changed more of the story to suit that idea if they wanted to pursue it.”

I agree with you in part. I also think the romance doesn’t work, partly because – as you said – the rest of the story follows the book. On the other hand, I never thought of the movie as a serious attempt to be faithful to the novel. For me, the movie was always a surreal, expressionistic dream where nothing had to make sense.

Even the liner notes say:
“It almost feels like a stage presentation. The film itself is made in such a way that it embraces all of its artifice. It doesn’t ever try to make you believe in its reality – you just have to be affected by its reality.”

Think of the scene where Van Helsing is looking at the picture of Dracula and the impaled men in an old book. Then we fade to Dracula sitting in a cafe. In the background you can see the shadows of the dancers, but at first they stand still, representing the image of the impaled men. Suddenly, however, the shadows begin to dance.
Scenes like this reinforce the dreamlike impression of the movie for me.
(By the way: I speak German, and the text in the old book is also German - at least partly. The text makes no sense in terms of content or grammar, it is just a string of some German words; if you look closely, you will notice that the text repeats itself. Someone obviously wrote some “sentences” and copied them over and over again. But maybe this is intentional?)

reply

[–] Cherubino1 (101) 2 years ago

Reply (Part 2/2)

You mentioned the scene in the cinematograph. Again, I agree with you in principle, but this scene is also like a dream for me, with many “illogical” images. Why, for example, do you see a shadow play that represents the prologue of the movie?

In a German-language book on film aesthetics, the scene in which Mina is almost bitten by Dracula is described as follows:

“In the cinema, she resists his physical advances and her symbolic undressing by his penetrating gaze, which mirrors an erotic film sequence in the background.”

You hear Mina shout “Stop it!” and simultaneously, in the background on the screen, you see a naked woman standing up and turning away from the camera. It may well be that the scene on the screen is not intended as a realistic representation of a movie in a cinematograph, but as an allegory for Mina, who feels “naked” by Dracula’s gaze and turns away protectively. The fact that “looking” plays an important role in this movie is shown, among other things, by two other scenes: When Harker is traveling by train, Dracula’s eyes can be seen in the sky, watching him. Also, when Mina and Lucy are talking about Harker’s letter, Dracula’s eyes can be seen watching them as well.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9546) 2 years ago

That is all very good, and I think you're right about the erotic cinema sequence. I just think it bogs down the plot and is incongruous with the character development - for once, not in a dreamscape way, but just in a bit of a jarring way. Again, I think this is because Stoker developed his characters a certain way, and because Coppola follows that development, then shifts to the Drac-Mina stuff, and then goes back to Stoker, Mina's responses to Dracula and his actions toward her don't seem to fit the rest of the story - not entirely, anyway.

Still, I'll forgive the film a lapse or two - it is marvellous.

And, despite my dislike generally of the date scenes, I will give them this: as you say, the film maintains a theatrical flare, and hearkens with its effects and style to older films and cinema-gone-by, so directly utilizing the advent of filmmaking to augment a film so clearly in love with moviemaking itself is a good thing, I just think the way it was used kinda monkeys with Stoker's story. Again, none of this would be a problem if they had tweaked some other character development stuff elsewhere in the film.

reply

[–] Cherubino1 (101) 2 years ago

“That is all very good, and I think you're right about the erotic cinema sequence. I just think it bogs down the plot and is incongruous with the character development”

Maybe it helps to remember that Mina is actually a reincarnation of Elisabetha.
But still, like you, I think a love story (is it even a love story if Mina is a reincarnation anyway?) would have worked better if certain parts of the original story had been changed, because the two just don’t fit together!

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9546) 2 years ago

Yeah, and that's my overall point, is that while I'm not opposed to the romance and the added elements, they can't stick doggedly to the original novel (albeit with a lavish, strange stylistic interpretation) and then tack in scenes to change that existing narrative into something else.

reply

[–] R_Kane (15828) 2 years ago

There is NO REINCARNATION in BRAM STOKER’S Dracula. That is sheer, vomitous horse shit. This movie has the nerve to be titled Bram Stoker’s Dracula, but it arrogantly alters the story. What’s sad is that they had all the resources to make an accurate film, then they pissed all over it; nor did they study vampire lore at all. “A vampire can go abroad in daylight, but he is much weakened”!?!?!? Sheer bullshit. A vampire CANNOT MOVE when the sun is up. It’s not the sunlight at work. It’s the cycle of the assent of the sun. Sheesh.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9546) 2 years ago

Vampire lore varies from work to work. In Stoker's novel, Dracula is vulnerable and weak during the day, but not toasted or immobile.

"The sun that rose on our sorrow this morning guards us in its course. Until it sets to-night, that monster must retain whatever form he now has. He is confined within the limitations of his earthly envelope. He cannot melt into thin air nor disappear through cracks or chinks or crannies. If he goes through a doorway, he must open the door like a mortal."

That's from the book, and is outright saying that Dracula could go through a doorway. He could move in sunlight/daytime.

But, yes, the reincarnation stuff was 100% fabricated for the film version.

reply

[–] Cherubino1 (101) 2 years ago

There is NO REINCARNATION in BRAM STOKER’S Dracula. That is sheer, vomitous horse shit.

No. It is an interpretation (which, in my opinion, unfortunately does not work in this case). No more and no less.

This movie has the nerve to be titled Bram Stoker’s Dracula, but it arrogantly alters the story. What’s sad is that they had all the resources to make an accurate film, then they pissed all over it;

There can be no “accurate”" film, since the novel (as I mentioned earlier) is conceived in such a way that the reader is asked to consider what of these reports corresponds to the truth and what does not, due to the many contradictions and errors. For this reason alone, a film adaptation that follows the novel 1:1 would be anything but faithful to the work. Such a film adaptation would merely convey the superficial content, but not the concept, not the intention of the novel.

That being said, changes are often necessary to allow a modern audience to experience the effects Stoker intended. What was creepy and horrific to a late 19th century reader seems harmless, perhaps even ridiculous, to a modern viewer. What was perfectly normal at the time causes today’s viewers only a shake of the head. Therefore, one is often even closer to the original when one changes it so that it can unfold its effect on today’s viewers.

nor did they study vampire lore at all. “A vampire can go abroad in daylight, but he is much weakened”!?!?!? Sheer bullshit.

I find it strange that you insult this movie because in your opinion it has nothing to do with the novel, but at the same time you don't know what is actually in the novel. If you read the book, you would see that Dracula can move around in daylight. The fact that Dracula turns to dust in sunlight is an invention of the film industry. Maybe you should read the novel once instead of throwing around scatology.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9546) 2 years ago

Yes, we see basically eye-to-eye here. I do wish they'd either doubled-down on the romance plot and made further - equally surreal - alterations, but overall I like the film and its dreamlike qualities.

Some of the best parts of the film are the embracing of this madness. Dracula's look at the beginning of the film; the way the brides scuttle away almost as one, strange being; the way the effects of the film look "wrong" (like the elongated arm); the overabundance of blood when Lucy dies - everything works to create a look, feel, and atmosphere that are incredible. The film gets a lot right.

I'd like to see a "book edit" some day that cut some of the subplot, as much as allowed for a maintenance of "flow", anyway. I even find myself wondering if leaving out the prologue would work. With no direct knowledge of Dracula's history, his creepy romance with Mina becomes open to interpretation, and might be scarier, more haunting, or even perhaps more tragic.

You're almost certainly right about the German in the book. There is so much attention to detail in this film regarding props, set dressing, costumes, etc., so I doubt anybody muffed the German. They probably copied it repeatedly for a reason. Perhaps to reference the kind of repetitive madness Dracula inspires in souls like Renfield?

reply

[–] Cherubino1 (101) 2 years ago

“I'd like to see a "book edit" some day that cut some of the subplot, as much as allowed for a maintenance of "flow", anyway. I even find myself wondering if leaving out the prologue would work.”

That would be interesting for sure. I always have to remember that the characters in the book are quite unsympathetic from today’s point of view. The “new women” (feminist women) are ridiculed, the men are macho men who like to go hunting, entertain themselves with old hunting stories, talk about honor a lot, Van Helsing and Seward are bad doctors who, after getting the information they want from Renfield, leave him alone to die; Seward secretly mixes Renfield a narcotic to read his notebook, which – as an annotated edition of the book also mentions – is quite unethical. In general, the book is full of embarrassing melodrama and speeches (“poor, poor, dear Madam Mina,” “dear, dear Madam Mina,” etc., not to mention the constant mention of how innocent and pure Lucy and Mina are, and how such-and-such a sight is not for women).

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9546) 2 years ago

I don't remember Van Helsing as being portrayed as a bad doctor, but most of his expertise is in vampire-hunting and fails because of a lack of compliance from his patient (for example, he tells them to leave the windows shut, but Lucy pulls them open). As for Seward, yes, he isn't terribly ethical by our standards, but was he by the standards of the 19th century? I don't know, but I know that what we would be appalled by a doctor doing, they might think normal.

I think melodrama depends on how much buy-in a reader or viewer (in the case of film) has with the material. Nobody minds a high-minded speech or scene of intense passion in a story that they invest in. I've seen it where some people are watching a movie and it's the climactic moment, somebody new comes into the room and cracks a joke at the high tension on-screen. Those who have been watching the film from the start are annoyed with this person because they've bought into the movie for two hours. The person who just entered doesn't "get" it because they have no buy-in, having skipped the set-up necessary to build that emotional connection.

So, I guess the melodrama of the book could be good or could be bad, depending on how it's shot and played out on-screen.

As to the sensibilities, yes, it would be more or less impossible for certain members of the modern moviegoing public to accept that the heroes like hunting and honour, but I suppose I don't care, personally. I like a good story, and I don't need every hero to be all things in every story. So I like heroes of feminine empowerment and heroes of masculine ideal, as long as they're handled well.

Now, mocking "new women" I might not care for as much, but I also can get behind stories being of a certain era or style, and accepting them on their terms. I don't want to see a movie as a propaganda piece against women's rights, but then again, I don't really want to watch propaganda at all.

reply

[–] Cherubino1 (101) 2 years ago

“I don't remember Van Helsing as being portrayed as a bad doctor”

He probably wasn’t conceived that way by Stoker, but the annotated editions point out in detail the medical mistakes Van Helsing makes, which were mistakes even then.

“but most of his expertise is in vampire-hunting”

Van Helsing – which I myself thought was surprising – has no experience in vampire hunting. On the contrary, he says he was skeptical at first and read books about vampires. Among other things about how to kill vampires.

“There are such beings as vampires. (…) I admit that at the first I was sceptic. Were it not that through long years I have train myself to keep an open mind, I could not have believe until such time as that fact thunder on my ear.

“and fails because of a lack of compliance from his patient (for example, he tells them to leave the windows shut, but Lucy pulls them open)”

As I recall, in addition to removing the protective garlic, Lucy’s mother opened the windows because she thought the room was too stuffy.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9546) 2 years ago

A very good point, and I was mostly talking about the intended portrayal, not the actual portrayal. Stoker made medical errors, not a character who was deliberately a bad doctor. Interestingly, if I were adapting Dracula, and trying to be faithful to the book, I'd probably tweak aspects of Helsing and Seward to make them more medically-sound, because I think that would fit the intention, although not the facts.

Sorry, that should have read "portrayed expertise" being vampire hunting. We read about his fighting vampires, not diseases, and only have Seward's vote of confidence (which I think we're meant to take as legit) that Van Helsing is an accomplished physician.

Now, I did forget that tidbit of information that you bring up, and upon a close examination of the passage you refer to, I believe you are correct and Van Helsing has not encountered vampires previously to the novel's narrative. The only slight push-back I will offer is that Prof. Van Helsing is presented as a better physician than Seward, and has so quickly adapted to the knowledge of the existence of vampires that he is an almost overnight expert. I also would suggest (unless you have more quotes?) that he seems to have read up extensively on vampires - perhaps even prior to the novel. So that, while he hasn't fought anything or confirmed their existence before the narrative, he might possess vampire fighting knowledge already?

I think I'm mixing up the book and various adaptations where Lucy opens the windows. In any case, Van Helsing's prescriptions and methods should have been successful but for a lack of compliance, whether the source of that error was Lucy herself or her mother.

reply

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7699) 2 years ago

Except for the stupid sympathetic angle of Dracula and Mina falling in love with him. That was bullcrap and shame on Coppola for doing that!

reply

[–] Lord Rake (4454) 2 years ago

I agree the love story/tragic villain ruined it. After he fed a crying baby to the brides "while laughing" I thought they lost the opportunity to go that route anyway.

reply

[–] Stratego (30510) 2 years ago

It does follow the book pretty closely and when it does, it's pretty good. But the added romance scenes are just too melodramatic and boring and slow the movie down. I don't necessarily mind the Mina/Elisabeta connection, but they could've done it in a much more subtle way.

reply

[–] TheMouseShadow (417) 2 years ago

It’s really kind of silly bordering on camp.

reply

[–] TheMouseShadow (417) 2 years ago

[deleted]

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

I share your sentiment. In truth in some parts, it could have been more faithful to the book but for the most part it is (in other words more faithful than not). It is also the kind of Dracula that not only subsumes the book that inspired it yet also makes references to what inspired the creation of the book in the first place

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 2 years ago

Yes I re-read the novel a few summers ago and this version is fairly close to the novel aside from the Romance subplot. Coppola seemed to want to have it both ways, in some scenes Dracula is a terrifying monster, but then later he’s a misunderstood, tragic romantic character. It doesn’t work. Coppola should have picked a lane and stayed there.

reply

[–] pundit2006 (170) a year ago

I disagree. This movie story or adaptation was not true to the novel. Not completely. In the original story by Bram Stoker there was no love relationship between Mina Harker and Dracula.
Dracula was more or less a distant figure whose dark influence was felt/described in the story.
He was a malevolent presence in the background mainly.
This movie was more a romance story between DRacula and Mina Harker.
When Dracula met Mina he was struck by her resemblance to his wife who dies centuries before by falling to her death from a tower.
At the beginning of the movie it shows this and DRacula fighting against the Turks invading his country. This was while he was still a mortal and ruler of Transylvania or Wallachia.
So it was kind of hinted that maybe Mina Harker might have been his wife in a previous existence.
This was also not in the novel.

reply

[–] Cherubino1 (101) a year ago

It is true that there is no love story in Stoker’s novel, but I have not claimed that all the scenes shown in the film are from the novel.

Through the many contradictions in the narratives, the novel challenges the reader to critically question the text or the characters’ statements and memories. By presenting its story not as “truth” but as a kind of unreal dream in which one can never be sure what is true, the film comes very close to the author’s narrative style and intentions.

But it should also be remembered that Mina also seems to help Dracula in Stoker’s novel. One gets the impression that she develops sympathy for him after he bites her, and on a few occasions it seems as if she is being directed by Dracula, or even consciously helping him, for example by taking the carriage on many detours so that the vampire can reach his castle in time.

“Dracula was more or less a distant figure whose dark influence was felt/described in the story. […] This movie was more a romance story between DRacula and Mina Harker.”

I don’t like the love story, but Dracula still basically does what you describe: he uses (much like the vampire brides with Harker or the vampire Lucy with Holmwood) his “vampire magic” to win Mina over. He exerts his dark influence on Mina, think of his “See me” in the street or Mina’s reaction to his touch in the cinematograph. In another scene, he makes Mina drink absinthe. It may be a romance, but here too Dracula exerts his “dark influence” – which he also does in the novel, as Mina reports that when Dracula touches her, she strangely feels no need to resist. And after drinking Dracula’s blood in the film, she cries “Unclean! Unclean!” as if at that moment she is no longer under Dracula’s influence and realises what she has done.

reply