It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Appropriate music is pretty important for a Dracula film, IMO. James Bernard nailed it with his Hammer scores, especially the first one. I also love the beautiful melodic score for BLOOD FOR DRACULA.
Main theme copies heavily Horror of Dracula. Coppola could not be original. He had to vampirise every other version of Dracula there was.
Wojciech Kilar's score for the Coppola film carries the composer's signature style all the way through. If anything, he's borrowing from himself rather than from other composers. I furthermore hesitate to think that Coppola forced him to heavily draw from existing material. Though it's hard to ignore the similarities between Kilar's theme and James Bernard's motifs, most of the score is a unique achievement which was rightly celebrated by several organisations and academies upon its release. I certainly wouldn't dismiss it as little more than a shameless copy of other people's works, nor would I endeavour to prove that Coppola turned his film into an unwatchable amalgamate of material he deviously pried away from existing Dracula adaptations.
I understand you loathe the film, and by all means, that's fine. But I too have read the novel, I too have actively been pursuing and watching its many adaptations, both loose and faithful, for years. I completely agree with you that very few Dracula films match the tone, descriptions and characters of the source novel. That, however, isn't the only criterium for me when I must decide if something works or doesn't. As Stoker's novel is most likely impossible to be done justice via the medium film, I'm perfectly satisfied with scripts taking their share of liberties with the original material. Coppola's Dracula, in that respect, isn't too dissimilar from several of the Bond films which have tried to adapt Fleming's stories but kept only a few bits of those intact while butchering the overall concepts to better fit their ambitions.
Coppola's film was merely another attempt at pleasing an audience looking for a Dracula film with particular flavours, this one focusing to a large extent on a romantic subtext which most scholars refuse to acknowledge is even present in the book. Whether one agrees with their dismissal of romantic undertones or not, is much less important than the realisation that in the early 90s, this tonal direction for "costume dramas" seemed very much in vogue. Judging by the BO numbers and general ratings, the film had certainly managed to find an audience.
Perhaps the only thing I will hold against the film, much more so than Keanu's unfortunate casting as a mature Jonathan Harker, is the pretentious move to call the film "Bram Stoker's Dracula" when it absolutely isn't Stoker's vision brought to life. (Lest we forget, Kenneth Branagh would make the same "mistake" soon after the release of this film.) Other than that, though, I'm perfectly happy with the film as it turned out to be, knowing very well how immensely different it is compared to Stoker's novel. I myself refuse to be angry with Coppola's version of the story because of its redundant "window dressing", artistic pretensions and narrative liberties. Rather, I enjoy what's there; I can strangely enjoy the aggressively cosmetic, overstylised production, like walking into a perfumery and being assaulted by an all but nauseating cocktail of stingy, flowery odours. Let's face it, this film is outrageously silly, but amidst all its overproduced chaos and wild jazz, there are many intriguing visuals, a sublime score, some really satisfying acting performances and a fairly waterproof albeit popcorn version of the story to be found. It's not really about whether Stoker should rise from his grave to either praise or criticise the film; it's about providing yet another "remix" of the elements of the original story in a long list of such remixes we've been given since the nineteen twenties. I know of more faithful Dracula adaptations and I know of less faithful Dracula adaptations, but when I'm watching this film, I do so in isolation from whatever else is available. This is merely one adaptation and I can enjoy it on its own terms. I really hope, @Ludovico, that you can appreciate the fact that some of us, who are also perfectly familiar with the novel in all its aspects, do like this movie for what it is, and not for what it isn't. :-)
And I am not a purist: I understand different mediums call for different approaches when one tackles a certain source material. Fleming's novels were often not very cinematographic and liberties had to be taken, things had to be added as much as taken out. My favourite movie, A Clockwork Orange, is fairly faithful to the novel it is based on, but differs in many aspects. But I never felt Kubrick tried to go against the spirit of the source material: he adapted it with respect and even admiration, something Anthony Burgess grudgingly agreed upon. I don't see this in Coppola's work on Dracula. I see self-indulgence, I also see a clear misunderstanding of the source material.
HOTEL TRANSYLVANIA 2 came out in 2015. Mel Brooks as Vlad, Dracula s father is funny in this one.
HOTEL TRANSYLVANIA 3: SUMMER VACATION aka MONSTER VACATION came out last year. I haven t seen it, but it starts out with an encounter with Van Helsing in 1897.
I tried watching this series and couldn't get through even a full episode. I actually liked the 1990 series better.
I gave up on it real quick as well.
Ouch. It must have been truly lame.
That's a good way to put it.
I've only seen parts of this. I skipped it in the cinemas. Looked like a typical CGI extravaganza , though Luke Evans might have made a decent Dracula in a regular adaptation of the novel.
I bought the movie blind, but gave it away after one watch.
I think we dodged a bullet if that was really intended to be the start of Universal's new Dark Universe. Their Tom Cruise Mummy film wasn't too popular. I heard they then scratched plans for a BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN remake.
I really don't think the current heads of Universal quite understand what made those classic films so re-watchable for generations. These newer films get the tone, look and feel all wrong, IMO.
I'd love to see a new Dracula movie done well, but that seems to much to ask for these days.
The sad thing is they'd just need to go back to the novel. Gatiss claims that's what he's doing, but I'm skeptical.
And it's time people just ditch Vlad Tepes from the narrative. Bram Stoker knew nothing about him, not even his real name. He just liked the sound of Dracula and ran with it.
Exactly.
I remember one or two comic adaptations when I was a kid being quite true to the novel.
Same with FRANKENSTEIN.
BRAM (Abraham) STOKER was born in Dublin 8th November 1847 and passed away in London 20th April 1912. He married his wife Florence in 1878 and they had one son, Irving.
The original typescript of Dracula was 541 pages, and was thought lost until found in Pennsylvania in the 80s. It showed that the original intended title was THE UN-DEAD.
Stoker s great-grand nephew Dacre Stoker wrote a sequel to DRACULA, called DRACULA, THE UN-DEAD in 2009.
THE PRIMROSE PATH (1875)
THE SNAKE S PASS (1890)
THE WATTER S MOU (1895)
THE SHOULDER OF SHASTA (1895)
DRACULA (1897)
MISS BETTY (1898)
THE MYSTERY OF THE SEA (1902)
THE JEWEL OF SEVEN STARS (1903)
THE MAN (THE GATES OF LIFE) (1905)
LADY ATHLYNE (1908)
THE LADY OF THE SHROUD (1909)
THE LAIR OF THE WHITE WORM (THE GARDEN OF EVIL) (1911)
First edition cover of Dracula:
It is the only one I have read, so cannot comment on the quality of his other work, but any author who gets one monumental hit like that is lucky.
In his interview of Winston Churchill he seems to consider Dracula and his whole literary career as a relatively minor aspect of his life.
Let us not forget that Dracula was not in Stoker’s lifetime the phenomenon it became with the cinema. It was a moderately successful horror novel from a good but minor, part-time writer.