As Halloween approaches, Count Dracula will inevitably resurface as one of the most iconic and enduring monsters in popular culture. Since Bram Stoker published his original novel in 1897, countless reiterations and adaptations of his famous story have appeared.
Francis Ford Coppola’s 1992 “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” is widely regarded as one of the best film adaptations of the novel to exist. However, there are several significant differences between the novel and the film, one of which appears as early as the pre-title sequence.
In the film, we see a grief-stricken Elisabeta (Winona Ryder) commit suicide after she is led to believe that her husband Dracula (Gary Oldman) has died in battle against the Ottoman Empire during its seizure of Constantinople. Heartbroken, Dracula renounces the Christian God and condemns himself to surviving off the blood of the living, becoming a vampire.
Four centuries later, he falls for Mina Murray (Winona Ryder), the fiancée of his lawyer Jonathan Harker (Keanu Reeves). Unlike in the novel, where Mina is a married woman drawn to Dracula’s seductive charm, the film portrays her as the reincarnation of his late wife. It is in pursuit of this love that Dracula sought eternal life and began his reign of terror.
Coppola embraces the epistolary style of Stoker’s titular novel, utilizing numerous narrators to switch between concurrent action scenes. The chaos created by the constant cross-cutting is a classic characteristic of Coppola’s style. While this directional style didn’t work well in his most recent film, “Megalopolis”, it is undeniably effective in rendering “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” a captivating and campy extravaganza.
The beauty of the film lies especially in its visually appealing, opulent Gothic style. Over-the-top, eye-catching sets alongside stunning costumes and makeup take the Gothic aesthetic of Stoker’s time and amplify it dramatically. The stark contrast between the bloody reds embellishing the costumes and the bleak blacks and grays of the architecture creates a chilling environment. This sinister ambiance is complemented by a beautifully haunting score that exudes unease. The production design melds perfectly with the impressive practical effects, which succeed in bringing to life the uncanny horror of Dracula’s monstrosity. Not a single scene in the film fails to deliver stunning cinematography. The most compelling scenes are those in the beautiful Westenra family estate, which quickly becomes infested with darkness, in the austere mountains of the Transylvanian countryside.
Beyond its overarching eeriness, the film oozes with carnality, imbuing Dracula’s darkly erotic vampiric lore with further sensuality. The film truly epitomizes the term “bloodlust,” with socially repressed ideals of violence and desire dominating the story. Coppola brings the book’s sexual undertones to the forefront of the film through extremely sensual characters and scenes. Lucy Westenra (Sadie Frost), who is portrayed in the novel as an innocent — albeit insatiable — young woman, embraces her desirability more openly in the film. And this lustfulness is amplified as her possession by the undead progresses. Dracula’s brides even make an appearance as further tools of seduction and fear-mongering for the imprisoned Harker.
Unfortunately, this lasciviousness is taken a step too far and strays from the original novel. The female characters are overly sexualized, which certainly evokes the sinful temptation of evil. However, their characters are consumed by their lustful allure, losing any semblance of depth beyond sexual appeal. Mina’s character in particular deviates from the literary version, as she is also easily seduced by Dracula. Whereas in the original, Mina plays a crucial role in overcoming Dracula and resists his corruption of her.
Coppola’s adaptation romanticizes this manipulation and twists the story into a lovers’ tragedy. This not only changes Mina but also redefines Dracula’s monstrosity. He is no longer Stoker’s heartless and bloodthirsty representation of evil incarnate, but rather a blasphemer in the name of true love. His main motivation being his pursuit of love humanizes him, and despite his terrific abilities, one finds it hard to truly fear him.
Oldman delivers a stellar performance as Count Dracula, creating a character that is simultaneously chilling and sympathetic. Oldman convincingly portrays this tragic version of Dracula, and when paired with the impressive performance by Anthony Hopkins as his nemesis, Dr. Van Helsing, Dracula’s villainous side becomes more compelling and complex. Both Frost and Ryder offer mesmerizing portrayals despite their characters’ somewhat flawed and underdeveloped writing. Reeves’ performance, however, falls short of his usual standard, feeling especially clumsy and out of place compared to the standout deliveries of his counterparts.
While the film certainly offers one of the best and most interesting renditions of “Dracula,” its usage of Bram Stoker’s name in the title is frankly egregious, as it is not entirely faithful to the book. It sticks to the source material more than many other adaptations that exist, but the key differences are too significant for it to truly be considered the original author’s. It is much more Coppola’s Dracula than it is Stoker’s.