The production design and Oscar winning costume design avoid all previous versions, and deliver a unique and unexpected world for Dracula (no cape for Drac no cheesy haunted castle) in turn delivering a plausible Victorian-era England. Again, this is not the Dracula of the novel, but it is a compelling version of him, instilling the Count with a tragic back-story, and underpinning his ‘evil’ persona with a contextually credible (if morally unacceptable) reason for being the ‘devil’ he is.Ĭoppola’s style leans heavily towards surrealism, and this successfully aids in giving the film its’ strangeness and slightly off-kilter feel throughout. His unique portrayal of Dracula was – at the time - a refreshing and surprising take on the character. Gary Oldman – of all the fine actors, including Anthony Hopkins – is the reason this film works. He was completely miscast, and unlike his colleagues, never comfortably rests in his character’s shoes. Hart’s script to him) Whether acquiescing to Ryder’s wish list or not - as he almost always does - Coppola drew unto him some of the finest actors of the day to inhabit these classic characters and, in a project of this notoriety, it was a smart move… with one exception: Keanu Reeves. Ĭoppola has said his casting was heavily influenced by Winona Ryder (who brought James V. It does this so strongly that it becomes the predominant thematic spine, and makes it a completely different story to the source it’s trying to honour. While this version is much closer to the novel than most, it does not – as many involved have claimed – faithfully invoke its main thematic premise, preferring to change the relationship of Dracula and Mina Harker to a romantic one, and to embellish a back-story that anchors this change throughout the film. Coppola’s flair for the theatrical, his almost abstract perception, and his bigger than Ben-Hur personality are all over this film. What it does prove unequivocally is that it is possible for a filmmaker to be reasonably faithful to the source, and at the same time put their unique stamp on it.
In short: it worked.Ĭoppola’s version is a challenging interpretation, absolutely packed to the brim with virtues and equal flaws. The idea was to be faithful to author Bram Stoker – where most film versions are not – and to imbue it with an emotional intensity and talent roster not afforded the Count’s tale in a long time. In 1992, Francis Ford Coppola brought the world his film version of the classic Victorian horror novel, and, after the disappointment of Godfather 3, did so to triumphant financial and critical success. "has all the trademarks of a good Coppola picture – especially that boldness to step away from expectation"
0 kommentar(er)
