It’s always amusing for me to watch older movies like the 1992 version of Dracula because you can ask the question ‘what has changed’ annoyingly and incessantly and get funny answers like, for example, the fact that hot Winona Ryder fizzled out of existence not long after this film whilst little the known actress playing one of Dracula’s three brides, Monica Bellucci, would rise, at least in Europe if not everywhere, to international fame.
So before even popping in the DVD there was interest in watching this film and unlike the eight previous adventures where I sat alone at home in front of an omnipresent big screen TV, a lot of people seemed to find interest in the idea of watching Dracula again. The question, of course, is does it hold up to time?
Dracula is aesthetically amazing and perhaps from a strictly visual point of view Francis Ford Coppola’s masterpiece: it is a treat for the eyes of vibrant colors, storytelling images, and a brilliant mixture of set pieces which might come across as cheap to some, but in my opinion are only an extension of the clear homage the director intended to offer to all of the Dracula films that came before him. My favorite example of this is the well placed scene of characters walking through the streets of London in the old frame rate which then passes to modern cinema in the sudden passing of a horse drawn carriage which resets the scene, so to speak. In so many ways the scenes are all beautifully executed and timeless, by no means a simple phenomenon of their generation.
Coppola did go a bit over the top, however, with scenes that felt strange at the time and neither matured nor improved with age: numerous montages which remain somewhat ambiguous and more character fade-overs than anyone could possibly feel is necessary are all present in an attempt to ensure that even the most foolish of audiences understand what otherwise absent forces are driving events.
The attempt to clear up any possible plot ambiguity is only further hindered by the fact that a large part of the story is just as difficult to understand today as it was in 1992. It is hard to believe or even admit but despite being caught in the very dark and dreary pits of a Goth-kid adolescence, I never read Dracula and so it is true that I am not sure what is or is not missing from the novel vs. what is quite clear and what is only touched upon but I would venture that in fact the beginning is more complete than the ending and one could probably make a relatively clear ninety degree slope based on that equation.
Don’t get me wrong, I loved the ending of this movie, but it does always seem as if by the end they were simply running out of time, money, patience or perhaps all of the above because the movie does very much begin to break down into quick voiced-over explanations of what is happening with a few quick action sequences along with dialogue that explains little to nothing; all of this then culminating in an ending which frankly is a bit disappointing if not flat out difficult to understand. The ending of this movie just feels so rushed, there was so much going on and in only a short stint of maybe ten minutes, everything was explained, solved or simply concluded without any attempt to solve it- I mean, does anyone know why Keanu Reeve’s hair kept getting whiter?
That said, there is the other way to interpret the final thirty minutes or so, of which I am entirely aware and more than willing to accept as a logical explanation: that the complete incomprehensibility of the film is very much the entire point as the characters descend into madness and, as Van Helsing puts it, they all become madmen for God. The ending is ultimately a tale of redemption, albeit in the eleventh hour which allows the audience to leave satisfied and less worried about the otherwise seemingly damned fate of two heroes who then became anti-heroes but by the final shot appear to be interpreted once again as heroes.
Nevertheless, there is good argument that this version of Dracula shines exactly because of the ambiguity it brings to the screen, leaving enough room for discussion that it is raised above the typical vampire story, something that is rare but does occur, very much like Interview with the Vampire, offering something well beyond folk lore and daemons in the night. Coupled with an amazing aesthetic touch and a musical score to create a feel of authenticity, Dracula will most likely remain for a long time to come the definitive movie based on the famous novel of the same name.
No comments:
Post a Comment