So here I am, part two of my penance… trying to argue what’s wrong with Bram Stoker’s Dracula without getting too hysterical or only spewing venom.
Anyway, first and foremost– I don’t like the look of the film. It’s a personal thing, and that’s an answer my film prof would never accept. I guess I find the vivid color and id-black shadow combination rather distracting. It worked in Batman the Animated Series, but not for a live-action movie.
Secondly, the premise. Dracula does not need to be anyone other than Dracula– even dear old Vlad the Impaler. (Making him Judas Iscariot for Dracula 2000 was even worse, but we’re not talking about it.) He is the world’s most famous vampire and can, if you’ll pardon the expression, bloody well stand on his own without the Turks, Crusades, impalings, and other crimson disjecta membra that the old monarch was famous for. Dracula the vampire was a person who led such a horrible life that he was cursed in death to become a vampire– sure, there’s plenty of room for imaginative backstory, but that’s not what the focus should be on.
Thirdly, well, I have to pick on my S.O. here. His defense of the movie was that it was “an original take on a story that has become stereotypical.” Well, he was right inasmuch as that the story has always been stereotypical, no matter who was telling it. In 1931 the white actresses for the Lugosi version wore fairly high-necked, long-sleeved dresses, while the Latina actresses for the Spanish language movie wore slinky, low-cut numbers. Going back to the original novel look at the “natives” of Transylvania– the peasants, the gypsies, the Slovaks. Plenty of stereotype there, and the 1992 film is guilty of perpetuating it.
And speaking of stereotypes– let’s talk about the women in Bram Stoker’s Dracula. Yes, Dracula is looking for his lost love instead of preying at random; that trend started in the ’70s. Yes, Mina finishes the vampire off. Orson Welles already did that, admittedly for radio, in the 1930s! Then there’s the quasi-canon Nosferatu movies– in both of which did the Mina character do the vampire slaying. Don’t talk like Francis Ford Coppola was the first to do it! And the vampiresses…. there’s a way to play up the erotic side of vampirism without turning it into porn, but this movie certainly forgot how.
Every female vampire is the most broad, disgusting, sexist stereotype of what a “slut” is… the brides, Lucy, and even Mina, with their heaving bosoms (which aren’t always covered), constant moaning and squeaking, making out with each other….
And now I come to van Helsing. Now, in Coppola’s defense, comedy-relief in Dracula movies has a very checkered past. In 1931, it was dreadful. In most of Terrence Fisher’s Dracula movies (with the exception of Horror of Dracula) the comedy fell flat. And I don’t even remember what was supposed to be funny in the 1979 movie– maybe just how repulsive Harker was. I don’t know. But back to van Helsing– making him the comedy relief in this movie was just a mistake. When Mel Brooks says something like, “She was in pain, so we cut off her head.” It’s funny. Not necessarily so when the movie is meant to be all dark and serious. Then there’s the matter of having van Helsing sniff Mina and begin waltzing her around when the first met, and do that weird undulation when he tells Quincy that Lucy is “the bitch of the devil.” If it’s meant to show that he’s not so different from Dracula, it doesn’t quite work, and it rather undermines his position as the expert. I won’t go into how Mina nearly seduced him.
Now for the Count himself. This movie is just confused about what it wants to do with the old bat. Is he young or old? Is he a wolf-bat or human? Is he evil or tragic? Is he appealing or repulsive? They never pick one. Yes, he changed ages in the novel, but it was basically 50-50: old in Transylvania and young again in England– consistency that this movie lacks.
Finally, my biggest complaint. Dracula is a rapist. I mean, yes, we all sort of knew that (what else is biting someone on the neck and forcing them to drink your own blood), but this movie, I feel, crosses a line by having him, and his brides, sexually assault their victims, too. We’re obviously supposed to feel repulsed when the wolf-bat creature rapes Lucy, but the other instances of that, like with the brides, or what Dracula does in human form, seem exploitative. Hypnotism and magic do not equal consent, and I’ll return to my earlier porn comment.