Following the dismal reaction and perceived failure of the his third Godfather movie, Francis Ford Coppola, the executive visionary behind numerous print-to-screen masterpieces in addition to Puzo's "Godfather" saga--namely S.E. Hinton's The Outsiders and Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness (Apocalypse Now)--decided to embark on a more personally endearing project. The veteran director felt it was time to make the movie about the classic novel he once "felt was his", Bram Stoker's 1897 horror classic Dracula. It was a book which both captivated and enthralled a young Coppola, reading it first as a boy, becoming enchanted by the legendary figure of the count and subsequently re-reading it numerous times over.
Coppola's painstakingly cultivated film adaptation, a labor of love largely budgeted with his own money and orchestrated through his personal production company, was never considered a financial or cinematic success. Critics complained the film was visually excessive, too operatic, that the narrative lacked continuity and the "highly eroticised" content deprived the story of dramatic authenticity. Yet the film was and remains deeply compelling in its own alluring, unique, and eerily provocative way. The production quality makes the movie. With every scene done the old fashioned way, inside a studio with savvy retro-mode production techniques and highly innovative set detail enhancing the aesthetic element, the film was able to extrapolate on Coppola's meticulously conceived ideas (The backgrounds, wardrobe, visuals and sound all exquisitely illumined the story and ultimately won it 3 Oscars for best effects, makeup and costumes).
A captivatingly haunting score combined with the perceptively original take on the protagonist instantly entrance the viewer, the beginning of the film tracing the origin and well-known legend of the real Count Dracula, an actual 15th century Romanian Prince known as Vlad Dracul II, or Vlad the Impaler, during a Turkish invasion. The proceeding account of epic erases many pre-existing notions associated with both the story and the vampire figure--no Bela Lugosi, Christopher Lee or any of the more traditional-looking Draculas come to mind. Nor do any contemporary vampire associations erect themselves in what was clearly the original intent of Coppola who wished to remain faithful to the story but broaden the horizons of both the interpretation and adaptation of the tale. True to the novel, the count is at once creepy and sinister, a multi-dimensional entity able to morph into various odd, shapeshifting forms: young and old human, wolf, mist, predatory beast, vermin, etc. But while every bit as monstrous as his silver screen predecessors, the villain's circumstances warrant a further assessment of his situation. Here Dracula's seen as a doomed figure, almost a tragic hero cruelly deprived of a true existence. The essence of the horror he emanates has as much to do with the irreversible eternality of his status as the menacing, physically terrifying creature he evokes.
While narratively the the film strives to magnify the passionate emotional union between the count and Mina Harker (in an admittedly very sensual manner), the real object seems to be to enhance the ambience of the story's gothic aura. It works. Aesthetically, the picture really is a visual feast; it's impossible to remain unmoved by its creative substance, imaginative designs and surrealist approach. And while the acting is nothing spectacular (outside of Tom Waits notable supporting role as Renfield), it's serviceable enough to establish the project as a complete and thoroughly fascinating production, convincing and original on more than one level. (DVD DRACULA)
Coppola's painstakingly cultivated film adaptation, a labor of love largely budgeted with his own money and orchestrated through his personal production company, was never considered a financial or cinematic success. Critics complained the film was visually excessive, too operatic, that the narrative lacked continuity and the "highly eroticised" content deprived the story of dramatic authenticity. Yet the film was and remains deeply compelling in its own alluring, unique, and eerily provocative way. The production quality makes the movie. With every scene done the old fashioned way, inside a studio with savvy retro-mode production techniques and highly innovative set detail enhancing the aesthetic element, the film was able to extrapolate on Coppola's meticulously conceived ideas (The backgrounds, wardrobe, visuals and sound all exquisitely illumined the story and ultimately won it 3 Oscars for best effects, makeup and costumes).
A captivatingly haunting score combined with the perceptively original take on the protagonist instantly entrance the viewer, the beginning of the film tracing the origin and well-known legend of the real Count Dracula, an actual 15th century Romanian Prince known as Vlad Dracul II, or Vlad the Impaler, during a Turkish invasion. The proceeding account of epic erases many pre-existing notions associated with both the story and the vampire figure--no Bela Lugosi, Christopher Lee or any of the more traditional-looking Draculas come to mind. Nor do any contemporary vampire associations erect themselves in what was clearly the original intent of Coppola who wished to remain faithful to the story but broaden the horizons of both the interpretation and adaptation of the tale. True to the novel, the count is at once creepy and sinister, a multi-dimensional entity able to morph into various odd, shapeshifting forms: young and old human, wolf, mist, predatory beast, vermin, etc. But while every bit as monstrous as his silver screen predecessors, the villain's circumstances warrant a further assessment of his situation. Here Dracula's seen as a doomed figure, almost a tragic hero cruelly deprived of a true existence. The essence of the horror he emanates has as much to do with the irreversible eternality of his status as the menacing, physically terrifying creature he evokes.
While narratively the the film strives to magnify the passionate emotional union between the count and Mina Harker (in an admittedly very sensual manner), the real object seems to be to enhance the ambience of the story's gothic aura. It works. Aesthetically, the picture really is a visual feast; it's impossible to remain unmoved by its creative substance, imaginative designs and surrealist approach. And while the acting is nothing spectacular (outside of Tom Waits notable supporting role as Renfield), it's serviceable enough to establish the project as a complete and thoroughly fascinating production, convincing and original on more than one level. (DVD DRACULA)
No comments:
Post a Comment