LadySoth wrote:BTW, nice to find someone on here who also likes Dracula.
I'm sure we're not the only ones here who likes Dracula as much as we do.
LadySoth wrote:In your opinion, what's the best film version? . . . Haven't seen Gary Oldman's version, and frankly, I've heard mixed things about it, I don't know if I really want to see it.
"Best" film version. I guess that depends on what a person wants out of the film. The Spanish version of the 1931
Dracula (shot on the same sets as the Lugosi version with the same script in Spanish) is touted by some as superior to the English version because of George Melford's directing.
My favorite version is the Gary Oldman
Bram Stoker's Dracula for two reasons: 1) In terms of plot, this adaptation is the closest to the novel. . . it even includes Quincey Morris! 2) Of all the adaptations,
Bram Stoker's Dracula is the most lush and visually dense. It's only modern era equal would be
Blade Runner. The Hammer films would run a second but that's only because they had real English countryside locations and real castles to work with (which allowed a bigger budget for the costumes.)
Despite the film adhering closely to the novel's plot, purists take exception to the way the character of Dracula was handled. Some derisively call the film "Anne Rice's Dracula."
All of this stems from the movie adding an origin story for Dracula -- the circumstances for his becoming a vampire. In this version, a prelude informs us that Dracula
is Vlad The Impaler, who renounces God when church officials tell him his wife, who committed suicide, wouldn't be admitted to the Kingdom of Heaven because suicide is a sin.
Flash-forward from the 1400s to 1897: In Jonathan Harker's trip to Transylvania, Dracula sees the spitting image of his long-dead wife in a photograph of Harker's wife, Mina. From this point on, the movie's plot unfolds like the original novel with only a few minor changes to accomodate the prelude.
However, the prelude changes the nature of the film because it changes the nature of Dracula's motivations. Instead of being motivated by just being Evil Incarnate, Dracula's motivations become romantic in nature (though the actions remain the same). And, unfortunately, some people, usually males who are disappointed that Dracula isn't a "bad ass" or a mirror image of Satan, are unable to enjoy the film because of this. Nevertheless, the film is a visual treat and is worth seeing on that basis alone.
The visual approach of
Bram Stoker's Dracula is one of reverie, not realism; So, a dream-like quality is present throughout the movie. In fact, even outdoor scenes were shot on soundstages so that the director (Francis Ford Coppola) could absolutely control the weather, color palette, lighting, etc. The look of the film is carefully planned and deliberate. Visually speaking, it is unmatched by any other Dracula adaptations. . . even the Langella or Louis Jourdan versions.
Rent
Bram Stoker's Dracula at least once and decide for yourself. Loved or hated, this film is rarely ignored.
LordGodefroi
(BFA Graphic Design - Professionally biased towards the visuals.)
But that's television for you
