In today’s Everything But Bone, we are entering bold new territory, writing about a film that’s bad. But why do that, you might say. Because, while the plot, characters, and acting isn’t the best, the film is so damn pretty! We’re talking about Francis Ford Coppola’s Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992). Yup, the one with Keanu Reeves playing a weirdly accented cuckold, Winona Ryder is vastly underused, and, oh yeah, Tom Waits is there. (Fun fact, this Dracula came out on the day of my birth, November 13, 1992, a Friday. I guess since we are twins, I should go easy on it but I won’t). Anyway, the film’s beautiful costumes, sets, and special effects make up for the other elements it lacks. And it works, twenty-five years after its release people are still watching.
I am of the opinion that the best part of the film is the pre-credits opening sequence. While it largely serves as a way to give the audience exposition, the visuals are some of the most beautiful in the film. Starting with the costumes of 1462, Dracula’s armor looks like his skin has been flayed off. The armor only appears during this part. However, the design is memorable enough that it’s been enshrined in pop culture iconography.
Besides establishing Dracula’s doomed love for Elizabeta, his battle against the Turks takes up most of the opening’s run time. Coppola could have had the battle be realistic and gory. Instead the soldiers appear as black silhouettes against a bright red sky. It’s beautiful. The whole thing is very evocative of the work of Ingmar Bergman.
The opening culminates with the death of Elizabeta and Dracula’s loss of faith; to really sell the breaking with God, Coppola has Dracula stab his giant cross. Blood oozes everywhere. Screaming and flailing, Dracula fills up a giant chalice with it and takes a big drink. The whole thing is campy and overdramatic but awesome. Honestly, that could be the film’s tag line.
Funny enough, the opening in the screenplay is far more limited. Half of what’s in the finished product isn’t even referenced. Filmmakers should take note that expanding an exposition scene with strong visuals is the way to go. Showing always helps telling.
I have even more to say about the costumes of Dracula. Eiko Ishioka deserved to win the Oscar for Best Costume design. It’s a good thing that the costumes are given the importance they deserve, as they become a short hand for characters that get little development otherwise. Quincy Morris is the big goofy American, because he wears boots and a cowboy hat. Dr. Jack Seward is basically a mad scientist, due to his disheveled clothes and drug use. Sir Arthur Holmwood is a fancy British aristocrat because he dresses well, has a moustache, and is played by Cary Elwes.
On the better side of style, Dracula’s robe is evocative of the glitter and gold of Gustav Klimt’s paintings, which was the intention of Coppola. Mina and Lucy’s dresses are detailed in their fashion. In a film full of stunning clothing, Lucy’s burial gown is the best. Yes, she might look like a giant doily, but it stands out. The wedding dress turned burial grown is weird, and our vampire lady looks stunning in it while she’s off stealing children to eat.
Besides costumes, actor motion and camera work are the better parts of the film. Some of vampire Lucy’s (also the brides) movements are played backwards to give them unnatural motion. When a vampirized Lucy is forced back into her coffin by Van Helsing, she was filmed climbing out and the footage then played forward, a simple trick to make her creepy and inhuman.
Weirdly enough, the camera work for Dracula is all over the place. Cinematographer Michael Ballhaus keeps his style consistent by its variance. Ballhaus would partner with Martin Scorsese on films till his death, so you’ve likely seen his work in other places. Jitter cam, Dutch angles, so many match cuts you could make a drinking game out of it. Match cuts can be fun. Remember the one from 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)? Almost every scene has at least one in Dracula. I find that it got repetitive after the 5th one. I ended up giggling as they came up. Once is a novelty, too many gets silly.
I do want to talk about the jitter cam. When Dracula moves as an animalistic creature the camera jerks around like we are seeing the world from his eyes. It looks similar to the jitter cam that Baz Lurman’s Moulin Rouge (2001) would use. Dracula uses it better, since it has an actual purpose. I get motion sick easily, luckily not here.
Rewatching the film for this column did make me reconsider it in a new light, things I had no opinion on the first few times changed during this viewing. It may not be The Room (2003) standards of bad but Dracula is pretty terrible. We can all laugh at Keanu Reeves sounding like Theodore Logan pretending to be British, but behind the surface of enjoyable camp, I find the film to be incredibly sexist.
Lucy is simultaneously infantilized and sexually desired by the men around her. She spends too much time orgasmically moaning in pain with her breasts out (Can we have more male frontal nudity in films please?). Mina, in contrast to her novel counterpart, has almost zero agency. She ping pongs between bland or terrible men, not getting to make any real choices. While she gets to kill Dracula in this version it’s supposed to be the culmination of a tragic romance but it’s really just a woman killing the abuser she’s fallen in love with. Blah.
I guess Dracula goes to show you that no matter how much frosting, even if it’s very pretty frosting, a shit cake is still, a shit cake.
