11/01/04
For centuries, people, particularly middle class society, have been fascinated with stories of vampires. Perhaps it is the overtly romantic and sexual imagery that is inherent in the stories of creatures that penetrate the skin and feed upon the life force of other humans that has captivated audiences since the dawn of vampire literature. Yet, of all the stories surrounding the undead, the one that has remained at the forefront is Bram Stokers Dracula. The story of the ill-fated count and those that hunt him has been retold innumerable times, but with each version lacking the original essence that Bram Stokers novel conveys. Like Mary Shelleys Frankenstein, Dracula had become more of a stereotypical icon through past erroneous representations of the story. However, finally in 1992, nearly a century after the novel was written, Francis Ford Coppolas film version of Bram Stokers Draculacame the closest to transcending the stereotypes and remaining faithful to the intended essence of the story. Yet, despite this more accepted adherence to the novel, it comes as no surprise that Hollywood must make its mark upon the story via a back-story that adds an element of love to a once-decidedly evil monster. Above all, it is through the modern interpretations of the Victorian characters that we see the mark that the progression of a hundred years has impressed upon the tale.
Truth be told, we must give Francis Ford Coppola credit for his amazing take on the novel. After all, he succeeds where several other directors have failed in staying true to the story. But, to those who are sticklers for authenticity, the differences in the characters are many. The most glaring difference between the film and the novel is the portrayal of Dracula. The incongruities are laid out from the beginning of the film, when the audience is immediately put on a more intimate basis with his character. The relaying of the story of Vlad Dracula, a Hollywood retelling of the life of Vlad Tepes, informs us of his lost love Elisabeta, his renunciation of the church he has defended against the Ottoman Empire, and his vow to remain undead and haunt Transylvania. Immediately, he is set up as a romantic figure to be pitied rather than feared.
Centuries later when the actual story begins with Harkers arrival at the castle, more differences begin to emerge. While he is clearly the disgusting old creature with hairy palms that the novel describes, we begin to see one key element that separates the Dracula of the film from that of the novel. He is no longer contained within second-hand accounts of others. The films Dracula is able to go where he pleases as shadows, mist, or as a wolf, and free of the imprisonment of the interpretations of the others. We see him speak firsthand, which he is never permitted to do in the novel.
More important than any other change in Dracula is his desire. No longer is his will to undermine the values of Victorian England as it is in the novel. His purpose, rather, is to obtain the love of Mina, the reincarnated self of Elisabeta. Suddenly, his entire purpose has changed, and his character is almost loveable. His motive is not to begin his destruction of England through a woman that exemplifies Victorian morality and innocence as the novel suggests. Instead, we see this romantic side as a conduit of change, which inspires him to transform from the hideous old man into young, charming Prince Vlad. While this may be a significant change, it is within reason. Honestly, no one wants to see Winona Ryder seduced by the repulsive Dracula, as the novel would have it.
These changes within the story, while serving to feed the Hollywood appetites, do present a bit of a problem in understanding the other characters. For example, within the context of the novel, the purpose of Van Helsing is clear. He stands in direct opposition to Dracula. His desire is to preserve the empire, which Dracula stands to destroy through the women. The fight in this case is clearly the feudalism of Draculas Carpathia versus the forward thinking of the English. When skewed by the love story of Dracula and Mina in the film, this struggle is not as clear. Therefore, we do not see Van Helsing as the perfect blend of scientific and supernatural thinking that becomes Draculas undoing. Rather, we see him as merely the man who steps in magically knowing everything about vampires who just wishes to get rid of an old foe. Basically, the struggle in the film is not between England, the Mecca of forward thinking, and Carpathia, the symbol of the feudal past. Instead, it is more of a fight to save a woman from a vampire with a lethal crush.
Yet, the modern alterations within the plot to fit a more Hollywood mould affect the female characters the most. Amazingly enough, Coppola does not seem to change the depiction of the Victorian men to suit the story. After all, Harker is still just as flat as in the novel, a role which is quite perfect for Keanu Reeves. But, the women transgress the boundaries of Victorian womanhood to enhance the romance and sensuality of the film. Lucy, for example, is characterized from the beginning of the novel as an aristocratic flirt. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that she is Draculas first English victim. Yet, the movie takes her sexuality a step further. A strategically worn slinky red nightgown suggests the color of lust and blood, so in her we see the link between vampires and sex. At one point she is reading a racy novel and speaking of sex to Mina. She becomes the total inversion of Victorian womanhood. Her character is easily susceptible to seduction and is overtly immodest. Basically, she is the polar opposite of the Mina of the novel.
Yet, of the two women, the alterations made in the movie affect Minas character the most. According to the novel, Mina should be the epitome of innocence and goodness. She is not only an opposite of Lucy, but also the direct antithesis of Dracula. Mina is capable of controlling her passion, even when it is challenged by Dracula, and is able to see love through the face of evil. After all, despite Draculas attempt to control her she feels pity for him to the end. She is a decidedly asexual school marm who at one point Van Helsing describes as being more like a man in her rationality and behavior. However, these elements of Victorian female perfection are abandoned in the film to allow her the freedom of a more 1990s approach to seduction and love. This is one of the positive aspects of Coppolas modern take on the story. Suddenly, Mina becomes a real and approachable woman.
She seems to embrace her sexuality instead of running from it. When young Prince Vlad approaches her she wants to leave but instead allows herself to be seduced. She finds herself thinking of him even at the altar as she is marrying Harker. By permitting herself to pursue her passions, Mina becomes a modern heroine. She is now seen as good despite her sexuality, not for her lack thereof. In a way, she becomes more like Lucy toward the end, by breaking free of her prudish shell and accepting her lack of control. By doing so, the love story can prevail. While in the book Dracula is figuratively saved by the vampire hunters by ending his life as the undead, in the movie he meets a much more modern end. Mina is the one who kills him through an act of love that releases Draculas soul. Through Minas bond with Dracula we see a much more tragically romantic ending. Her characters new importance in the film changes the story from one of good versus evil to that of a love that transcends time and wins in the end.
In essence, Francis Ford Coppola succeeds in closely retelling Bram Stokers Dracula for a modern audience. Indeed there are some modifications to the plot and to its characters that do not agree with the original story. However, the changes do serve a useful purpose. The story as it was written in 1897 does not have the same meaning for todays audiences. Surely, we can relate more to a story about a womans seduction, fantasy, and the power of love above all than that of an evil monster thwarted by men.