As we come to the end of our retrospective on Dracula movies, on the very day of Spookyween, we find ourselves confronted with the oddest one yet: the strange case of Bram Stoker and Mr. Coppola.
I first watched it maybe two years ago, right after reading the book, and was deeply disappointed, for all the reasons you outlined. The moral of Coppola's rendition is categorically different from what Stoker intended, and you put it perfectly here- "Because Dracula, as a novel, is primarily about good and evil. There is nuance to be found there, with figures such as Renfield, but it is clearly hammered into several chapters, showing the protagonists as nothing less than knight-servants of God fighting for their souls and for the destruction of an ageless evil."
One thing you didn't really touch on that I found EXTREMELY grating when I watched the film was how thoroughly Coppola ruined Mina's character. The book version of Mina is essentially a perfect "strong female character"- she is easily the most capable character in the story, being highly intelligent and possessing indomitable willpower.
She's arguably the one who defeated Dracula- she's the one who put the whole puzzle together; without her collating everyone's journals and all the news clippings, Dracula probably would've succeeded. She also had the willpower to RESIST the onset of vampiric infection AND Dracula's hypnosis, and she was even clever enough to use that psychic connection like a radar beacon to track him back to his lair. By the end of the book she's clearly succumbing to the hypnotism, but she put up a fighting retreat. And she did all of this without ever picking up a weapon. It was just her wit and will against Drac's, and hers won out. The Coppola version does NONE of this, and she just crumbles completely on first contact with Drac- total wet lettuce.
I think the dumb reincarnation plot was likely lifted from Bava's "Black Sunday". They're similar almost to the point of plagiarism, but even in that film Katia (the analogue to Mina here) stoutly resisted her ancient, resurrected lover's temptations. Coppola just made Mina a weak-willed adulteress. Bleugh.
It's true I should have gone deeper into Mina (no, not like that Francis, put that cock down!)'s character assassination: had I the time, I could have gone over what you've just pointed out, especially how thouroughly she falls for the dreamy pale bad boy with a dark side. Even Bella Swan had more self-respect (at least she never tried MURDERING her friends to save her abuser).
Watching all these Dracula movies, I think no characters get massacred as frequently and deeply as Mina and Johnathan. I don't know what that's about, but I can guess it has to do with their status as morally-upstanding yet loving husband and wife (something which, to a certain academic clique, must be as repellent as a Crucifix).
It should tell you a lot that my first reaction reading the actual novel was: "wait, this isn't even remotely about antisemitism or gay sex, what's with all the Catholicism??"
FINALLY got around to reading this- great review!
I first watched it maybe two years ago, right after reading the book, and was deeply disappointed, for all the reasons you outlined. The moral of Coppola's rendition is categorically different from what Stoker intended, and you put it perfectly here- "Because Dracula, as a novel, is primarily about good and evil. There is nuance to be found there, with figures such as Renfield, but it is clearly hammered into several chapters, showing the protagonists as nothing less than knight-servants of God fighting for their souls and for the destruction of an ageless evil."
One thing you didn't really touch on that I found EXTREMELY grating when I watched the film was how thoroughly Coppola ruined Mina's character. The book version of Mina is essentially a perfect "strong female character"- she is easily the most capable character in the story, being highly intelligent and possessing indomitable willpower.
She's arguably the one who defeated Dracula- she's the one who put the whole puzzle together; without her collating everyone's journals and all the news clippings, Dracula probably would've succeeded. She also had the willpower to RESIST the onset of vampiric infection AND Dracula's hypnosis, and she was even clever enough to use that psychic connection like a radar beacon to track him back to his lair. By the end of the book she's clearly succumbing to the hypnotism, but she put up a fighting retreat. And she did all of this without ever picking up a weapon. It was just her wit and will against Drac's, and hers won out. The Coppola version does NONE of this, and she just crumbles completely on first contact with Drac- total wet lettuce.
I think the dumb reincarnation plot was likely lifted from Bava's "Black Sunday". They're similar almost to the point of plagiarism, but even in that film Katia (the analogue to Mina here) stoutly resisted her ancient, resurrected lover's temptations. Coppola just made Mina a weak-willed adulteress. Bleugh.
Thank you for reading, and for your input!
It's true I should have gone deeper into Mina (no, not like that Francis, put that cock down!)'s character assassination: had I the time, I could have gone over what you've just pointed out, especially how thouroughly she falls for the dreamy pale bad boy with a dark side. Even Bella Swan had more self-respect (at least she never tried MURDERING her friends to save her abuser).
Watching all these Dracula movies, I think no characters get massacred as frequently and deeply as Mina and Johnathan. I don't know what that's about, but I can guess it has to do with their status as morally-upstanding yet loving husband and wife (something which, to a certain academic clique, must be as repellent as a Crucifix).
It should tell you a lot that my first reaction reading the actual novel was: "wait, this isn't even remotely about antisemitism or gay sex, what's with all the Catholicism??"