This film came to my mind in an idle moment yesterday--and it was based on very vivid images.

I found it online this AM and was distinctly impressed with how exaggerated the visuals are--they are damned close to the visuals in 300.

Now these images create an *immediate* mood; which can be quite effective. So I think the film's story--very close to Stoker's book; but with a subplot that explains Dracula's origin sin; and his attraction to Mina Harker--is extremely familiar. This subplot stretches the theme quite a bit; because it becomes punishment from a stern God for a blasphemy committed in the heat of extreme passion. I don't recall this as being any part of the book.

That said; the film's plot is old; tired. We've seen many versions of it and perhaps read the book more than once. It is a tough film to watch because we know very well every major aspect of the plot. Suspense over plot resolution is almost non-existent; so the only effective suspense is over small points: how will Renfield look/act? It is mostly suspense over how the film visually presents the story.

Some added sex is thrown in to keep interest of the audience.

But Jeez; the visuals are really something...

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To name the film Bram Stoker's Dracula is a case of hubris.

Not a favorite of mine. I left the theatre in a rage.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To name the film Bram Stoker's Dracula is a case
> of hubris.
>
> Not a favorite of mine. I left the theatre in a
> rage.


Fair enough.

What are the specifics; K?

I mean; I don't think much of the film as a coherent piece of fiction; but pieces of it; especially the visuals--which come to think of it seem to share Corben's sense of color and emphasis--really impressed me with very strong aesthetic statement. It would be considered over-the-top by many; but in works that do not aspire to subtlety I *like* this kind of melodrama.

The general sensibility seems like it's that of a graphic novel--300 ore Sin City. Maybe even Den.

I feel sure you've seen Herzog's Nosferatu. I preferred that one as a coherent story; but again; Coppola's visuals really churned me up. Sinister eyes in a luridly cast sky; Dracula's wife plunging to her death from the turret; seemingly forever...

Loads of visual threat...

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I don't remember much of it, it was 30 years ago I saw it. I just didn't think Coppola had any real sensibility of and respect for supernatural horror. The movie was very chic, self-conscious, artistically calculated. Like MTV or a TV commercial. Dracula was bombastic, hyperbole, tasteless in design and behavior. (The thing that attracts me with Corben's work is not particularly his exaggerated muscled men or bosomed women. It is something else. His more subtle sense of form and color contrasts (looking closer it not simply a matter of strong colors, but a burning sensibility, and there are also subtle combinations of earthy tones), his bizarre monsters, his touch of humor, his pathos, and deep sense of horror.)

I prefer Murnau's Nosferatu (1922) which was made with genuine passion and artistic integrity. And Tobe Hooper's Salem's Lot (1979). I thought Herzog's Nosferatu (1979) was a weak imitation of Murnau's. But I can understand if people prefer Herzog's, with the vampire looking more "realistic".

I suppose it really comes down to personal taste.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To name the film Bram Stoker's Dracula is a case
> of hubris.
>
> Not a favorite of mine. I left the theatre in a
> rage.

My reaction not quite so strong. But I did not like it. And if "Bram Stoker's Dracula" was not hubris, it was at the very least, false advertising. It was closer to being a modern deconstruction than a faithful adaptation.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't remember much of it, it was 30 years ago I
> saw it. I just didn't think Coppola had any real
> sensibility of and respect for supernatural
> horror.

My memory is not necessarily any better than yours, but for whatever it's worth, I shared this impression.

> I prefer Murnau's Nosferatu (1922) which was made
> with genuine passion and artistic integrity. And
> Tobe Hooper's Salem's Lot (1979).

Agreed.

> I thought
> Herzog's Nosferatu (1979) was a weak imitation of
> Murnau's.

I can't remember it too well, but over the years, I have soured on Herzog.

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > To name the film Bram Stoker's Dracula is a
> case
> > of hubris.
> >
> > Not a favorite of mine. I left the theatre in a
> > rage.
>
> My reaction not quite so strong. But I did not
> like it. And if "Bram Stoker's Dracula" was not
> hubris, it was at the very least, false
> advertising. It was closer to being a modern
> deconstruction than a faithful adaptation.

My understanding is that "Bram Stoker's Dracula" was chosen because the rights to the plain and simple "Dracula" is owned. It can't be simply called "Dracula" without paying.

Platypus; I watched it in its entirety after I posted this AM. At completion of the film I felt about the same as I did when I first saw it in the theatre: I had a feeling that it was unsatisfactory.

But damn; it was as visually impressive of anything I've seen; and I mean this in an operatic sense. It is clearly over the top; superturbocharged by its own bombastic reality. In that; alone; it's good entertainment because there's really nothing else like it that I'm aware of except 300.

What hurts it is that it's too long; it drags. And I think that to a lesser degree the book does; also--what with the transcontinental comings and goings. Adding the star-crossed lovers angle adds more time; and this damages it.

But aside from that addition (love story concerning Dracula and Mina in a prior life) the plot is pretty much Stoker's--even to the death of one of Lucy's suitors in the end; at Dracula's castle.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> (The thing that attracts me with Corben's work is not particularly
> his exaggerated muscled men or bosomed women. It
> is something else. His more subtle sense of form
> and color contrasts (looking closer it not simply
> a matter of strong colors, but a burning
> sensibility, and there are also subtle
> combinations of earthy tones), his bizarre
> monsters, his touch of humor, his pathos, and deep
> sense of horror.)
>

Anti-Christmas is an example of his pathos, understated humor, and sense of horror. And a fine portrait of America in the 1970s.

Concerning Coppola's Dracula, it is interesting to see, Platypus, how close our impressions of it are. And I agree that if its title was not hubris, it was (even more likely) false advertising.

Sawfish, perhaps we look for different things. I have principles about horror and the supernatural. Maybe you enjoy entertainment in a wider sense, and that it doesn't necessarily need to stick conservatively to form or genre? Are you particularly and actively attracted to supernatural horror and fantasy in literature and film, or do you more generally seek good literature and film? Your reading seems to reach far beyond the horror/sf/f genre. I very rarely go outside of the genre. I need that supernatural element.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 23 Aug 21 | 02:59AM by Knygatin.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > (The thing that attracts me with Corben's work
> is not particularly
> > his exaggerated muscled men or bosomed women.
> It
> > is something else. His more subtle sense of
> form
> > and color contrasts (looking closer it not
> simply
> > a matter of strong colors, but a burning
> > sensibility, and there are also subtle
> > combinations of earthy tones), his bizarre
> > monsters, his touch of humor, his pathos, and
> deep
> > sense of horror.)
> >
>
> Anti-Christmas is an example of his pathos,
> understated humor, and sense of horror. And a fine
> portrait of America in the 1970s.
>
> Concerning Coppola's Dracula, it is interesting to
> see, Platypus, how close our impressions of it
> are. And I agree that if its title was not hubris,
> it was (even more likely) false advertising.
...and yet I'm not aware of any other version of the novel that comes as close. There's the bolted-on cosmic love story; but other than that it's very close to the book.

BTW; what did you think of Browning's 1930s version? It's mainly atmospheric; but the on screen action is static. The camera seems fixed; too. I'll always have a sort of special place for it because as a kid it introduced me to vampires.

In a way it's the Sean Connery of Dracula films.

Here's a strangely effective on: Count Yorga; Vampire. Made in the 70s; I think; set in the Hollywood Hills/canyons area. It almost feels like he's running around in the same social set as Romany Polanski and Sharon Tate.

Vampires have always been hard for me to take seriously. Again; like James Bond.


>
> Sawfish, perhaps we look for different things. I
> have principles about horror and the supernatural.
> Maybe you enjoy entertainment in a wider sense,
> and that it doesn't necessarily need to stick
> conservatively to form or genre? Are you
> particularly and actively attracted to
> supernatural horror and fantasy in literature and
> film, or do you more generally seek good
> literature and film? Your reading seems to reach
> far beyond the horror/sf/f genre. I very rarely go
> outside of the genre. I need that supernatural
> element.

I think that the latter is the case; K: I read widely but seldom deeply into a genre. There's stuff I won't touch; and oddly enough traditional Gothic is quite close to that line.

E'g. I seldom read anything that has a female 1st person narrative POV. It's hard for me to connect with it enough to invest the time.

I get a lot out of ED; but I really don't have much in depth stuff to contribute.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I get a lot out of ED; but I really don't have
> much in depth stuff to contribute.

I think you have much wisdom about life and living.

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> BTW; what did you think of Browning's 1930s
> version? It's mainly atmospheric; but the on
> screen action is static. The camera seems fixed;
> too. I'll always have a sort of special place for
> it because as a kid it introduced me to vampires.
>
>

Same here. I was probably around 12 when I saw it last time. Would like to see it again. Probably classy. The Swedish national television would show Dracula, Frankenstein, The Bride of Frankenstein, The Wolfman, The Mummy, during the summer holiday in the 1970s. And that was all they offered in the line of horror. We used to make fun of it at the time, imitating the stuffy TV bureaucrats making these lame decisions. But a classmate's uncle said that The Mummy was the most terrifying film ever made and that people who saw it passed out; and that of course impressed our young minds. As adult I have re-evaluated these films, they are beautifully made. I know Lovecraft thought Frankenstein was lame.

Another vampire film I like is Fright Night (1985) It is great, ... a bit tongue in cheek, though.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > BTW; what did you think of Browning's 1930s
> > version? It's mainly atmospheric; but the on
> > screen action is static. The camera seems
> fixed;
> > too. I'll always have a sort of special place
> for
> > it because as a kid it introduced me to
> vampires.
> >
> >
>
> Same here. I was probably around 12 when I saw it
> last time. Would like to see it again. Probably
> classy. The Swedish national television would show
> Dracula, Frankenstein, The Bride of Frankenstein,
> The Wolfman, The Mummy, during the summer holiday
> in the 1970s. And that was all they offered in the
> line of horror. We used to make fun of it at the
> time, imitating the stuffy TV bureaucrats making
> these lame decisions. But a classmate's uncle said
> that The Mummy was the most terrifying film ever
> made and that people who saw it passed out; and
> that of course impressed our young minds. As adult
> I have re-evaluated these films, they are
> beautifully made. I know Lovecraft thought
> Frankenstein was lame.
>
> Another vampire film I like is Fright Night (1985)
> It is great, ... a bit tongue in cheek, though.

I'll have to put it on my list for films to see when I want a "scary movie".

BTW; what did you make of the book "Interview with the Vampire"?

Now; I'll ask you to try to qualify your consideration. Try to think of how it struck you when it was the only book in the series--before the author milked the themes to death as a commercialized revenue stream.

I thought it was very good; adding to the lore from the POV of the vampires; themselves: the narrative frame was quite good; as well. The interview personalized the moral issues they faced and explored them just a bit (why creating a child vampire was especially horrendous). It addressed some of the mundane necessities of their "lives".

Of course; as interesting as they might be; I'd never wish to associate with them. I'd vote to black ball them from entrance into any club I belong to: my athletic club; my tennis club; and from ED; if it ever comes to it.

To quote that great social observer; Bob Dylan:

"I'm liberal; but to a degree..."

Anyway; then Rice went into overdrive; flooding the market with far more than anyone except those fixated vampire fan-boys would ever care about.

It got like the inexplicable zombie craze that we still see inflicted upon us; mercilessly.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> BTW; what did you make of the book "Interview
> with the Vampire"?
>
> Now; I'll ask you to try to qualify your
> consideration. Try to think of how it struck you
> when it was the only book in the series--before
> the author milked the themes to death as a
> commercialized revenue stream.
>

!!!??? I am not familiar with that one.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > BTW; what did you make of the book "Interview
> > with the Vampire"?
> >
> > Now; I'll ask you to try to qualify your
> > consideration. Try to think of how it struck
> you
> > when it was the only book in the series--before
> > the author milked the themes to death as a
> > commercialized revenue stream.
> >
>
> !!!??? I am not familiar with that one.

[en.wikipedia.org]

It was made into a big budget film that somehow lost almost all of the positive aspects.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Sawfish Wrote:
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > BTW; what did you make of the book "Interview
> > > with the Vampire"?
> > >
> > > Now; I'll ask you to try to qualify your
> > > consideration. Try to think of how it struck you
> > > when it was the only book in theseries--before
> > > the author milked the themes to death as a
> > > commercialized revenue stream.
> > >
> >
> > !!!??? I am not familiar with that one.
>
> [en.wikipedia.org]
> ampire
>
> It was made into a big budget film that somehow
> lost almost all of the positive aspects.

I have a vague memory of it. But like with Coppola's Dracula, I felt this was nothing that concerned me, so I immediately rejected it. Wasn't Tom Cruise in it and Brad Pitt!!?? Cripes!! There is nothing supernatural about those two. Put in the film only to sell tickets to confused star-struck teenagers.

I saw piles of the author's book stacked up in the bookstores, now that I think of it. But too much commerce, too popular among "normal" people, too "social" phenomenon. For the herd. That didn't attract me. I stuck to Lovecraft and Smith instead, and Vance. That didn't interest "normal people". They didn't even know what it was. Shaking their heads with wry smile at my "originality". Well, screw them!