Coppola's take on the Dracula story is one of the finest vampire films I have ever seen. No - make it thee finest vampire film I have ever seen. Its brilliance exceeds by far what other modern films tried to achieve in vain: The sheer lushness of the decorations, props and outfits alone is stunning. The psychology of the characters is flawless. The camera perspectives are ingeniously chosen. The overall quality of the scenes is densely atmospheric, and the dramatic score supports them accurately. What makes the film perfect, however, is how much of it is in keeping with the zeitgeist of the Victorian era in which Bram Stoker wrote his famous novel, condensing centuries of various myths into a cultural icon which spawned legions of books, movies, musicals, yes - and trite t.v. series...

But lets go back to the opening scene:
Here we find Vlad of the Dracul (Gary Oldman), a 15th century crusader whose wife is deceived into suicide and who consequently renounces God and turns himself into the monstrous tyrant who will go down in the history books as >Vlad The Impaler<.
Now how is this scene set up?
Very dramatic indeed! It is not going to far, saying that it is even overly dramatic. Or, being consciously so, melodramatic. That's the word: Melodramatic. Simply because everything, from the shadow-play of the crusading knights (their hautingly dark and flickering black silhouettes fighting against a blood-red backdrop strongly resembles staged puppet fights on a medieval market), through the dissembling letter telling Vlad's wife-to-be of his death on the battleground (it is shot through an open window with an arrow, Errol-Flynn-flick style) and the princess subsequently jumping off the castle wall (shown in a 1950ies Hitchcock "Vertigo" fashion), up to the symbolistic take of the count (clad in some heavy kind of Terry Gilliam "Brazil" fantasy armor) in a chapel, stabbing the cross of Christ and drinking the blood spilt by his defying act against God in order to immortalize himself as an adversary of the church... - EVERYTHING in this scene is so grotesquely stark, and cut in such a wild fashion, that you cannot help but grip your seat and in spite of the anachronistic mode of film-making employed here for the strongest effects.

...BUT, I have to say: He pulled it off!

And, as most you will already know, this is where the mystery starts.

For instance, Coppola, in a very nonchalant manner, has sneaked lots of vital details into "Dracula" which not only make it a proper costume film, but most of them serve also particularly well to illustrate some of the characteristics of the plot, people, or place they are put, or support some other end such as the eerie sound of an early grammophone underlining yet another gripping scene where... - but I digress.

For example, the second encounter between the Count and Jonathan Harker's fiancé Madame Mina (Winona Ryder) is shown as if through the lense of an old-fashioned cinematic camera, and it takes them to an exhibition on the progress of visual arts. This scene is especially strong, as the arrival of photography in the 19th century caused at least as much of a controversy as today's ego-shooter PC games; it was seen as a degenerating factor to society by some, while others hailed and exploited its merits of enhanced realism. (As coily hinted at, passingly, by a short side-glance in "Dracula", both sides of the medal were represented in the beginning rise of pornography...)
In this scene, a white wolf (which had escaped from the London Zoo during the arrival of Dracula on the English shore) causes a disturbance at the exhibition, just when Mina and Vlad are discussing their points of view on contemporary art and the merits of science. Here, in this ambivalent setting, the barbarian Vlad, in frock and cylinder behaves like a distinguished gentleman, wearing the thin disguise of civilisation while constantly trying to appeal to the animal nature of virgin Mina's subconscious represented by the white wolf. It is just one of many scenes with Freudian undertones, and they are amongst the strongest features of the movie as a whole.

In an ambivalent manner, vampyrism, much like a disease, brings about the decay of the fassade of civilization, and brings out the dark but strong nature lurking behind it: The vampyre acts by instinct and has heightened sensual faculties. Alas, this regression also leads to madness. Much of this ambivalence can be seen in Lucy: With the restraints which Victorian society had put on a lady fallen away, she can hear and smell unusually well, becomes sexually predatory, but on the other hand shows 'a waning of the blood' and signs of what back then used to be called 'hysteria'.

One of the strongest dualisms is that between Mina Harker and her friend Lucy, here portrayed as a very sensuous woman and thus much more receptable towards the Counts demonic influence. Animal lust and the subsconscious, as well as their symbolic visual representation, play an important role throughout the whole movie, as these are the portals to the characters' souls through which Dracula exerts his supernatural power over them. He can also command all lower animals at his will, and to some extent the forces of nature (such as raising a storm - another symbol for the mental turmoil many characters find themselves in). For example, when Dracula lands on the shores of England, the forces of nature are unleashed, the inmates of a mental asylum turn from madness to rage, and even poor Lucy has a very troubled night, sleepwalking (through a maze, significantly!), and having a vivid nightmare of being raped by a werewolf.

Now, in analogy to what I said about parallels and dualisms, the same goes for many other motives familiar to contemporary readers of "Dracula" that are exhibited throughout the film: I've already mentioned the Freudian symbolism, scientific discoveries and the technical revolutions, which were much discussed issues of the late 19th century; also, the spread of syphilis, and the clash of civilisations (represented at the beginning of the film in the battle between the [western] Christian army and the host of "infidels"). The latter motif is taken up in the literary world of Bram Stokers novel as Dracula comes from the East, thus shifting the border between civilisation and wilderness westwards. In the movie, a view of the East threatening Western moral values is also represented in Mina Harkers copy of "Arabian Nights" by Richard Burton, who had also translated and printed the "Kama Sutra". Just like Dracula himself, the east is represented as mysterious, exotic, sensuous and fascinating, yet also as libertine, dangerous and somewhat degenerate. If you take a look at Victorian art and the representation of the far east therein, that's just what you are going to find - it was used exactly in that kind of fashion. And that's just what you'll find in the movie as well! Whenever the vampires are not only looming large, but also portrayed as sexually alluring, there is a bit of the eastern exotic to their portrayal. So you can well say, that apart from a few digressions, the film is very much in keeping with the attitudes of the time the book was written in.

I've referred to the landing of Dracula multiple times by now, as this is one of the most impressive scenes of the film ( - of the book as well, by the way. And I hereweith command thee: "Go read the friggin' book!"). Another great one (in both media) is the scene where Dracula crawls down the castle walls like a spider: Creepy!

Unfortunately, here we also get to witness the film's only flaw, when Keanu Revees' character falls off a castle wall while trying to escape; only, he does not fall down, but sideways (and yet his "fall" leads him straight into the ditch below). While everything before was intentional and sort of made sense in the wicked ways of the movie, this is just a downright mistake - and an obvious one to boot. Well, it makes Keanu Revees look like a total ass, and I guess it serves him right for reminding me of "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure" in every single movie he makes (It's just that daft look of his. He can't help it: That's all he got, and wanting to make a living, he has to go with what little of resources he has in the way of acting, I guess).

Mina Harker: >>Doktor, how did Lucy die? ... ...Was she in great pain?<<
Dr. Van Helsing: >>Ja, she was in great pain. Then we cut off her head and drove a stake through her heart, and burned it, and then she found peace.<<

Keanu Reeves
- does a fairly decent job portraying Jonathan Harker, a stiff businessman whose curiosity might just prove fatal to him and his wife...

The Cinematography

- is a fucking genius!
(Nobody will have born with me through all this rhubarb, so I might just as well use an expletive here.)

He did get the best out of everybody, though. And he did so by ordering everybody to get together for a week in advance reading the whole book out loud taking turns (inside character). Ain't that cool? You bet your neck it is!

One more good thing about the film: