|
Written by Midnight Butterfly
|
|
Thursday, 06 November 2008 22:33 |
|
Page 1 of 2 In 1979 Frank Langella took a different approach to one of popular cultures most enduring legends. Dracula fell in love. At the time, this felt like a departure of sorts. Sex, always smoldering underneath the vampire myth, had been brought to the forefront in films like Roger Vadim’s Blood and Roses and Hammer Studio’s The Vampire Lovers. But it had never been taken very seriously and more often than not such films walked the very thin line of exploitation, if not leaping over it with unabashed glee. Dracula had come a long way from the surreal horror of Max Shreck’s interpretation in F.W. Murnau’s Nosferatu. Lugosi, who might be credited with first injecting some semblance of sex appeal into Dracula, had remained undoubtedly a villain, a monster. But over time the villainy of vampires began to erode as the sexual implications became overt, maturing eventually, in the 1979 version, into full-blown romance. The question as to whether or not a given audience member enjoys this take on Dracula depends largely on how they feel about this particular aspect. It is the choice that is made and there is little doubt that within that framework Langella and the director, John Badham are successful in achieving their goal.
| If you’re familiar with Dracula through the book bear with me for a minute: in the book Mina is Jonathan Harker’s fiancé and Lucy is her best friend. Dr. Jack Seward, Quincy Morris, and Arthur Holmwood are all Lucy’s suitors, chivalrously engaged in romantic contest for Lucy’s hand. Abraham Van Helsing is the mentor of Dr. Seward. The book takes place towards the end of the nineteenth century and travels from the Carpathian Mountains to contemporary England. Dracula (1979) begins and ends in England in the 1920’s. Lucy is now the daughter of Dr. Seward and John Harker’s lover and Mina is her best friend and the daughter of Dr. Van Helsing, a contemporary of Dr. Seward’s. Quincy Morris and Arthur Holmwood have disappeared altogether.. Did you get all that? Now, in point of fact, and through some 200 different filmed interpretations of Dracula, there has never been a movie entirely faithful to Bram Stoker’s vision. The reasons for this are unclear. Stoker’s book is a classic for a reason: despite its flowery prose and epistolary structure, it is a compelling and at times harrowing detective/horror story, as the small band of protagonists are inexorably forced to come to grips with the breadth and depth of the impossible terror they face. Yet, even though in every decade since the 1920’s --at least—Stoker’s greatest creation is once again re-visited no one ever wants to commit to the fantastic source material. The only thing I can think of is that it is the various writers’ way of purposely distancing themselves from the book, so that they can lay claim to a given film as their "own". Why it’s more jarring to me with this particular incarnation (the 1979 film) I’m also not sure about. I think my discomfort hinges entirely on the Lucy/Mina switch and has nothing of substance to it except that I’m not used it because usually it’s the other way around -- if Mina and Lucy appear in a given film at all. |
>Whew!< Okay, so now when Dracula comes it is Mina whom he just turns into a vampire outright and who is subsequently killed and it is Lucy who he seduces for a more prolonged fate. Langella is and was a powerful screen presence. He has a velvety voice and a captivating charisma and commitment. When he speaks of coming from a very old family, a race of conquerors, you believe him. When he decides he wants a woman, as he does with Lucy (Kate Nelligan), you know that John Harker never has a chance. There is no doubt that Dracula, a man of aristocracy, considers himself above those around him even if he never lowers himself to discourtesy. When such a man chooses a woman, the fact of that choosing is in and of itself a powerful draw for the woman, whatever she may think of the man. It is this aspect, I would venture to guess, more than the dry-blown hair or the open shirt that makes Langella’s Dracula so attractive to women. The film as a whole is handsomely staged, if not dynamic in interpretation. The story moves along with a muscular vivacity powered by Langella’s performance. | 
|
|
|
Last Updated on Tuesday, 07 April 2009 19:14 |
