No Trace Of Sparkly Vampires Here

Some links before I get started today. Parsnip has company. Eve took a drive and posted pics. Shelly has computer issues. And Maria had a recipe. 

Today I have a movie review for this time of year....

"Do you believe in destiny? That even the powers of time can be altered for a single purpose? That the luckiest man who walks on this earth is the one who finds true love?" ~ Dracula

"My friends, we fight not one beast but legions that go on age after age after age, feeding on the blood of the living." ~ Van Helsing

"When my time comes, will you do the same to me? Will you?" ~ Mina

Director Francis Ford Coppola, whose body of work includes The Godfather trilogy, Apocalypse Now, and The Outsiders, turned in 1992 to a different genre, that of literary horror with an adaptation of the classic novel in the acclaimed Bram Stoker’s Dracula. The film is a mix of horror, fantasy, erotica, and epic history, with a cast that mostly serves the story, a protagonist that is simultaneously the villain, and a rich vampire story that gets under the skin, all while reminding us in the post-Twilight era that proper vampires do not sparkle.

The film opens centuries in the past, in 1462, where a Transylvanian knight, Vlad Dracula (Gary Oldman) leads his forces to victory against Turkish invaders. His wife, however, believing him dead, has taken her life, and enraged by the priest’s remarks that she’s damned, he renounces God, vowing to avenge her from beyond the grave, and gives himself to darkness. This could have all been avoided if the priest was just a bit less rigorous in doctrine and a lot more compassionate, but that’s beside the point, and there wouldn’t be a story, would there?

In 1897, Jonathan Harker (Keanu Reeves), a solicitor in London, is being sent to Transylvania to make arrangements for a certain Count Dracula after the last solicitor, Renfield, lost his mind during a trip to Eastern Europe. Conveniently he happens to be residing in a nearby asylum, and is being played by the eccentric rocker Tom Waits. You would think that might be his first warning that a trip into Transylvania might be a bad idea, but no. He bids farewell to his fiancée Mina (Winona Ryder), who’s staying on with her friend Lucy (Sadie Frost). Jonathan sets out on his journey to meet his client, who appears in the form of an old man (with really weird hair and interesting shadows that seem to have a life of their own). The Count sees Mina’s portrait, which is a ringer for the long lost wife of his earlier years. Harker, meanwhile, remains largely oblivious of the odd shadow tricks, the mysteries involving mirrors, the way animals behave, the general creepiness of the castle, and lots of other things that would send most people running for their lives. At least he remains oblivious until it’s too late. By then the Count is on his merry path of destruction which will lead him into a bond with Mina and a vendetta with a group led by an unusual professor (Anthony Hopkins).

The screenplay by James Hart frames the story through the use of letters and journal entries, reflecting the fashion that Stoker himself used in writing the novel. This is a wise course, as it makes the film feel very much of its time. It emphasizes both the sensual and the horrific of the story as it goes along, giving us a monster that remains sympathetic. There’s even a dash of dark humour here and there, such as when Coppola cuts abruptly from the severing of a head to the next scene with a roast being cut. Coppola’s style renders the story in an over the top, operatic quality, but in a good way, giving the characters complexity and shades of gray. Where Dracula himself might be a monster, there remains some spark of nobility in him. And the vampire hunters themselves must admit they are not completely noble in the end; Professor Van Helsing remarks that they have become God’s madmen.

Coppola, who had a reputation at the time for going over time and over budget, wanted to keep to a schedule and a budget this time, and it started with extensive preparation in pre-production that paid off as he went along. His crew designed storyboards for the filming in a way that would have made filming proceed more smoothly. He chose to build sets for much of the film instead of relying on location shooting and the problems that might bring. And he had costume and set designers go to work, giving them the instructions to come up with something weird. And weird is in abundance. From the armour we first see Vlad wear into battle to the appearance (or appearances) of the Count to the garb of a Transylvanian carriage driver, weird is all over the place, and it’s not merely confined to Eastern Europe. We see it in the asylum, where the design of the place looks like the work of a lunatic. The work of the crew throughout has a nightmarish quality to the finer details, which fits perfectly with the story matter.

Coppola also refrained from using computer generated effects, going for more traditional techniques in conveying the special effects needed here and there in the film. It’s another wise choice, a nod to the tradition of horror in the past and the timeframe of the story itself. Dracula’s appearances and abilities are rendered in those traditional techniques, and each time, the effects work. Combined with his choice of camera angles and the overall look of the film, there’s a very artistic quality to the film, and it feels just right for the story. The production design overall in the film really shines, and the film won Oscars for makeup, Sound Editing, and Costume Design. Coppola’s choice of composer for the score was also ideal; Wojciech Kilar, a Polish composer, gave the score an Eastern European feel, with brooding themes and the sound of a dark chorus. The music perfectly complemented the story.

With one exception, the cast was very well chosen. Tom Waits as the mentally addled Renfield gives the role a complete eccentricity. He’s totally out of his mind, a servant to the dark count who’s given to chewing the scenery (and some insects) while confined in the local asylum. His performance is a very unsettling one, a surprise given Waits’ usual job. Sadie Frost plays Lucy as the naughty and not quite proper young woman of society, Mina’s best friend. She’s daring and bold, something that startles Mina, and as the story goes along and things become, well, complicated, that boldness continues to assert itself.

Cary Elwes (Glory, The Princess Bride) plays Lucy’s fiancé, Sir Arthur Holmwood. He gives the character an aristocratic and dignified touch; we first meet him as a man vying for the hand of the flirtatious Lucy, and we know he’s deeply attached to her, which makes it all the more troubling for him when things go terribly wrong. Elwes gets all the reactions right as the story moves along, and his transition from nobleman to vampire hunter feels appropriate. Bill Campbell (The Rocketeer) plays one of Lucy’s other suitors, the American cowboy Quincey Morris. He gives the role a brash, loud talking and thoroughly American sensibility, a man who says what he thinks and is handy in a fight. The third member of the group of suitors turned vampire hunters is played by Richard E. Grant (Twelfth Night). Jack Seward is a doctor who studied with Van Helsing, and is puzzled by the change in behaviour of Lucy over time. Grant, who’s one of those character actors so often interesting in whatever he does, plays him as a smart man, but also one who feels, as he says, like a blundering novice when confronted by something he doesn’t understand. Regardless, however, he’s loyal to his old mentor, and rises to the occasion when called for.

Keanu Reeves, however, is the exception to the casting that proves the rule. While he’s perfectly acceptable in films like Speed or The Matrix trilogy, he’s completely miscast here as Harker. He is totally unable to hold an English accent, and comes across as out of his depth. This particularly shows itself around actors like Oldman and Hopkins, who are such skilled actors, and his lack of range is clear. We just don’t believe him with Ryder; the chemistry isn’t there, and the problem is all on Reeves. He’s just dreary in the role.

Contrast that, then, with Anthony Hopkins, who seems to be having the most fun of the entire cast as Professor Van Helsing. He plays the part as an unusual scientist who accepts that there are things science cannot explain, who wages his own fight against evil, while still respecting his adversary- at least the man he once was. And he gives the role a natural authority as well. We accept him as the leader of this group because Hopkins brings the gravity and decisiveness to the role. It doesn’t hurt that humour in the film tends to originate from his performance, and he provides a great counterbalance to the restlessness of Oldman.

Winona Ryder does well as Mina (with a cameo early on as Dracula’s wife). She holds a better English accent than Reeves, certainly, though it’s not quite perfect. However, she inhabits the role in a natural way, starting out as unsure of herself, timid and less daring than her friend, and by the end of the film finds herself in an assertive and decisive role, her character having had gone through much along the way. She has good chemistry with Oldman, which is pivotal for their relationship, as she goes from feeling friendship for a man who happens to not be her fiancé (and who occasionally shapeshifts into other things and has a habit of drinking blood) to feeling much more.

It is Gary Oldman whose performance is the bedrock of the film. As an actor he’s a chameleon, given to taking on new looks in a movie, as we’ve seen elsewhere in Immortal Beloved, JFK, and The Fifth Element. He gives the Count, who’s been portrayed in too many films as a ghoul, a streak of humanity and heart. Yes, Dracula is a monster, but there’s a man in there too, and Oldman’s performance finds that balance in just the right way. He plays the Count as restless, driven by revenge and lost love, but still noble in the midst of his monstrous curse. It’s a towering performance by one of the best actors working today.

Bram Stoker’s Dracula is the way a vampire movie should be made, a Gothic thriller with a sensual romantic streak, a lavish and artistic production, and a story of a monster grown weary of immortality. It features a cast that is mostly chosen well, with two great actors in the form of Hopkins and Oldman as opponents in in a struggle of good and evil. It’s an ideal Hallowe’en movie.

The Most Elegant Family In Concord

Before getting into anything else today, some links for you to peruse. Go and check out Norma's blog for her thoughts on the writer's schedule. Go on over to Gina Adams' second blog American Small Towns for her latest small town profile. See what Lynn has to say about Christmas trees and dogs.  Speaking of dogs, we have a blog with the Square Dogs from AngryParsnip for you to see. And have a look at Krisztina's blog for a Christmas cookie recipe. 

Now then, it's movie review time, and I'm reaching back to the mid-nineties for this one, sort of a Christmas movie (well, it does feature a turning point scene set at Christmas, so...). Anyway, shall we begin?

Little Women has been adapted for film and television before; the beloved novel by Louisa May Alcott about four sisters during and after the Civil War remains a classic today. Alcott wrote two volumes that were collected together, followed by other tales of the March family. The 1994 adaptation remains my favourite (though the Kate Hepburn version from the 1930s is outstanding as well).

This film gives us several years in the lives of four sisters, Jo (Winona Ryder), Meg (Trini Alvarado), Beth (Claire Danes), and Amy (Kirsten Dunst and Samantha Mathis), as they experience the hardships of life on the home front during war, the changes of society around them, tragedy and loss, and love. They are guided by their mother Margaret, affectionately called “Marmee” (Susan Sarandon), along with their gruff great-aunt March (Mary Wickes) and the family housekeeper Hannah (Florence Paterson). Their father is away at war when the film starts, and his presence is a subdued one even as he returns. Mrs. March is the hands on parent in this family, teaching her daughters to value themselves as people.

The sisters are all different. Jo is something of a tomboy, argumentative and imaginative, a writer who seeks the freedom that will come without having to worry constantly about money. Meg is the eldest, conservative in her outlook, concerned about appearances. Beth is painfully shy, only open with her sisters. Amy, the youngest, is particularly romantic and flamboyant, especially as we meet her first as a girl played by Dunst, but also as a young woman played by Mathis.

The family lives in New England in a house called Orchard House, doing their best to get by. Their neighbours are the Laurences, a rich family with the gruff Mr. Laurence (the late John Neville) as the head of the house. His grandson Teddy (Laurie, as he likes to be called) lives with him, and is played by a fresh faced Christian Bale. Mr. Laurence is having him tutored after years of the boy being educated in various places in Europe, looking to have him take on a position with the family firm someday. Hence he has brought in a tutor (Eric Stoltz) to get him ready for university. Laurie is drawn to the March sisters, and particularly to Jo, becoming the brother they never had, a fiercely loyal friend whose dynamics with each of them shakes things up. And so we are drawn into the lives of these people in a film that takes us back in time, a film that never loses its appeal, taken from a book that can never lose its appeal.

Director Gillian Armstrong took the screenplay by Robin Swicord, adapted from the novel, and worked wonders with it. Her attention to detail shows itself throughout, with period costuming looking like it’s from the mid-nineteenth century. The buildings and settings feel very much of the time, at multiple times of the year as the story unfolds over several years. Everything feels like it’s drawn out of the past, and that goes all the way from locations to the smallest details. And the screenplay emphasizes these very strong women, all in different ways. They’re not perfect people, but there’s such humanity in them, such depth. That’s present of course in Alcott’s novel, and having it carry over into the film simply reinforces that. Even the camera work, the lighting, and edits Armstrong chooses along the way, serves the story. Add to that the beautiful character based music by Thomas Newman (one of the underrated composers in Hollywood, and one of my favourites among film composers), and his score is the icing on the cake.

The casting in the film is ideal, but where to start? I’ll start with Sarandon. Her Marmee embodies an inner strength, and a woman of strong principles. She thinks for herself, stresses that her daughters must do the same. She encourages forgiveness (there’s a moment in the film involving an act which for a writer would be unforgiveable). And she is very much the guiding force, the rock upon which her family is based. Her husband’s presence is somewhat subdued, of course, but one gets the impression at least in this adaptation that he accepts his wife being the heart of the family.

John Neville was the great character actor who played many a different role over the course of his career (around the same time he was regularly showing up from time to time in The X-Files as a mysterious member of a shadowy consortium who was something of an ally at times to the pair of FBI agents and at other times a source of profound enigmatic motives). We first get the impression of him as a gruff man, given to the pursuit of wealth, not a terribly friendly man. Yet that changes; when sickness shows itself in the March home while Marmee is away, he freely intervenes with help, and during the Christmas sequence that marks the transition point for the story, we particularly see great warmth and empathy from the man. Eric Stoltz as the tutor John Brooke has a good take on the role. He’s charged with the task of tutoring an unruly student, and there’s an awkwardness about the man’s personality... and yet something about him catches Meg’s eye. Stoltz conveys these qualities well.

Mary Wickes plays Aunt March in the best grouchy way. One would think this was Grumpy Cat in human form. She’s wealthy, the only member of the March family who is, living all by herself in a large nearby home. She’s concerned about appearances, tries to influence her family as best as she can. Deep underneath all that grouchiness, there is more, even a sense of humour, barely hinted at, but also a loyalty to her family. Florence Paterson as Hannah is practically a second mother to the girls, a wise older woman who has a hands on presence in their lives, and an inner warmth that’s infectious. Paterson really brings these qualities across in her performance.

Bale as Laurie is well cast. He was already getting good roles from boyhood by the time he took this role, and as the young man making his way in the world, Bale embodies Laurie just like I would imagine him. He’s passionate and full of mischief, knows what he wants, is willing to do things simply because it’s the right thing to do. He’s loyal to these girls, protective of them and playful with them as well, but also capable of being wounded, retreating into himself when things don’t go as he wished- a situation that shows itself when he is rejected by Jo. He needs to find himself afterwards during a time when he’s become irresponsible and self indulgent and his path leads him in another direction, but ultimately back home. He has great chemistry with these actresses, particularly with Ryder, but also with both of the Amys, in different ways, of course. Bale conveys all of these qualities in the character. The other man in Jo’s life, a professor she meets in New York, is played by Gabriel Byrne, is another example of a good performance. Byrne is one of my favourite actors, and his take on Friedrich Bhaer, a German teacher, is well done. He is drawn to Jo, despite the age difference, intrigued by her thoughtfulness and imagination. It’s a relationship of equals; the two respect each other, challenge each other, and find many common bonds. It doesn’t take long for them to fall for each other, and even so, Friedrich hopes Jo can elevate her work as a writer instead of settling for what’s in demand. Byrne draws on these qualities in his performance, giving us a warm and utterly decent man that we can respect.

The sisters are very well cast. Trini Alvarado draws on the pensive, conservative qualities of Meg throughout her performance. She’s concerned about appearances too- even if she occasionally strays from that. It’s something she seems to draw from her great-aunt March, though Meg has more of a sense of humour. Her relationship with John Brooke feels very natural as it evolves, and being the eldest sister, she seems to be the one who takes things most seriously. Amy might be played by two actresses, but both convey the essential romantic qualities of the character. Kirsten Dunst as the child Amy is headstrong and dramatic in her expressions, occasionally given to acts of jealousy when she’s not getting her own way. Under that, however, is a young girl who does worry about her family, who makes mistakes and tries to make up for them. Samantha Mathis picks up the role a few years later as a young woman, and while she’s more mature a person, more sure of herself, she still embodies that essential romantic nature Amy has, perhaps best expressing itself in a love of art. The two actresses give us a character that’s complicated, a bit of a brat at times, but someone with depth. 

Claire Danes has had a habit of crying on screen in many a movie, and that happens here, of course. She plays Beth in just the right way. There’s such a shyness about the character, and it intrigues me- maybe because I’ve known what it’s like to be shy. She holds much of herself back, comfortable around her sisters but uncomfortable around others. And yet some of the most touching moments in the film are hers. The scene at Christmas with a piano given as a gift by Mr. Laurence will tug at the heart strings. And her final scene is utterly heartbreaking- which makes it beautiful.

Winona Ryder is the core of the film as Jo, and she takes on each quality of the character. She’s ambitious and headstrong, has a great imagination and a strong view of the world. She’s not hesitant about expressing her opinion, a legacy of her mother, and she feels things deeply. She can be passionate and tempestuous at times, but feels very real, a very strongly grounded character. We like her; her spirit and her intelligence draws us to her, and Ryder brings all of these things across on the screen. Her relationship dynamics with the two men in her life, first Laurie, and ultimately Friedrich, feel very natural, and rooted in strong characterization.

Little Women remains a classic twenty years after it was in theatres, giving us strong, positive girls and women in a family that feels very true to life. It does its source novel a great honour by carrying on the story, and is well served by a fine director and crew, and an outstanding cast who give us characters with warmth, depth, and surprises along the way.

A Day In The Life Of A Cat

Some links to see to before we get started today. Norma has some good news at her blogger page, and over at her Beishir Books page if you prefer wordpress. Have a look over at Lorelei's blog, where her latest posts are on vampires, and she's doing a giveaway until Hallowe'en, and a sale on her books as well. Head on over and comment. Shelly has been writing several days of flash fiction at Secondhand Shoes with a ghost story. And since I'm turning things over to the cat today, have a peek at more kitties, at Barbara's blog and at Deb's blog where Audrey strikes a pose.

7:35 AM. Awake. The staff is busy in the kitchen. Making my breakfast, no doubt. It had better be something tastier than field rations.

7:37 AM. All too predictable. I roll my eyes in dismay. The staff has put field rations in my bowl.

7:40 AM. After some great reluctance, I have started to eat some of the field rations. Staff, would it kill you to feed me properly in the morning?

7:43 AM. Out the door to survey my domain. The staff says something about coming back in a hurry. Oh, staff, your schedule means nothing to me. I'll come back when I'm good and ready.

7:55 AM. Out on my rounds. I hear that idiot dog somewhere off in the distance, howling like an idiot, which of course he is.

Just as long as he doesn't bother me.

8:25 AM. Back home. The car is gone.

Why does the staff feel free to leave without my express permission?

She must have gone to that work place.

9:15 AM. Stopping in at Mrs. McIntyre's house. She's good company. I find her out on the front porch, putting out garish decorations. Oh, yes. It's Hallowe'en. Hello, Mrs. McIntyre. Can you give a few hours refuge to a higher form of life cruelly locked out by her absent staff?

9:40 AM. Watching Mrs. McIntyre doing some pumpkin carving. I really don't understand the compulsion by humans to brutally vandalize pumpkins and turn them into these jack o'lantern things....

1:15 PM. Waking up from nice long nap by the fireplace. Time to see what Mrs. McIntyre has for lunch...

1:20 PM. Ah, this is living! Cold milk and fresh salmon. Mrs. McIntyre, you could teach humans lessons in how to treat cats as they deserve...

4:55 PM. Coming home. Have bid goodbye to Mrs. McIntyre with thanks for her hospitality and some extra purrs. I can see the staff's car out front. It's about time...

4:57 PM. The staff is busy putting decorations out front for the evening. I don't see what hanging skeletons have to do with anything, staff. If you want to scare someone, spray the front of the house with dog breath. Or even better, put a couple mannequins of vets out front.

5:15 PM. The staff is using a carving knife to decimate the front of a pumpkin. Humans. I'll never understand them...

5:30 PM. Finished. She's pleased with the result. I think the jack o'lantern looks like a growling dog.

6:15 PM. The human is cooking macaroni and cheese. Good comfort food. Her four cheese sauce. I'll have to rub my head against her legs and purr a lot. I like the taste of that stuff...

6:35 PM. The staff and I settle down to dinner. Indeed, she's given me some nice hot mac and cheese. For some reason, she eats garlic and cheese bread along with it. No, thank you, staff, garlic bread is the sort of thing you feed a dog. Probably explains their breath. Let me guess, using garlic to ward off vampires tonight?

7:10 PM. The first of the trick or treaters is at the door. Four kids, dressed like Minions. The staff is cheerful. Just as long as you don't start thinking of having any children yourself, staff....

7:25 PM. More trick or treaters. I watch from the front window. Strange costumes, kids with bandannas and fake beards. Oh, I get it, they're dressed like those guys from that pointless reality show about duck hunters. What is it with reality shows? And they've got a dog with them. Not the idiot dog from down the road, but like all dogs, wagging its tail and looking deliriously happy. Dogs are idiots.

7:35 PM. I inspect the contents of the bowl the staff is using as she replenishes it for more trick or treaters. Chocolate, chocolate, and more chocolate. Why are all these bars that small? Shouldn't they be regular sized?

And why not use catnip treats instead for trick or treating? 

7:50 PM. Observing more trick or treaters. Wondering what parent thinks dressing a kid up like Miley Cyrus was a good idea.

8:10 PM. More trick or treaters coming up the walk. They have a dog with them. Even the dog is in costume. Looks like a pirate.

I never thought I'd say this... but I feel sorry for that dog.

8:55 PM. I take it the trick or treaters are done for the evening, staff? 

She's looking at the television listings. Mutters something about Dracula. Just as long as it's not zombies. 

9:01 PM. Oh, this version. Yes, while I suppose I can appreciate Gary Oldman playing the immortal vamp, and there's something to be said for Winona and Anthony Hopkins in this movie... it does have a rather big flaw. Keanu's in it. And the confused look he seems to have in his eyes, well, I'll just say it, staff. 

He reminds me of a dog.

9:40 PM. You know, watching that scene with Keanu and the three vampire brides on the bed, I'm compelled to wonder if the director brought a soft porn adviser in for that scene. 

10:10 PM. I wonder if the director was ingesting some illegal substances while making this film. That's the only reason I can imagine for some of these scenes...

11:12 PM. Big fight at the gates. The heroes are all trying to get at the Big Bad Count. Tell me, staff, how has Keanu Reeves survived to this point?

Oh, well.... at least this movie features a proper vampire, as opposed to one of those sparkly ones.

11:17 PM. And lo and behold, there goes Winona chopping off his head. Well, he had it coming. He had the audacity to lower himself to take canine form earlier in the movie, after all...

11:55 PM. The staff is setting off for the night. I find myself staring at that jack o'lantern sitting on the front windowsill. 

It still reminds me of a growling dog....