Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)

Bram Stoker's 1897 novel Dracula is perhaps the most influential piece of literature in the horror genre, and has been so for over a century. Yet its film adaptations seem to feel absolutely no loyalty to the original source material, judging by the way they seem almost conscientiously to ignore Stoker's work.

There are literally hundreds of adaptations of the novel out there, and none of them really manage to capture the essence of the original plot or the characters in the way I'd like to see. Surprisingly, even though I panned the 1931 film version with Bella Lugosi, which I reviewed for Halloween last year, and I have no very high opinion of it, there are many far worse adaptations--far, far worse.

Such a one, arguably, is the film to be reviewed today, the Francis Ford Coppola 1992 version. Some argue that it's actually leaps and bounds ahead of its brethren (including the Lugosi version) because it actually features all the main characters (Dracula, Jonathan and Mina Harker, Lucy Westenra, Dr. Seward, Dr. Van Helsing, Arthur Holmwood, Renfield, and Quincy Morris), many of whom get cut out or merged in other version. In addition, this version covers all the major plot points from the novel, so it can be said to be following the book faithfully in that regard as well. Indeed, had it stuck simply with that, I may have been able to forgive some of its faults, such as its over-salaciousness and the defaming of Lucy's character. I may even have actually given it my seal of approval.

Unfortunately, someone decided to mess with the entire premise of the book and make Dracula seem human instead of the purely evil monster that he was meant to be. Not only does this destroy the fright factor for me, but it completely decimates the author's vision of his titular villain. The additional bad idea of making Mina into the reincarnation of Dracula's long-lost love is maudlin, cliche, and generally revolting. I can't entirely blame Coppola for this, either,  no matter how much I want to. The idea of a vampire as a reluctant anti-hero had already been introduced by the Anne Rice novel Interview with the Vampire, which was hugely popular at the time this film was released, and would be made into a high-grossing film just a few years later. Still, the idea of Mina having a thing for Dracula makes my stomach turn. I know vampire romance is in right now, but that was not the intent of the original book, and if you are going to be brazen enough to reference the novel by putting the author's name in the title of your film, you'd better make sure you don't make any serious deviations like that. So no, this film doesn't resemble its source material  any more than Patricia Rozema's horrid bi-sexual version of Mansfield Park resembles what Jane Austen actually wrote.

(Just realized I forgot to mention Dracula's ridiculous costume design for when he's trying to "blend in" in London. He looks like a stone blend of Johnny Depp as Jack Sparrow and Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter. It's impossible to take the film seriously after that. Also Mina's dresses are quite anachronistic, being clearly 1870s style instead of 1890s. Big bustles were out of style when the action of the film takes place, and it's especially glaring when they keep flashing the date as 1897.)

Another failure for Hollwood: 5 out of 10

The Princess and the Frog (2009)

**except of my final post in the Disney Princess series for Worthy of Note. For the full article, please click here

Being a lover of the Art Deco Era in which this movie is set, I absolutely could not resist reviewing it. Like most Disney animated films, it's not without it's problems, but I still find a lot to admire in The Princess and the Frog. Pixar head honcho John Lassiter had a large part in the restart of the Disney hand-drawn features, and his influence shows clearly in the quality of this film, which is higher than that of any Disney animated film since Mulan (I'm not counting Enchanted since it was mostly live action). It also features an earnestness in storytelling that recent Disney fare seems to have forgotten in the din pop culture references and cheap humor, and I think that quality will make this film stand the test of time.

Perhaps the most enjoyable element of this film is the characterization, especially of Tiana and Prince Naveen. Ironically both are extremely materialistic, though Tiana doesn't realize how much that aspect of her personality has affected her. I feel like with Prince Naveen we get our first realistic depiction of royalty from Disney: a prince who's a selfish, womanizing spendthrift and plans to marry for money. This is an improvement because it shows young girls that having a royal title doesn't necessarily make a man a desirable mate. Whereas Charlotte is prepared to marry Naveen purely to become a princess, Tiana won't even consider him until he has a major change of heart. I also find Naveen's chagrin at being raised to be "decoratively useless"--i.e. having no life and survival skills--to be quite believable, a common complaint of coddled children. Tiana's simple act of teaching him to cook, therefore, empowers him to take control of his own life instead of remaining a sponge. In fact his fulfillment in learning that skill reveals to us that his whole previous lifestyle was really what Pascal would call "diversion," a ploy to distract him from his meaningless existence. Once Naveen finds a purpose in helping Tiana achieve her dream, everything else takes is proper place in the order of importance for his life. He can still have fun playing the ukulele on occasion, but fun is no longer the point of his life.

Enchanted (2007)

**Except of an article for Worthy of Note. For the full review, click here

Ten years after they made their first film questioning the princess archetype, Disney would revisit these problems with their hilarious parody Enchanted. I have to hand it to Disney for making a film that satirizes its bread-and-butter, especially when it was the first traditionally animated feature (or at least partially so) they'd produced in the better part of a decade. Of course admitting that their starry-eyed optimistic take on life is wrong would be shooting themselves in the foot, but they do a good job mocking the over-the-top nature of some of their stories anyway.

...One essential problem with the Disney princess character becomes abundantly clear when Giselle meets Robert. After he catches her when she falls off a billboard, she tells him her story, in which she mentions getting to New York by falling down a well. Catching the irony, Robert asks her, "Is this a habit of yours, falling off things?" Giselle responds, "Well, usually someone catches me." Giselle, you see, relies on other people to get her out of scrapes instead of learning to take care of herself. That kind of attitude is a flatly unhealthy. Of course there's nothing wrong with having your friends help you out in a pinch, but that's no excuse for staying helpless yourself. After all, you can never tell when you'll be alone and need to get by on your own abilities. You can't always count on even the best of friends being there for you every time. I'm sorry for spelling out something that should be completely self-evident like this, but it needs to be said for the sake of rhetoric. Because it's the rightly-noted problem with the old school Disney Princesses.

Hercules (1997)

**This is an except of an article I published for Worthy of Note. For the full article, please click here

Although I believe this movie qualifies for Disney Princess status--heck, marrying a demi-god beats marrying a lousy old prince any day--it's usually not included on the list because a) it wasn't that successful in theaters, and b) Megera isn't technically a princess in Disney's version of the story, though she certainly was a princess in the Greek myth. I also really think she should be included because she was the very first anti-princess character in a Disney movie, and it always speaks both to the influence and weaknesses of the type when an anti-type is produced.

Obviously the most appropriate person to review a Disney film making fun of Greek mythology would be a Greek-American, and fortunately I am both genetically and culturally qualified for the daunting task. As a child I was both strangely attracted to this movie by my ethnic ties and repelled by the subject's dark moments. In fact, when I first heard that Disney was going to make a children's movie out of a Greek myth, I thought it an impossible task considering everyone short of the two virgin goddesses is promiscuous in those stories. Somehow Disney manages to alter the narrative in order to weed the gratuitous sex out, and they make everything look and sound superficially Greek,  neither of which is any mean feat. Still, the movie is so blatantly anachronistic in order to put in pop culture references that we can never suspend our disbelief and think it's really Ancient Greece. But I must admit that I enjoy the mention of food like pita and mousaka enjoyable along with the casual mention of other myths. It's not Greek, but it's a very pleasing imitation, especially since Greek Mythology is such a ripe subject for satire.

Pride and Prejudice 1980: A Review

**As with the last post, this is an excerpt for Pride and Prejudice week. Check out the full review at Worthy of Note**

For sheer accuracy to the book, I still maintain that you can't beat the 1995 BBC version, but surprisingly enough there's a contingency of people that prefer an early BBC adaptation from 1980. I honestly have very mixed feelings about this version. Although they did many things correctly--there's a lot to admire--I still feel like it's not as good as it's successor.

Elizabeth Garvie looks the part of Elizabeth Bennett better than any other
actress to take the role, but she lacks the sparkling personality though she's
certainly wise and reflective enough to fit the changes Elizabeth goes through.

Still, as this film remains largely unknown, I feel compelled to give a fairly detailed review. To start with, the opening credits of this miniseries are a delight to watch because they are a scroll over cartoon renditions of scenes from the episode. The cinematography is not very good, but it beats other Austen adaptations of the era substantially. The music also is unremarkable without being bad, and there's not much of it, either.

First let me talk about the Lizzie in this version, played by Elizabeth Garvie. I think she certainly had the look of Elizabeth, but she lacks the animation and cynicism central to the character. Instead we get a very quiet, reflective Miss Bennett, which makes her transition to greater self-awareness and love for Mr. Darcy more plausible than I've seen in any other version. Despite this I cannot get over how much she feels like of a pale imitation of the vivacious character we know and love in the first half of the film, so the performance ultimately falls flat for me.

Pride and Prejudice Week Special: The 1995 BBC Miniseries, A Response

***As usual, this is an excerpt of a response I did for Alex's blog. to see it in its entirety, go to Worthy of Note ***

Those of you who are regular readers of my blog Seeing Sepia will remember that this adaptation made #1 on my list of Top 10 Most Faithful Movie Adaptations from Novels of All Time. I did not give that award out lightly as a film buff and lover of classic literature. Of course I realize it's not perfect, since no adaptation can be, but I still don't think some of the charges Publius has made against it are entirely fair. Please bear in mind that he esteems it almost as much as I do, and he should by no means be lampooned for daring to find fault with it. It is not my intention to question his right to find fault with it, as indeed he is correct in saying that is overall stellar quality gives us license to concentrate on the minutiae. In that spirit, therefore, I mount my defense.

British-American actress Jennifer Ehle handles the complex character

of Elizabeth Bennett with just the right amount of sweetness and cynicism.

I will start with his slight objection to Jennifer Ehle's portrayal of Elizabeth. In it he says that Elizabeth's cynical streak had been softened somewhat, but I don't think that's so. I think she gives plenty of looks in the film that show just how weary she is of hypocrisy and injustice, especially when Lydia's elopement comes up. Consider during that episode when she hears that Lady Lucas has given assistance several times: "Assistance is impossible and condolence insufferable! Let her triumph over us at a distance and be satisfied!" I think that's about as cynical as you can get. Also, you don't want Lizzie's cynicism to be too prominent, lets she lose the mirth for which we love her.