Argento’s Dracula 3-D hit home video on January 28th.
Bram Stoker’s tale of the vampire Count Dracula has been committed to film a great many times, and it’s a tale with which I have no small experience. It’s my favorite novel and I’ve watched — and in most cases acquired — as many Dracula films as I can get my hands on. These pictures can and probably should be judged in two ways: as adaptations of the novel (with their own artistic merits as standalone works) or as new additions to the body of Dracula lore. I think it’s fair to say that Dario Argento’s new Dracula fails in both respects.
Dracula film adaptations have an extremely low batting average when it comes to honoring the novel, instead finding inspiration in the pop culture creation of the Count from stage plays, existing films, and most tragically the historical Dracula, Prince Vlad Tepes. As an adaptation, Argento’s Dracula fares about average — which is to say, badly. The most essential skeleton of the plot is loosely intact: the vampire Count Dracula preys on comely young ladies Lucy and Mina. Dr. Abraham Van Helsing, a quirky, wizened scholar who is versed in the occult, comes to their aid. The setting is changed to a fictional German village, apparently serving as a single compromise between the novel’s juxtaposition of primitive Transylvania and modern Victorian London. Most other primary characters are either greatly changed or excised completely. Another is fabricated: Argento’s version of Lucy has a loving father, which is pretty weird since the absence of parents in the novel is what makes Van Helsing such a compellingly paternal, authoritative, and lovable character. Most disappointingly, the Hollywood invention of Dracula as a tragic romantic who falls in love with Mina is intact, since we apparently won’t ever get away from that shit. However, I concede that most people don’t care about the novel anyway, so here I bite the bullet and discuss the film on its own terms.
The idea of Dario Argento putting his spin on Stoker’s classic would indeed have been an enticing prospect some thirty years ago. He was, especially in his prime, an indisputable master of the horror genre with a specific style that was totally unique yet undeniably Italian. While “style” is itself a difficult thing to explain or quantify, there were certain things you could typically expect with an Argento film: moody lighting, expert cinematography, bizarre terror and violence, and a memorable, stylized score — usually by returning collaborators like eerie synth-tinged rockers Goblin, or the unparalleled Ennio Morricone. Remarkably, Dracula fails to deliver on even one of these trademarks.
The entire film — well, let’s just use the term “movie” since it’s so unfilmlike — has a digital sheen that looks and feels cheap. This chintzy veneer is even worse during the many scenes where poor compositing is utilized, and most noticeably when any CG critters show up — which is surprisingly often. There’s more in common here with your typical Asylum picture than with Argento’s earlier body of work. Many scenes are too brightly lit, creating a sunny and colorful atmosphere which does little to induce dread. I suppose this is due to shooting for 3D, but regardless it looks pretty bad. Similarly, all scenes of violence are robbed of their power by silly computer graphics. Here most reviewers would probably cite the 7-foot tall cartoon praying mantis, and technically I guess I am too, but I think this is most aptly highlighted when Dracula enters a room as a swarm of animated flies before transforming back into his native form. The flies are obviously computer-generated and composited into the shot. By comparison, consider Argento’s 1985 film Phenomena, about a girl who could telepathically communicate with insects. Phenomena also used significant imagery of swarming flies as a major thematic device. Those shots were achieved practically with amazing success, and still maintain their disturbing impact. It’s a damning mark on this newer kind of filmmaking.
There’s more. The acting is fairly bad throughout. Even the bigger stars, Rutger Hauer and Asia Argento, don’t quite pull it off. Asia’s Lucy feels a bit too modern for this older world, and Hauer’s Van Helsing (whose presence in the film is itself a bit of a plot hole), does a bit better but speaks in a weirdly halting manner that viewers may find distracting. The relative unknowns who play Dracula and Mina fare best. Marta Gastini imbues her Mina with the gracefulness the character deserves. Thomas Kretschmann is not well recognized but has done a lot of solid Hollywood supporting work over the years, and he does the best with the Count that I think anybody could’ve under the circumstances.
So it ain’t all bad. Plus Van Helsing has a pretty bitchin’ crucifix-shaped sword which he uses to dispatch a chesty blonde succubus, so that’s cool.
Moving away from a strict review, I’m pretty flabbergasted at what happened here. It’s quite possible that Mr. Argento’s approach was a one-off experiment or merely an attempt to make a buck, but the way I see it, his name is actually in the title and therefore it behooves us to accept it as a representation of him. His latest creation is, at least in this reviewer’s opinion, indicative of a disturbing larger trend among the careers of many classic horror directors. I understand that filmmakers do age and can lose their edge, or in some cases lose touch with how technology or trends evolve. The complete and utter transition from film to digital, for example, has been no kinder to filmmakers than it has to audiences, and piracy puts a strain on the industry, especially independents.
However, there’s also truth to the idea that the film industry — and to a lesser extent, the film community — simply doesn’t demonstrate the proper confidence or esteem for its venerable horror directors. In an ideal world, proven masters like Dario Argento, George Romero, Joe Dante, Tobe Hooper, and Stuart Gordon shouldn’t have to turn their pockets inside out, resort to gimmicks, launch Kickstarter campaigns, or compromise their visions in an attempt to keep creating films of diminishing quality for direct-to-video releases and bottom-feeding cable networks. Don’t misunderstand my meaning — that’s not a knock against them. Here’s what I’m driving at: I love these guys and feel like they don’t get a fair shake anymore — and I don’t like it. What do you think?
Originally published at old.cinapse.co on February 14, 2014.