ThePageBoy

Writing, Reviewing and Criticism In The Internet Age

Tag: Dracula

How did it take me so long to get to this, or, Leave Alan Moore Alone!

Right,

I said didn’t I? I asked nicely didn’t I? Please, stop trying to adapt Alan Moore books into films – stop it I asked. Just stop it. But did anyone listen? Clearly not. I’m not angry with you, film industry, I’m just disappointed. Now I know what you’re thinking – is this going to be a blog where you get all angry about the film version of a comic book? Yes. Yes it is, and with very good reason because the adaptation of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is one of the most singularly terrible butchering’s of a great source material I have EVER seen.

‘But it’s a fun movie! It’s like a steampunk version of the Avengers movie!!’

NO. NO IT ISN’T.

So once again, I’m back in the world of comics and graphic novels but before you start rolling your eyes, let me re-cap a little bit of comic history and re-introduce you to Mr Alan Moore. Alan Moore is a British comic writer who has done more than anyone alive to make comics a viable literary form. His scripts for his comics are insanely detailed and the finished products are widely accepted as the best graphic novels ever written.

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen came out at the beginning of the millennium, and was another success for the prolific Moore. In the comic, Moore skilfully synthesises two divergent styles from two different traditions; one, the superhero team and two, the Victorian adventure novel. He brings together the greatest heroes of Victorian literature and puts them into a team together to save the world. What makes ‘The League’ such a brilliant novel is that Moore has a deep knowledge and appreciation of the literary canon he is looking to join, his characters are not just stereotypes – he knows who these people are and his often bold re-imaginings of the characters never seem to be out-of-place and he doesn’t shy away from subverting readers expectations. For example, one of the main characters in ‘The League’ is the great Alan Quatermaine, taken from the 1885 novel King Solomons Mine by H Rider Haggard. Whilst Quatermaine was originally the archetype of the swashbuckling hero, Moore transposes him forward 15 years and makes him an opium addicted old man who wants to keep himself alive. The leadership of his superhero team doesn’t go to the ass-kicking man but instead Moore makes a bold choice. The leader of The League of Extraordinary Gentleman is not a Gentleman, but rather Mina Harker from the 1897 novel, Dracula.

So, what is her special ability that puts her in charge of this team of great men? Nothing at all – except she survived being attacked by Dracula himself and as such Moore recognises that she has to possess a depth of character and toughness that would make her a natural leader. The rest of the team is equally unexpected; Dr Jekyll is a coward, who transforms into a raving monster, and Captain Nemo is a lonely desperate man who serves an Empire he hates. Oh, and the boss? Campion Bond, which is another great way of placing this team of individuals in the literary genealogy of Britain.

As usual with Moore’s work is a bold and inventive comic, crammed with allusions, references and intertexuality. If you haven’t read it, you are in for a huge treat – stunning writing and some of Kevin O’Neil’s finest art ever.

And then they went and spoiled it all by doing something stupid like giving Stephen Norrington $78 million dollars.

The film was intended to serve as the beginning of a franchise, as Moore had written more than one volume but it never happened because the film is nothing less than a disaster. Firstly, the plot – as per usual I will try to avoid spoilers but in order to explain just why this film sucks so much a few small spoilers may spill out. In 1899 a shadowy man known as the Fantom is on the brink of pushing the world into a war and so the greatest heroes of the age are recruited by the mysterious ‘M’ to help save the empire. And it’s here that things start to go wrong. Don’t get me wrong, the heroes are the same; Quatermain, Mina Harker, the Invisible Man, Captain Nemo as well as Dorian Grey. Oh, and one more character who I’ll get to in a second.

The major problem is the casting – Sean Connery plays Alan Quatermaine and he refused to play Quartermaine as the stung-out,w ashed up hero so Quatermaine becomes the leader of the League and the main focus of the action. Yes, that’s right – Sean Connery is an action hero, whilst being in his seventies. The rest of the characters do the best they can but the script hampers them horribly.

Mina Harker is transformed from the brave and cool-headed leader into a sexy vampire woman who needs to be rescued! Stuart Townshend is woefully underused as Dorian Grey, asked only to smirk and crack lame one-liners! Richard Roxburgh smarms his way through the scenery as a villain!  Jason Flemying is lost under horrible looking CGI! An American Tom Sawyer is put into the film for precisely NO REASON!

Oh Tom Sawyer…played by Shane West he is there simply to be an American, in a blatant attempt to ‘widen the films appeal’ (hateful phrase) to the US Audience. Sawyer has no skills, can’t shoot and is horrible annoying to watch – so irritating that West actually demeans Twain’s original character.

Everything about this film is a mess – the action scenes look awful, the plot is patchy and often inconsistent and complex characters are reduced to stale types with awful dialogue. If you want a perfect example of what’s wrong with the film, look at the sequence in Venice. The setup is great – bombs are blowing up the city sending back in the ocean and the heroes yell at each other until they decide that the best way to stop things blowing up is with some explosions of their own. YAY! ACTION MOVIE LOGIC!

All of it, is stupid, lacks effort and has awful execution – it’s no surprise that Sean Connery decided that he’s much rather spend his time counting his money in the sun than trying to act. Summing up, this film is one that I hate because it just shows complete contempt for the source material, taking the path of least resistance with every single choice. Seen the movie? Go read the book and see how it should have turned out. I can’t believe this made $179 million dollars.

But that’s just what I think…

Thanks

ThePageBoy

 

“I vant to like this movie” or, ‘This really isn’t good for my blood pressure.’

Right,

So Marvel Month is over and done with and I decided I needed to make a clean break – establish some critical distance from the comics to the rest of the blog. So, thinking it over, I settled on doing a classic – something with a fine pedigree, something that is usually found in the classics section. As an English student I am a fan of the classics in the literature section and I have always had a fondness for the horror classics of Gothic literature. This was the thought process that lead me to the 1897 novel by an Irish writer by the name of Bram, one of my favourite novels and one of the first horror novels I ever read… Oh yes, this week is Dracula week.

Dracula is THE classic horror story and has been adapted multiple times, some of them now considered film classics. However I decided I would focus on a more recent adaptation by one of the best directors working in modern cinema. Francis Ford Coppola has been behind some of the best films of the 20th century; and for the twelve of you who don’t know, here’s a few highlights of things he’s been behind…

The Godfather. Yes, that one. widely regarded as one of the best films ever made. EVER. and Part II. And Part III. THE gangster movies of modern American cinema.

– Apocalypse Now.

Lost in Translation (executive producer)

Sleepy Hollow

Frankenstein

And many, many, many more. As a writer, director and producer this man has been one of the heavy hitters of Western cinema for decades now and in 1992 he was responsible for an adaptation of Stoker’s classic novel.

I feel for the sake of my own integrity I need to declare my own feelings here. I really, REALLY dislike this film. As an adaptation I think it is possibly the worst application of a text into a new medium I have ever sat through. If you’re a fan of this film, maybe it is for the best you come back next time because you’re not going to enjoy this one. If there is anyone still reading who wants to know how I’m going to justify this extreme opinion please bear with me whilst I state my case.

Firstly, the positives. The film looks nice. The design of the whole thing is really quite well done. The cast all know how to act properly.

Good, that’s out of the way…Now, onto the problems.

This film has some of the worst casting choices possible. I would have loved to have sat in the meeting discussing the casting options for this film; I imagine a room full of healthy and tanned American executives discussing Coppela’s latest project.

“So, we’ve got Jonathan Harker, he’s an English guy, seems to have formed the trope of the English Gothic hero. Who should we get?’

” I know, what about Keanau Reeves?”

“Really Charlie?”

“Yeah! He’ll be great!”

“Charlie, how much coke are you on? Keanau Reeves!? He’s from California! He has the emotional range of a roll of carpet samples!”

“Yeah, he’ll rock it! And for his wife, the perfect English Gothic rose? You know who I’m thinking – Winona Ryder

“Charlie – she’s from California! She can’t do an English accent to save her life!”

“No no no, these are the people we need to carry this film…now who wants some more drugs?”

And those are the people they went for. It does not work. At all. The first time Jonathan Harker opened his mouth I had to pause the movie and laugh for a good minute, Reeves is woefully out of his depth and it cannot help but show. Ryder as Mina Harker is better, but not by much and her topless scene smacks of the gratuitous. The rest of the cast is solid but burdened with a script that hinders every single one of them.The reason for this is a script that forces the actors into a plot, that in places, reads more like a poor Harlequin romance than a horror.

It is in the plot that this films lets itself down so badly – the novel sets out to establish the vampire as something dangerous. Not just dangerous, but damning – an encounter with Dracula will not only cost you your life but also your spiritual salvation. Dracula isn’t sexy. Or fun. Rather an encounter with a Dracula, in the book, is portrayed as something so horrific that it will cost you your soul – Mina Harker’s reaction to discovering that she has been tainted by Dracula is nigh on hysterical with terror. On the other hand, the film takes a very different approach…

This starts with the establishing opening sequence, where we see the character of Dracula in the past as solider, who, thinking his wife dead, renounces his faith in God and swears to come back from the dead using the power of darkness. I will admit that the film does this very well, the scene where the chapel fills with blood shows off the production and design and Gary Oldman as Dracula gets to show off his acting chops with his dialogue in Romanian. From here, the film takes an entirely different tangent as to what a vampire is. Instead of being something dangerous, the film effectively sanitized the idea of a vampire – Oldman becomes a sympathetic figure seeking the love of his resurrected wife that will redeem him and enable him to get him into heaven.

Now, if you are still reading this as a fan of the film, I want you to re-read that last sentence and then compare it to the tone and character arc of Dracula in Stoker’s novel and then try and tell me with a staight face that this is a good way of adaptating the text. It isn’t even accurate. At all. The idea of a vampire ceases to be dangerous and no ammount of erotic seduction or lavish production will ever disguise the fact, that this is a horror film that just fails to be scary in the smallest degree.

Now, I know what you might be thinking. “Jon, you just don’t like anything that deviates from the book you’re a fan of..You hate someone who disagrees with you and can’t deal with the idea that someone might have a different take on a character!”

Well, no. I have no objection to the idea of someone making bold choices with a character but this is not what vampires ARE. If you want to make a movie about a supernatural creature looking for his reincarnated wife fine. No problem. No objection here. But there is a well established literaray tradition of what vampires are and how they behave. This tradition isn’t just the work of writers from the 1890’s but something based on the myths and legends of Eastern Eurpoe stretching back centuries. To ignore and neglect this part of the vampire mythos is not good adaptation, if anything it is ignoring the history of the genre and character and trying to make it into something new. In fact, the movie is an indulgence, it’s a fantasy puff piece designed to appeal to the people who grew up to write Twilight fanfiction. Yes, that’s right – I am going to blame this movie for spawning that horror of pop-culture mediocre waste of time that infatuated a generation of tweens. And for that, there will be no pit of hell deep enough… *sigh*

I started with saying that this was a biased review. I love this book, I read it as a teenager and I have constantly re-read it and it has never failed to inspire a little terror every time. I was initally excited about this film version but all that I was left with, when the credits rolled was an over-whelming sense of a missed opportunity . Someone wanted to make a vampire movie but didn’t get what a vampire was, didn’t get why a vampire was scary and had no idea how to make it work with this lavish and over-blown production.

I wanted to like this. I did and I swear I tried to, but as I mentioned with my review of X-Men how you feel about a film does colour the opinion you hold as a critic and enjoyment of a film does tend to cover the worst of filmic sins. But this…this is just terrible.

Don’t let me convince you. If you haven’t either read the book or seen the film then take a weekend and you tell me. Tell me why you think they got it right as an adaptation or tell me if you agree with me and get it off your chest. This is not just bad – this is not getting it, missing the point and producing something that doesn’t deserve to be called a vampire movie, it’s a romance movie for those with a fetish for biting. Classic literature deserves more than that.

But, hey – that’s just my two cents 🙂

Thanks

The PageBoy

PS I promise that next week I’ll do something that makes me less grouchy…

PPS Oh, and the classic black and white Dracula is so so so so much better. Simply on the grounds that the actors all have English accents that sound like English accents puts it over and above this one in terms of quality.