MovieChat Forums > Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) Discussion > The Problem(s) with the Romance

The Problem(s) with the Romance

posted 10 years ago by celluloid9
26 replies | jump to latest

I should begin by saying that I really like the character of Dracula and consider myself both well-versed in the original novel as well as the "landmark" adaptations. I had never seen Bram Stoker's Dracula until the other day when I decided that it would be in the best interests for me as a self-respecting Dracula fan to watch the movie.

I have to say that I was very disappointed by the film finding not only the acting to be unsatisfactory, but disappointed by the lapses in logic which the film created by coming up with their own plot. Before I go forward I should warn you that there will be SPOILERS for this film as well as a few other Dracula films.

What I considered to be the film's greatest lapse in logic was how it played out the romance. I know this wasn't a new ideas as it had been introduced in the 1974 film with Jack Palance and featured a plot similar to this movie's. However, the film with Palance made Lucy have an uncanny resemblance to Dracula's lost love. In terms of plot this made perfect sense as Dracula's main mission once in England was to find Lucy, and once she was killed by Van Helsing he turns to Mina to exact his revenge (per Stoker's novel). In the 1992 film, Mina is the one who Dracula has his eyes set on, so it begs the question - why did he have to go after Lucy at all? It was shown that he had grown on the sailors from the Demeter's blood, so he reason for going after Lucy instead of Mina doesn't make any sense other than that's what happened in the book and because the movie has got a title like Bram Stoker's Dracula it has to at least follow the book a little.

What's more, the romance angle really took a lot of the menace away from Dracula. It can be argued that aside from this film the 1979 film with Frank Langella played up the romance angle more than any other, but that movie at least made Dracula out to be the villain he's supposed to be. Dracula does seem to fall in love with Lucy in that film, but his essential goal is to spread the vampire plague and the scene in which Jonathon Harker and Van Helsing discover Lucy in Dracula's coffin aboard the ship at the end is chilling stuff. Bram Stoker's Dracula rendered the count to being a love-sick schoolboy and he seldom seemed to have any menace left in him.

These are just my thoughts and I don't want to be put down as a troll, so if you have any counter arguments I would be more than interested in hearing your opinions.

"The world is full of obvious things which nobody by any chance ever observes."
-Sherlock Holmes

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] celluloid9 10 years ago

In the novel there is no romance angle at all so Dracula's reign of terror is based purely on spreading the vampire plague to England. After his ship crashes in Whitby he claims Lucy as his first victim, returning time and time again draining her of blood confounding Dr. Seaward to the point that he has to call for Van Helsing. All of this is more or less translated to the screen.

By the time that Van Helsing has diagnosed Lucy as being the victim of a vampire, it is too late and she has already died, completely drained of blood by Dracula. Lucy than rises from the grave and feasts on little children until Van Helsing and the others drive a stake through her heart. In response to this, Dracula turns on Mina as his next victim to get his revenge on all those who claimed the life of his first.

So, the question still stands: if Dracula's intent to reunite with Mina from the get-go, what was the point of turning his attention towards Lucy?

"The world is full of obvious things which nobody by any chance ever observes."
-Sherlock Holmes

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Duane505 10 years ago

It was coincidence. Lucy just happened to be a sleepwalker, which made her vulnerable since she could be more easily lured from the safety of her home.

[–] TRinzler 9 years ago

if Dracula's intent to reunite with Mina from the get-go, what was the point of turning his attention towards Lucy?

She was beautiful and ALIVE. He was tempted by this. Also, as Helsing said, she was a willing disciple.

Dracula becomes "distracted" by his romance with Mina which allows for Lucy to be "treated" by Helsing, postponing her death for a while. However, Mina's letter (in which she writes that she has left for Romania to marry Jonathan) angers him into taking out his revenge on her best friend, Lucy, by turning her into a vampire also.

This Dracula really wasn't a nice person at all (!), which makes his redemption at the end all the more unbelievable.

[–] ParkerMooney 10 years ago

Juust finished the novel, after having watched [and adored FFC's Dracula] for years and I agree,
wholeheartedly with you.
I was literally just ranting to myself about how I despise when movies take these villains
and give them reason, a sort of justification to be villains instead of them being evil just cause.
Should be Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula, and not Bram Stokers.

It's really weird to me that this film gave way to things that featured Dracula
having the Mina lost love angle, a la Supernatural and Buffy. Not canon at all guys.

I just think you're in some pain here. Which I do kind of enjoy 'cause I'm evil now.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] very-blue 10 years ago

I interpreted it as Dracula went after Lucy because he didn't want to "condemn" Mina to the vampire "life." In fact, he resists more than once the urge to turn Mina, even when she's begging him to.

Two evil actions by our friend D. in this film that chill me: taking such glee in Harker losing it at the brides gorging on the baby -- and his relentless attacks and using up of Lucy.

I will never understand why Van Helsing says she is a willing disciple.

[–] Shimmer_Me_Timbers 10 years ago

I will never understand why Van Helsing says she is a willing disciple.

That confused me aswell... it was pretty clear that she was in a trance and was upset when Mina found her. If she was a willing diciple I don't think Dracula would've had to put her in a trance to get her outside.

[–] nikman_725 8 years ago

The "devoted disciple" line makes perfect sense to me, and always has. This is the reason Lucy is immediately introduced as overtly sexual. I think this whole part of the film is greatly misunderstood. Before Dracula arrives on the shores of England, his influence is shown lingering over the two women as they are entranced by his occult form of sympathy. When Dracula physically arrives in England, fresh out of the "wild" world of the east, he literally scours the land as a wolf. Lucy immediately falls victim to his electrifying, unguided desire because of her openness and naïveté, and she is raped in the middle of the storm. Mina is initially protected indoors by her reserved behavior. After Mina saves Lucy, and the two are walking away, the shot of werewolf Dracula is very significant. This is the first time we see him considering his monstrous actions. It's not a total epiphany, as he still goes on to feed on, and murder Lucy through his fits of wild desire and angered tantrums, but it's the first time we see his character show signs of humanity.

[–] spank-my-17 9 years ago

I agree and was about to post the same explanation as to why he goes after Lucy in that manner and instead seems really infatuated with Mina. It's like she reminds him of his life before and his innocent wife, that he doesn't want to "defile" her until she practically makes him at the end of the movie.
Her reasoning seems to be that she gets hooked by his supernatural vampiric enchantment and it also seems that his wife might have been reincarnated in Mina in some way..? :)

[–] RynoII 8 years ago

I never saw Dracula as a 'hero' though, and thought of him as a villain the entire time.

[–] ben-ten 10 years ago

Main mission of Dracula in London, according to the movie, was to find fresh blood. He accidentally bumped into the photo of Mina and then found the house where she was living. Lucy is just an accident victim of Dracula. There was no romance between him and Lucy. Even though they "sort of" had sex, it's not what interested Dracula. He just used Lucy's lust to take her blood and to change her.
As an opposite, he wasn't sure about changing Mina, because he didn't want to make her suffer like himself. Making him similar to a fallen angel was a great movie, IMO, because it gave Dracula depth. Not one-dimensional vileness. The movie is the story of eternal love gone wrong. No way he wasn't menacing enough. He butchered a lot of people there.

Maybe it was a mistake to label it "Bram Stoker's", but still it doesn't make the movie any worse.

[–] Shimmer_Me_Timbers 10 years ago

I was sort of expecting you to bring up the whole absinth thing.

[–] rochey_1 9 years ago

Mina is the reincarnation of Elisabeta. it's destiny playing itself out. God is responsible. It's no coincidence that important players act more than one part. 2 KEY FIGURES that are the source of Vlad renouncing God at the start.

1. the priest is played by Antony Hopkins - this is implied to be an ancestor or more likely a previous life of Van Helsing.It is him that sets up the match that Vlad will now play for centuries. he tells Vlad his wife is damned and they will never be together again provoking Vlad's rage to renounce god.

2. Elisabeta played by Winona Ryder - she is reincarnated into Mina. She is the one that keeps the man in the monster. The one he is selfless about, who he loves more than being the monster, more than god. She is the catalyst for him damning himself, but she is also able to get him to look on God again at the end. She's the only one who could because he loves her too much to condemn her, so he lets his love go. A selfless act which allows redemption.

A huge theme of the movie is soulmates - 2 people destined to be together and find each other no matter what.

"I have crossed oceans of time to find you"

"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?"

His love for his wife keeps that bit of humanity in him. Mina is his damnation (cursing god and becoming Dracula) and yet she is his redemption and salvation (he selflessly ends his war with god through Mina and lets her go at the end.

Vlad's punishment is not a hell but more of a purgatory of sorts. God will forgive him. He will be judged through those important to him. It's no coincidence that Mina is there at the start with him but she is dead, and then there at the end but now he is. They are soulmates and only that which damned him can save him. She is the only one that will enable him to remember the man that once followed god.

So IMO this is why the romance in this movie is gorgeous, not only the chemistry the actors share, how Gary plays that tormented love but also the spiritual 'higher power' themes resonate so much. We all want a 'soulmate' someone who is meant to complete us and can save us from our own demons.

[–] mcornett 9 years ago

Well, too bad for Lucy, eh? Guess God didn't give a hoot for her. Or anyone else that Dracula slew. How many deaths did this movie have? How many people had Drac killed? Guess it was God's plan that they all die horrible deaths.

Oh, and too bad for Jonathan Harker, now stuck in a loveless marriage, or at least knowing he'll forever be Mina's consolation prize. Guess God's turned his back on him, too.

And I guess God favors murderers who sell their souls to the devil, huh?

That's what I don't like about this whole thing of "they were soul mates, it was God's plan" and similar. People died horrible deaths, other vampires were made, etc. and oh, it's all OK, it's all part of God's plan to bring the soulmates together. Too bad for all the people killed, and Harker now living a lonely life, abandoned by the woman he loved and risked all for, etc. But after all, Mina and Dracula are supposed to be superior, wonderful, Chosen people, and it doesn't matter who else dies or if innocent people suffer? After all, if you're in love, you can commit any crime you want, commit countless murders, sell your soul to the devil, and all will be forgiven if you pursue your One True Love? Well, then I guess Pol Pot is a cuddly little misunderstood genocidal maniac?

Dracula is a foul, despicable, loathsome creature who richly deserves to burn in Hell. The fact that this story ends with him being rewarded with Heaven, rather than being sent to enternal damnation and punishment for the death and torment he'd inflicted, does not sit well with me. And Mina is a tramp; after all, she abandons her HUSBAND, to whom she has sworn eternal devotion, without a single backwards glance. Her unfeeling selfishness makes her vile and a villainess.

If they had played up more conflict in the two, it would have been more palatable. But this whole, "Oh, it's OK that she's abandoned a man who devotedly loves and treasures her, and it's OK that he's a reanimated corpse who's also a mass murderer and Satanist, they deserve the best because they're in love" is sickening.

And let's not forget how unoriginal this movie's script is. Rips off the old TV soap DARK SHADOWS, not to mention countless trashy gothic romances of the 60s and 70s, and vampire novels that had them as "poor misunderstood lonely souls" in the 70s and 80s, and revisionist Dracula novels in the 70s (Fred Saberhagen has a lot to answer for), and really, this script was nothing unusual or revolutionary.

"Value your education. It's something nobody can ever take away from you." My mom.

[–] rochey_1 9 years ago

Wow that was some rant. I guess you really hate this movie LOL

I disagree with your comments, i stick with mine. I love this movie because it's not black and white and we're all capable of doing horrible things, that doesn't stop us from being human and humans are cerytainly not perfect. Also it's fiction so my morals can be skewed for fantasy purposes.

Also whatever your feelings on god, i don't share them. If God does in fact exist, cruel would be part of his personality. Just look at the world's history. As they say god works in mysterious ways. Just ask Job.

[–] AndrewGS 9 years ago

The fact that this story ends with him being rewarded with Heaven, rather than being sent to enternal damnation and punishment for the death and torment he'd inflicted, does not sit well with me.

The novel did have the vague line and idea that after his death he had an expression of peace, suggesting that like Lucy he wasn't in control of himself and gained some forgiveness (or alternately he preferred going to Hell than continuing as a vampire).

Mina is a tramp; after all, she abandons her HUSBAND, to whom she has sworn eternal devotion, without a single backwards glance. Her unfeeling selfishness makes her vile and a villainess.

If they had played up more conflict in the two, it would have been more palatable. But this whole, "Oh, it's OK that she's abandoned a man who devotedly loves and treasures her, and it's OK that he's a reanimated corpse who's also a mass murderer and Satanist, they deserve the best because they're in love" is sickening.

I don't think Mina abandons Jonathan although she is conflicted and a bit too sympathetic to Dracula; Jonathan seems quite confident that she'll finish Dracula off but not in a brutal way.
It's questionable how much the film Jonathan is devoted to Mina, both characters seem like they're in love and marry out of pretty mild affection and senses of obligation.

[–] Drooch (5333) 5 years ago

Here’s what doesn’t add up - Elizabeta commits suicide and is therefore banished to hell for eternity (which is what sets off Drac in the first place), so how can she be walking the earth in reincarnated form as Mina?

It’s no wonder that Drac is relived to find her alive and not roasting in the fires of hell, but doesn’t that undermine god’s rules and collapse the whole house of cards the story is built on?

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] AndrewGS 9 years ago

What's more, the romance angle really took a lot of the menace away from Dracula.

Bram Stoker's Dracula rendered the count to being a love-sick schoolboy and he seldom seemed to have any menace left in him.

The film sort of tried to reduce the menace of the character but I think it was more just trying to make him somewhat sympathetic, enough of the original novel plot was retained that he came off as still pretty evil and menacing, there's a strong contrast between how much he harms and mistreats Lucy and on the other hand is reluctant to make Mina a vampire, he has some humanity but it's pretty much just reserved for the reincarnation of his wife.

[–] maharani78 8 years ago

I think in this movie he is somewhat of a sympathetic character because of his actions towards Mina but also because Gary Oldman was one fine mofo as the young incarnation of Dracula.

[–] KingBrian1 8 years ago

There was a glaring plot hole in the film when Mina saw Dracula as a were beast raping Lucy after her health deteriorated she told nobody of this incident. Kind of important. A quick reminder. "Oh by the way did I tell you a large monster was in the grounds recently."

[–] Kojiro_Vance 8 years ago

Yeah, the plot is all a bit weird. In the original, Dracula buys land to spread the 'vampire disease' in London.

In this version, his whole purpose is to avenge Mina's death. He will become immortal to avenge her. Then he starts buying land in London, and Renfield turns mad. Harker takes over and travels to Dracula's castle.

Then Dracula sees Mina picture and thinks she is Elisabetha. And he imprisons Harker and travels to London by ship.

But why was he buying land in the first place? At that point he didn't even know Mina existed. Let alone that his new real estate guy was about to marry a girl that looked like Elisabetha.

Or am I missing something here?

I'm just on my way up to Clavius.