Ok, nice coincidence. Over centuries it is quite likely to find a doppleganger.
Particularly of a common, boring lookin woman like Winona.
So what?
She just looks like her, but it is not her. What kind of deranged stalker believes she will bring back his lost wife? An engaged englishwoman of all possible candidates???
Dracula neeed a psychotherapist, not Van Helsing.
This is by far the creepyest, most horrifying aspect of this film.
Yeah for some reason Elizabeta was cursed to be reincarnated over and over again until she was able to find Vlad and fall in love with him all over again just this time as a vampire. It doesn’t really make a whole lot of sense but whatever.
It's not like that in the movie either. Mina looks like Elizabetha but it's never implied she is actually her, she doesn't have her memories nor knows anything about that till Dracula tells her about her. And even then, it's not like she says "oh yeah, I remember now".
So what are we talking about here?
No man, that is just YOUR interpretation.
I just rewarched that scene.
She says it is HIS VOICE causing all this.
It is like a familiar voice in a dream.
So she DREAMS of such a beautiful place with a happy princess dressed in white.
But in reality, we know instead that the princess killed herself, that she wore green, that Transilvania is gloomy and horrible.
My interpretation is that the absenthium and Dracula's voice and powers are charming her, giving her ideas that are in contrast with reality (which is shown in parallel almost debunking her feelings).
Later on she is so into this askewed taste that she embraces all sorts of disgusting crap that only Dracula finds normal. Again, nothing to do with Elisabeta, everything to do with her current state of mental subjugation to Dracula's powers.
This is actually a something that's been used in a lot of movies, off the top of my head the films "Vertigo", "Obsession", and "The Life and Times of Colonel Blimp" all feature a man going nuts about a woman who looks just like the girl he lost.
I was going to say something snarky about straight men thinking that only looks matter, but in all these films the man is shown as a misguided fool who gets himself in a world of trouble by trying to recreate a lost relationship with a different person. In all of these films, the protagonist fails to realize that the woman he's dealing with is a different person than the one in his head, and one who may be indifferent to him or about to stab him in the back.
The thing is, although Dracula's displays of feeling for a woman who looks like his former wife are accompanied by swooningly romantic music, he actually does fit the pattern of old fools who fail to realize this woman is different from the one he knew.
Mina kills him in the end, and all his romanticism boils down to just falling in love because of a girl's looks, and not stopping to consider that even if she's a reincarnation of the old wifey, she has the value system of a 19th century English girl, and not a Medieval Transylvanian woman who's nothing without her lord and master.
I guess those are the facts, but the movie never plays it like that.
He is never a fool, he is the only one powerful enough to see the truth.
He gets killed at the end almost as a love sacrifice to save her.
She also goes along with his madness and believes him when he says she is her true love and fuck everything else. By the end of the movie she loves him more than Jonathan or anybody else, she would go to hell for him.
lemonhead1 here posted that she IS his dead wife reincarnated, but other than Dracula nothing shows any sign of that. I wonder how it is written in the original novel, which I own but have never read.
Mina is just another victim in the novel. Dracula is not a romantic tragedy, he's pretty much just the devil and goes after Mina after Lucy because the group is hunting him and proximity. She does have a psychic connection after he forces her to drink his blood, but that's just because she is becoming a vampire. The movie came up with all that romance and reincarnation crap.
I guess that since it is not in the novel, it is even more silly.
To turn a random victim into the core of his actions is quite the betrayal of the book's motivation and themes.
Plus the idea that she was reincarnated is just too much to add as a retcon.
For some reason, every modern vampire film has to make the vampire the sexy, romantic character, instead of the blood-sucking monster of myth, legend, and Stoker's book. I mean sexy vampires are the fashion, and Coppola followed the fashion, made the most romantic, sympathetic Dracula yet.
The thing is, someone could actually make a great movie, if they made Dracula into a handsome monster who charms people, and then brutally kills or enslaves them after he's disarmed them - I've seen "Don Giovanni" played that way and it was terrifying and fabulous. I really wish this fantastically expressionist movie had given that a try, IMHO making Dracula fall in love with his victims is taking the easy way out, story-wise.
I agree.
And not only it is the easy way out, it is also wasted.
At least, he could have been in love, she could have been ok with it and followed him to hell, BUT they should have showed how evil this love story is.
Instead they turn it into a cheesy love sacrifice to end this poor guy's suffering and to save his soul, like you said romanticizing it.
I really do think that making Dracula into the anti-hero and a romantic figure is the easy way out, because it's much more difficult to make Mina, Jonathan, and Van Helsing* into genuine heroes, than it is to make Dracula sexy. I mean Jonathan spends a good chunk of the story as a prisoner and Mina is duped by Dracula in the original movie, and Van Helsing only comes in when the movie is half over, if you stick to the original story it's very difficult to make any or all of them into standard movie heroes. But if they aren't the heroes, then Dracula falls short of his real potential as a villain!
Bear with me as I discuss the opera I saw, "Don Giovanni", which is about the legendary "seducer" of women, known in English as Don Juan. Sometimes it's played with the women all willing and the Don being persecuted for offending the prudes, sometimes it's played with the women being willing and then changing their minds. But the best version I ever saw had a charismatic, sexy, good-looking guy as the Don (and he could really sing, too), and he played the legendary seducer as a straight-up sociopathic villainous rapist. It was genuinely disturbing, seeing this hot guy who could have almost any woman drop the charm and attempt a rape after a few minutes, because he'd rather rape a woman than keep talking.
And if vampires existed that's what they'd be like, they'd have no interest in their human victims, we'd just be food to them, and the only reason for a vampire to talk to one would be to get their guard down. That would be a hell of a lot scarier than any of the sexy vampires ever put on screen.
- - -
* One of the things that I genuinely love about this version is that Van Helsing is played as a real nutter. I mean, if you think about it, he'd have to be.
That predatory ruthlessness should be the core element of this film.
We see only a glimpse of it, when Dracula laughs at his wifes eating a baby and Johnatan is terrifyed, or when he fucks Lucy.
But then he turns into this romantic figure because "love is good", and Coppola chose the easy route (or even worse, he believed this was the daring route).
It could have been interesting and more faithful to the book if it showed how this romantic love story is actuality evil and selfish.
Both Dracula and Mina pretend that the destruction and corruption that he operates is not even there, probably because of being in love. They act like the couple in Natural Born Killer, only the movie never acknowledges it. Quite silly and wasteful.