MovieChat Forums > Dracula: Pages from a Virgin's Diary (2003) Discussion > Disappointing

Disappointing

posted 17 years ago by docdespicable
5 replies | jump to latest

I just saw this and have to say that I was, on the whole, disappointed. There were elements I liked, not least of which was Wei-Qiang Zhang - what a powerful presence! But I don't feel like I actually saw much of the ballet, thanks to the cinematographer, and Guy Maddin's direction seemed too eaten up with his own cleverness and personal view of the original source material. I feel like he inferred a great deal that wasn't there while passing over a great deal that was. And I understand that, under the circumstances, some abbreviation of the story was necessary, but I found the restructuring of the story rather off-putting. Nor do I remember much in the novel about money, except that Dracula seemed to have plenty of it stashed in horded treasure in his hiding place. And the business with Lucy's mother...

There's been a heap of adulation about this production - most of what I read seems to glow. And if you loved it, that's just fine. It doesn't make you evil or stupid or a member of the Axis of Evil or anything like that. One man's Meade is another man's Persian, as Robert Benchley once pointed out.

I was just disappointed with it, though there were flashes of brilliance amid the copious self-satisfied pretentiousness.

And is anyone ever going to really and truly bring the novel to the screen?!?

[–] jaloquisimo 16 years ago

I watched this as an inveterate ballet-hater and sceptic, but by and large enjoyed it very much. The "1920s" cinematography is at times overdone, some of the intertitles are dreadful (the varying fonts in glaring yellow, notably "FLESHPOTS!") and from a personal point of view Dracula just isn't cast right. And if you haven't read the novel, FORGET IT.

BUT it is quite possibly more faithful to Stoker than anything else I've ever seen. Not the plot, which takes a cavalier attitude in certain respects, but the atmosphere. It captures the essence of Stoker amazingly well, and deserves to be seen by a wider audience than it's ever likely to get. "Ballet" and "1920s cinematography" sadly aren't the crowd-pullers they once were.

Approach with an open mind. And a degree of caution.

[–] PommeraieVasundhara 15 years ago

I think your missing the point. This film was never designed to be mainstream!

Guy Maddin is evidently an intelligent director, exploring genres of performance that mainstream filmmakers would never dare to approach-since they are only concerned with making a huge cash profit. Maddin is concerned with effecting his audience emotionally and sensually, which he does! This film certainly affected me!

Mainstream film directors don't make films: they make products. They spend the entire production process compromising the quality of the films content-rarely is there any enlightening, emotion-rousing beauty in a mainstream film.

Guy Maddin sought to avoid an audience who would not appreciate his art [because that is exactly what this film is: ART]. Thats why directors like Maddin opt to make TV films or art house films, its because mainstream films go to mainstream audiences-namely groups of people who want to be entertained, not emotionally, spiritually, sensually affected.

If this had been mainstream, ridiculously rich production companies would have seized up the idea, ripped out the ballet, ripped off the black and white, replaced the theatrically trained cast with huge celebrity names, replaced the languid, sensual poetry of the film with heaving, blood-dripping erotica and action...it would have been god awful, I guarantee!!!

I think the fact that this film is shot in black and white and it is essentially a ballet adds-yes-a sublime, spiritual sensuality to the concept of Death meeting with Life, but it also adds an appropriate atmosphere of menace to the story.

This is an enormous achievement, and it enlightened me to just how exquisite dance can be in a film context. It is such an emotive, evocative way to dance and I think ballet dancers can express emotions in a way that not even the best trained actors can. They know exactly how to use their bodies to convey a character, and since they are always flowing within their art, they do not need to stop and meditate the creation of a character. They become the character through movement.

Can you imagine if this film was filled with high-end celebrities stuffed with plastic and collogen, with their faces on the fronts of magazines and ludicrious wads of cash stuffed in their pockets?? Celebrities do not know what art truly is, and by the sounds of it neither do you.

"Always be a poet..."-Charles Baudelaire

[–] lartrak 14 years ago

I'm in agreement with you on every point, actually. One of the most baffling things to me was how so much of the choreographed dance is rendered incomprehensible or obviously truncated, especially in the first half of the film. There's more and more of it as the film goes on, and I thought these aspects were the best parts of the film. In particular, I liked almost all the scenes with Dracula and Mina and the destruction of Lucy.

But, overall, I felt it just didn't work. Didn't like the restructuring of the storyline, didn't like the way it was shot (though some of the film was quite pretty), and it seemed to me the original ballet was brutalized. Haven't seen the ballet though, just a guess.

The worst aspect was I felt next to nothing (other than boredom) for most of the run time. I was hoping for some of the raw emotional resonance many silent and semi-silent films have. But, I got very little of that. Disappointing.

[–] Duragizer 11 years ago

I was disappointed, too, but for somewhat different reasons. I felt there was too much ballet, not enough story. Yes, I know, it's based on a ballet. Still, it would have been nice if a balance had been struck. I also wasn't fond of the editing; too many of the captions and some of the transitions were very cheap-looking, like some average schmoe had made them with his personal computer.

Standing there, on a road that leads to anywhere ...

[–] birthdaynoodle 11 years ago

I agree, the yellow captions are a major turn-off. I wonder why they went about it that way. It's a pity, because the rest is all very well made.