Monday, March 31, 2008

by Ari

I watched Bram Stoker's Dracula with Francis Ford Coppola's recent commentary track on the new dvd (came out last year), and I have to say it's probably one of the strangest commentaries I've ever listened to. It's the first time Coppola watched the film since it came out, and his opinions are obviously mixed about the final cut and the experience itself. I've stated many times that I'm a huge fan of the film and I stand by that opinion. I think it's one of his most underrated movies, visually inventive and ambitious in a way that puts most contemporary horror films to shame. The on-camera effects (much of which were done by Roman Coppola) are amazing and inspired, and the old-fashioned, silent-era influences gives it a sophistication and literacy that represents the signature of a genuine cinematic master.

It's interesting how Coppola expresses himself while watching the film. At first he seems fairly passionate about the highly stylized atmosphere and conceptual ideas on display. He even seems impressed by the different visual effects they used to tell the story. As he says at one point, "I forgot how much wacky stuff we did on this picture". He discusses how he enjoyed working with his son Roman and how he found all the actors to be professional and impressive, even though he had some initial difficulty with Anthony Hopkins during the rehearsal stage. He particularly enjoyed Tom Waits' bizarre performance as the insane R.M. Renfield (which is cut for the tv version against Coppola's wishes) and thought Gary Oldman was an astonishing, intelligent, imaginative actor.

But as the film progresses, Coppola becomes a bit frustrated by the fact that he made the movie to fix his financial problems at the time. He goes on about how personal filmmaking is really the only thing that matters, and that you should only make films if you have something important to express. I think his frustration with some of his post-Apocalypse Now efforts comes through pretty strongly in this commentary. By the second half of the film he goes on about the limits and difficulties of working with studios and executives, and how being an independent is how it should really be. Again he mentions how creatively liberating it was to make Youth Without Youth. Then it's interesting how he suddenly gets back into the film and talks passionately about certain sequences and visual touches. It's like he loves and hates Dracula. He loves the style he brought to the story, but he hates that he had to make it for commercial reasons.

It's fascinating to listen to, but also a bit depressing if you idolize Coppola the way I do. He really is our contemporary Orson Welles, a filmmaker with supreme talent who spent years struggling to get back to the place he wanted to be at as an artist. Fortunately Coppola has a second chance now because of his success with Coppola wine. It's something Welles would've killed for late in his career. I love listening to Coppola discuss his work and his love for movies, he has an amazing depth of knowledge for the early days of the medium and he seems to be overflowing with ideas for what should happen in the future. It's fascinating stuff to take in and consider, but above all, it's inspiring.