Quite unique and very stylish interpretation of the legendary Bram Stoker-tale, shot by one of the most gifted (yet regretfully underrated) fantasy-directors of all time; Guy Maddin. There isn't much to say about storyline, as the film loyally tells the myth of Dracula as we all know it. The originality here is Mark Godden's ballet adaptation of Stoker's novel and the fact Maddin films it as a very stylish, neo-silent play with a very limited amount of sets and a Chinese actor in the role of Dracula. Of course, several sequences have been removed in this film (like Harker's journey through Transylvania) and others have been modified (it is in fact Lucy who's the main character, not Mina) but what Maddin adds truly makes up for this. This is a very beautiful film to look at, with a staggering use of color-shades and musical guidance. I never ever thought I would say this but the ballet performances are mesmerizing and if ballet always looks like this I urgently have to attend more recitals! With his third best film to date (after "Tales from the Gimli Hospital" and "The Saddest Music in the World"), Guy Maddin brings wonderful homage to classic and silent cinema. It's really encouraging to see that films like this are still being made in this day and age. Highly recommended!
33 Reviews
In context, this is a pretty amazing DVD.
planktonrules24 September 2013
Had "Dracula: Pages from a Virgin's Diary" been made in Hollywood of with a huge budget, I don't think I would have been as favorably disposed towards the project. After all, the DVD is a bit rough here and there--credits shake a bit and a few of the computer effects (especially superimpositions) are very rough. BUT, you must realize that this is a production of the Royal Winnepeg Ballet. And, while it's a very well-respected and quality production company, it wasn't like these were seasoned filmmakers. So, I cut it a lot of slack. Based on this, it's actually a rather incredible production--with lovely sets, great costumes and a nice Gothic horror/romantic look about it. Heck, I hate opera and I still appreciated the amazing task they did in creating something like this. Probably not for everyone, but using modern dance and ballet, it does make a sophisticated art form more approachable to the masses.
experiment in ballet and silent film
SnoopyStyle26 November 2015
Lucy Westernra is engaged to marry Lord Arthur Holmwood. However, an evil comes out of the east. She is bitten by Dracula. Vampyr-hunter Abraham Van Helsing arrives to clear out her polluted blood. Mental patient Renfield's escape leads to a massacre. Dracula reanimates Lucy. Van Helsing and the men hunt for Lucy and then finally Dracula himself.
Filmmaker Guy Maddin continues his experimentation. This is mostly black and white with splashes of bright colors. It is a silent film with many of its conventions such as title cards and era appropriate special effects. The ballet dancing can be hypnotic. The story follows the traditional Bram Stoker's Dracula with its xenophobia. It is definitely not for everyone and my fascination with the movie does wear out in the second half. Nevertheless, this is a worthy experiment.
Filmmaker Guy Maddin continues his experimentation. This is mostly black and white with splashes of bright colors. It is a silent film with many of its conventions such as title cards and era appropriate special effects. The ballet dancing can be hypnotic. The story follows the traditional Bram Stoker's Dracula with its xenophobia. It is definitely not for everyone and my fascination with the movie does wear out in the second half. Nevertheless, this is a worthy experiment.
Cinematically Erotic
tedg7 December 2005
I am completely revising my must see list after watching this. I know only one other of Maddin's projects, his "Saddest Music in the World" of the next year. I rated that in my category of films you must see.
The rules of that list are that no more than two films per year, nor no more than two per filmmaker can be on it. This almost bumped "Talk to Her" off that list. It may yet. Let me advise you now that this is powerful and important stuff, the only successful marriage I know of literature, dance and film. In fact I know few that successfully integrate any two, much less masterpieces in each medium.
The story itself is greatly enriched: all the most terrifying horror is beautiful, and this is: an arc of desire across your life for that hour and a half. Where the original was only about sex, this is written larger to race, money, power and all in an erotic context that transcends sex. You'll notice when seeing this that it is more true to the book than any other filmed version.
Now just think for a moment about this: Dracula has been filmed by Murnau, Browning, Warhol, Herzog, Franco, Coppola and herds of lesser lights. No where has the scope been this broad and sharp.
(The device of the diary has been changed from the detective's to the virgin's, a master concept that indicates the deep thought that went into this. Exposure to that diary makes the girlfriend sex-crazed, for instance, as if the art itself were the infected blood.)
The dance. The choreographer has put together something that is remarkable, even seen merely as a ballet. It uses Mahler's music, by the way. That music is usually so overtly ripe it smells of selfish world conquest. It says something that here it seems merely supportive, that what you see on the screen is bigger.
So the choreography affects powerfully but what matters is the cinematic rendition. This is far more evocative as filmed ballet than a live performance can ever be, because we are allowed to have our eyes dance as participants. When a character's eyes flutter and question, ours do too. When the dance suggests a motion, it is us that completes it or gives it a resting place. The integration of choreography and cinematography is the best I have ever had in my life: beyond the sheer energy of "Red Shoes" to intimacy.
But it is the other cinematic qualities that make this unique. Dracula is a powerful story only because it evokes notions of the past that have power to awaken and live in our souls. Those notions are like the vampire and carried by him in the story. Once we touch them -- have sex with them, we are infected, transformed.
How to convey that cinematically? Why by evoking old film techniques as the story did literary ones. (Today that evocation by hacks is inaptly called "gothic.") So we have a silent film. Actually a postmodern comment on a silent black and white film. Lots of reminders of the camera in cropping and Vaselined lenses. Occasional tinting (blood and lucre), overtly theatrical sound effects, wobbling when we have to move quickly (or die).
The gauzy camera lens is made three dimensional with fog that extends the blur as the camera motion is also made three dimensional by the moving crowd. The whole thing has a phrasing and rhythm that is so well integrated among the dance, light, camera, story and music it is as if the things coevolved from the big bang.
Whoever did the art design deserves a reward. The sets are organic and in the last half in the lair, overtly vaginal -- so overtly it shocks. It must have been drawn at the same time as the choreography.
There's sex and beauty and seduction here. Be seduced my friends. Succumb. Art requires seduction and in the process some infection of urges. It is all about the dance -- Succumb, dance, die.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.
The rules of that list are that no more than two films per year, nor no more than two per filmmaker can be on it. This almost bumped "Talk to Her" off that list. It may yet. Let me advise you now that this is powerful and important stuff, the only successful marriage I know of literature, dance and film. In fact I know few that successfully integrate any two, much less masterpieces in each medium.
The story itself is greatly enriched: all the most terrifying horror is beautiful, and this is: an arc of desire across your life for that hour and a half. Where the original was only about sex, this is written larger to race, money, power and all in an erotic context that transcends sex. You'll notice when seeing this that it is more true to the book than any other filmed version.
Now just think for a moment about this: Dracula has been filmed by Murnau, Browning, Warhol, Herzog, Franco, Coppola and herds of lesser lights. No where has the scope been this broad and sharp.
(The device of the diary has been changed from the detective's to the virgin's, a master concept that indicates the deep thought that went into this. Exposure to that diary makes the girlfriend sex-crazed, for instance, as if the art itself were the infected blood.)
The dance. The choreographer has put together something that is remarkable, even seen merely as a ballet. It uses Mahler's music, by the way. That music is usually so overtly ripe it smells of selfish world conquest. It says something that here it seems merely supportive, that what you see on the screen is bigger.
So the choreography affects powerfully but what matters is the cinematic rendition. This is far more evocative as filmed ballet than a live performance can ever be, because we are allowed to have our eyes dance as participants. When a character's eyes flutter and question, ours do too. When the dance suggests a motion, it is us that completes it or gives it a resting place. The integration of choreography and cinematography is the best I have ever had in my life: beyond the sheer energy of "Red Shoes" to intimacy.
But it is the other cinematic qualities that make this unique. Dracula is a powerful story only because it evokes notions of the past that have power to awaken and live in our souls. Those notions are like the vampire and carried by him in the story. Once we touch them -- have sex with them, we are infected, transformed.
How to convey that cinematically? Why by evoking old film techniques as the story did literary ones. (Today that evocation by hacks is inaptly called "gothic.") So we have a silent film. Actually a postmodern comment on a silent black and white film. Lots of reminders of the camera in cropping and Vaselined lenses. Occasional tinting (blood and lucre), overtly theatrical sound effects, wobbling when we have to move quickly (or die).
The gauzy camera lens is made three dimensional with fog that extends the blur as the camera motion is also made three dimensional by the moving crowd. The whole thing has a phrasing and rhythm that is so well integrated among the dance, light, camera, story and music it is as if the things coevolved from the big bang.
Whoever did the art design deserves a reward. The sets are organic and in the last half in the lair, overtly vaginal -- so overtly it shocks. It must have been drawn at the same time as the choreography.
There's sex and beauty and seduction here. Be seduced my friends. Succumb. Art requires seduction and in the process some infection of urges. It is all about the dance -- Succumb, dance, die.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.
Maddin Triumphant!
kamerad1 March 2002
I had the pleasure of witnessing the world television premiere of this wonderful film last night. It had been a five-year wait since Maddin's last feature length effort, the disappointing "Twilight of the Ice Nymphs", so I waited with baited breath. It is with great satisfaction that I announce that Maddin is back in full form with his fifth feature, and twenty-second film over all. Told in Maddin's trademark, fever dream style, the film harkens to the cinematic days of yore (mostly in black and white, no spoken dialogue, only titles), and yet is at the same time fresh, intelligent, and energetic. Maddin fans will not be disappointed. Fans of the 1998 Royal Winnipeg Ballet, from which this film was adapted, might be surprised to see what Maddin has done. He has seamlessly blended the ballet with the narrative action, so neither distracts or takes away from the other. This is no "filmed ballet" (see Nureyev's 'Romeo and Juliet'). The camera moves freely, and Maddin's use of different film stocks and depth of field create an otherworldly atmosphere. Possibly the best way to enjoy this film however, is as a fan, or at least connoisseur, of the Original Bram Stoker novel on which both the film and the ballet are based. Maddin remains 100% faithful to the story. All the characters and event in the book are here, although Maddin is able to compress the information to its barest essentials (Jonathan Harker's invitation to Castle Dracula, his imprisonment, and subsequent escape, is told in one delirious, incredible montage lasting less than a minute). However, Maddin subverts the themes (or perhaps brings out the dormant themes) of the original to create a whole new take on the book. Dracula fans should find this fascinating. Of course, I've lavished all this praise on Maddin, but I must give credit where credit is due. The dancers (whom Maddin did not cast, as they were all in the original stage production) wonderfully evoke their characters without dialogue, through dance alone; something were not used to seeing in film. As I have said before, the dance and filmic elements work in perfect tandem. All in all this film gives us something new as Maddin lovers, Ballet lovers, Dracula lovers, or all three. It is a feverish orgy of the best things art has to offer. Bravo! Encore!
Surprisingly traditional, but worth a watch for horror and silent film fans
BrandtSponseller7 February 2005
Dracula: Pages from a Virgin's Diary is a silent version of author Bram Stoker's Dracula that also incorporates many ballet-oriented scenes.
My two principle reactions to the film were surprise and delight. I was surprised that the film is so traditional--the silent footage often looks like one is simply watching a film from the 1910s or 1920s. This is heightened by the score, which is extremely conservative, traditional classical music. This surprised me because the Sundance Channel promos for the film kept repeating, ". . . from avant-garde director Guy Maddin". There is not much avant-garde about this film, either in the literal translation of that phrase, as "new wave", or in the more popular sense of "experimental/uncompromisingly different and unusual". Dracula: Pages from a Virgin's Diary is decidedly old wave, and never more experimental, different or unusual than a couple small production design touches that might have been gleaned by anyone who is a big fan of Terry Gilliam's Brazil (1985) and Francis Ford Coppola's Rumble Fish (1983).
Even citing those two influences might be misleading. The Brazil influence is primarily present in a single device--Mrs. Westerna's (Stephanie Ballard) ventilator, and the Rumble Fish influence primarily in the recurrence of red (and occasionally green and gold) within the context of mostly black and white photography (with occasional, very traditional silent film tinting for various scenes). But Dracula: Pages from a Virgin's Diary is so traditional that Maddin frequently even went for German expressionist influenced set design. The sets are wonderful at that, however, and occasional they're more surreal.
It's not that the film is bad for being so traditional, but it took me awhile to adjust my preconceptions, which were misled from the Sundance promo. However, the silent film aspect didn't exactly work well for me, either, and the ballet was a bit blase when it was present, which was less often than I expected. Most of the time I was wondering what the motivation was for the silent film aspect, aside from an exercise in nostalgia and/or cribbing a style of a bygone era, like trying to create a painting that looks almost exactly like Titian, say. On the other hand, it was effective in a couple instances, such as one decapitation-by-shovel (shot from an angle that allowed for minimal gore, to my dismay), where Maddin introduced foley "sound effects" that amped up the impact of the scene. The instances of bright red in the cinematography were also very effective, and not dissimilar to M. Night Shyamalan's The Village (2004), which postdates this film by 2 years.
My delight reaction arose when I realized that much of Dracula: Pages from a Virgin's Diary can be read as an anti-immigration parable. This help explains why Dracula is Chinese here, rather than East European. Under this interpretation, the immigrant Others are invading white Anglo-Saxon shores, usurping authority, "stealing" women and economic power, and so on. It's also notable that Maddin's means of dispatching Dracula in the film is very similar to punishments meted out by Dracula's real-life basis, Vlad Tepes, aka "Vlad the Impaler" (and aka "Dracula" by the way). One popular theory has it that Vlad the Impaler's motivation for his atrocities was primarily to protect the integrity of his Wallachian burg, against what he saw as foreign political and cultural invaders. This makes Dracula's finale in the film fittingly ironic in light of the anti-immigration subtext.
Maddin's film is also interesting for presenting the story in two halves, the first solely centered on Lucy Westerna (Tara Birtwhistle), and the second on Jonathan Harker (Johnny Wright) and Mina (Cindy Marie Small). A pervert rendition of Dr. Van Helsing (Dave Moroni) was also unusual and amusing, but Renfield (Brent Neale) was mostly wasted.
Of course a potential audience for Dracula: Pages from a Virgin's Diary has to be amenable to silent films, and not averse to ballet or traditional classical music. If you fit that bill and you have a taste for horror or an interest in Dracula, this film may be just up your alley.
My two principle reactions to the film were surprise and delight. I was surprised that the film is so traditional--the silent footage often looks like one is simply watching a film from the 1910s or 1920s. This is heightened by the score, which is extremely conservative, traditional classical music. This surprised me because the Sundance Channel promos for the film kept repeating, ". . . from avant-garde director Guy Maddin". There is not much avant-garde about this film, either in the literal translation of that phrase, as "new wave", or in the more popular sense of "experimental/uncompromisingly different and unusual". Dracula: Pages from a Virgin's Diary is decidedly old wave, and never more experimental, different or unusual than a couple small production design touches that might have been gleaned by anyone who is a big fan of Terry Gilliam's Brazil (1985) and Francis Ford Coppola's Rumble Fish (1983).
Even citing those two influences might be misleading. The Brazil influence is primarily present in a single device--Mrs. Westerna's (Stephanie Ballard) ventilator, and the Rumble Fish influence primarily in the recurrence of red (and occasionally green and gold) within the context of mostly black and white photography (with occasional, very traditional silent film tinting for various scenes). But Dracula: Pages from a Virgin's Diary is so traditional that Maddin frequently even went for German expressionist influenced set design. The sets are wonderful at that, however, and occasional they're more surreal.
It's not that the film is bad for being so traditional, but it took me awhile to adjust my preconceptions, which were misled from the Sundance promo. However, the silent film aspect didn't exactly work well for me, either, and the ballet was a bit blase when it was present, which was less often than I expected. Most of the time I was wondering what the motivation was for the silent film aspect, aside from an exercise in nostalgia and/or cribbing a style of a bygone era, like trying to create a painting that looks almost exactly like Titian, say. On the other hand, it was effective in a couple instances, such as one decapitation-by-shovel (shot from an angle that allowed for minimal gore, to my dismay), where Maddin introduced foley "sound effects" that amped up the impact of the scene. The instances of bright red in the cinematography were also very effective, and not dissimilar to M. Night Shyamalan's The Village (2004), which postdates this film by 2 years.
My delight reaction arose when I realized that much of Dracula: Pages from a Virgin's Diary can be read as an anti-immigration parable. This help explains why Dracula is Chinese here, rather than East European. Under this interpretation, the immigrant Others are invading white Anglo-Saxon shores, usurping authority, "stealing" women and economic power, and so on. It's also notable that Maddin's means of dispatching Dracula in the film is very similar to punishments meted out by Dracula's real-life basis, Vlad Tepes, aka "Vlad the Impaler" (and aka "Dracula" by the way). One popular theory has it that Vlad the Impaler's motivation for his atrocities was primarily to protect the integrity of his Wallachian burg, against what he saw as foreign political and cultural invaders. This makes Dracula's finale in the film fittingly ironic in light of the anti-immigration subtext.
Maddin's film is also interesting for presenting the story in two halves, the first solely centered on Lucy Westerna (Tara Birtwhistle), and the second on Jonathan Harker (Johnny Wright) and Mina (Cindy Marie Small). A pervert rendition of Dr. Van Helsing (Dave Moroni) was also unusual and amusing, but Renfield (Brent Neale) was mostly wasted.
Of course a potential audience for Dracula: Pages from a Virgin's Diary has to be amenable to silent films, and not averse to ballet or traditional classical music. If you fit that bill and you have a taste for horror or an interest in Dracula, this film may be just up your alley.
"Only from the mind of Maddin"
cranesareflying4 July 2003
What an absolute thrill, from start to finish, just experiencing the `artistic conception' of this reverent homage to silent film, featuring Canada's Royal Winnipeg Ballet, a stunning performance by Zhang Wei-Qiang as Dracula, and the brilliant production design of Deanne Rohde. Once again, Guy Maddin has created a unique, conceptualized universe all his own; there's nothing else in cinema quite like his eerie, dreamlike imagery. This film is immersed in the thundering power of Mahler's `Resurrection' 2nd Symphony, a work which itself features an ascension from all things human and earthly, and rises into the glorious heavens, a transcendent experience which, musically, grounds this film. From this theme, we add vampires, whose lust for blood promises life everlasting. The performance of Zhang Wei-Qiang dominates throughout, as he is easily the most fascinating stage personality, filled with a mesmerizing ability to seduce and ultimately possess his willing screen sirens, and while I can't speak for anyone else, I always root for him against his puritanesque nemesis, Dr Van Helsing, the leader of the repressed gang of vampire slayers. Ballet director Mark Godden choreographed the ballet adapted by Maddin for this film, so there is constant motion on screen. All this is done in image and in dance, with exaggerated gestures and with an extreme grace in movements, magnificently sensuous and macabre, shrouded in fog and black and white shadows, with only the tiniest color tints. Each frame, by itself, is a still masterpiece; the imagery is that overpowering. But when put in motion by such gifted hands as Maddin's, the film experience is indescribable, but unforgettable.
Dancing vampire.
Boba_Fett11387 April 2012
It's definitely true that when you know absolutely nothing about this movie beforehand, it might come as a bit of a shocker. It's a ballet version of the Dracula story and if that wasn't already enough originality and strangeness, it's also shot in a silent movie style.
Actually, I already was familiar with some of Guy Maddin's other work, so I sort of knew what to expect from this movie already. He's a director that loves to shoot his movies in a very stylish and old fashioned style, often from the silent movie era. But it's not like he just mimics the style, he makes it completely his own. It's like he's always giving his own free interpretation of the genre and completely reinvents it instead. Saying that this movie is done in an old fashioned style does not mean you could compare it to older movies as well. It's very much its own thing, which is also the foremost reason why this movie works out so well.
Basically the foremost reason why this movie is such an intriguing and perfectly watchable one, are its visuals. It's a spectacular movie to look at, even though it's almost entirely shot in black & white. The camera-work is very innovative and also helps to keep the movie going at all times.
It was also quite interesting to see the familiar story being told for most part from the viewpoint of the Lucy Westernra character. This was actually a very good idea in my opinion, since her character perhaps goes through the biggest transformations and is one of the more interesting, yet mostly ignored, characters from the Dracula story.
What also was quite interesting was seeing an Asian in the role of Dracula. It sounds odd but it actually was something that worked out quite well. Wei-Qiang Zhang, as it turned out, was a very charismatic choice, for the role of the well known and much portrayed blood sucking count.
And as far as ballet goes; this movie does mostly a good job at keeping things understandable and not all about its dancing and exaggerated expressions from its actors. But I should probably say that if you aren't familiar at all with the Dracula story, you probably will still have a hard time following the story in this movie. But then again, who isn't familiar with the Dracula story now days?
I should also probably admit that if the movie would had been any longer, I would had had a hard time finishing it. The movie as it is at times feels sort of overlong already, even while its only 73 minutes short. Watching a completely silent movie, with dancing characters, gets a bit of an endurance test after a while I guess but it still remains an ultimately rewarding movie, by the end.
Visually and technically speaking, its a great and interesting, original movie, that might not keep everybody constantly interested though.
7/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
Actually, I already was familiar with some of Guy Maddin's other work, so I sort of knew what to expect from this movie already. He's a director that loves to shoot his movies in a very stylish and old fashioned style, often from the silent movie era. But it's not like he just mimics the style, he makes it completely his own. It's like he's always giving his own free interpretation of the genre and completely reinvents it instead. Saying that this movie is done in an old fashioned style does not mean you could compare it to older movies as well. It's very much its own thing, which is also the foremost reason why this movie works out so well.
Basically the foremost reason why this movie is such an intriguing and perfectly watchable one, are its visuals. It's a spectacular movie to look at, even though it's almost entirely shot in black & white. The camera-work is very innovative and also helps to keep the movie going at all times.
It was also quite interesting to see the familiar story being told for most part from the viewpoint of the Lucy Westernra character. This was actually a very good idea in my opinion, since her character perhaps goes through the biggest transformations and is one of the more interesting, yet mostly ignored, characters from the Dracula story.
What also was quite interesting was seeing an Asian in the role of Dracula. It sounds odd but it actually was something that worked out quite well. Wei-Qiang Zhang, as it turned out, was a very charismatic choice, for the role of the well known and much portrayed blood sucking count.
And as far as ballet goes; this movie does mostly a good job at keeping things understandable and not all about its dancing and exaggerated expressions from its actors. But I should probably say that if you aren't familiar at all with the Dracula story, you probably will still have a hard time following the story in this movie. But then again, who isn't familiar with the Dracula story now days?
I should also probably admit that if the movie would had been any longer, I would had had a hard time finishing it. The movie as it is at times feels sort of overlong already, even while its only 73 minutes short. Watching a completely silent movie, with dancing characters, gets a bit of an endurance test after a while I guess but it still remains an ultimately rewarding movie, by the end.
Visually and technically speaking, its a great and interesting, original movie, that might not keep everybody constantly interested though.
7/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
Transfuses the iron poor tired blood of the vampire genre
masibindi13 October 2003
Polished performances, talented cast, brilliant design, a pinch of German Expressionism with scintillating special effects; exciting blend of mise-en-scene; revival and modernization of the silent film with world-class sound effects; haunting strains of Mahler's eloquent 1st and 2nd Symphonies; double entendres, semiotics, and the to-die-for Zhang Wei-Quiang as Dracula; transfuses the iron poor tired blood of the vampire genre.
An unlikely pairing
moviemanMA10 June 2009
I really had no idea what to expect coming into this film. I had heard basically nothing about it other than it's good ratings, recommendation from Ebert, and I have been interested for a while now in Guy Maddin. This is my first time watching one of his films and I am borderline speechless. I didn't know he primarily works in the silent genre and to top that, this film is entirely a ballet. Filmed in mostly black and white with silent era techniques, Maddin creates and eerie mood with this take on Brom Stoker's classic novel. I've never seen anything quite like it. It sometimes looks like it from the silent era. It's impressive. My one complaint is the jumpy nature of the camera. I was sometimes focused on his dizzying camera work than what was going on, but still a very refreshing and awakening experience.
Disappointing
bloodaxe-27 May 2008
I enjoy ballet, and I like vampire films (especially the old ones), so why did this just not work for me? Well, I seemed to spend most of my time distracted by the dancing, or rather by the fact that the dancing was so difficult to watch because the dancers' feet were so seldom shown.
I know these days showing off camera technique is considered more important than enabling audiences to get a proper look at the skills of dancers, ice skaters and gymnasts, who regularly seem to get the relevant parts of their bodies cut off on TV, but it does limit one's enjoyment.
I know these days showing off camera technique is considered more important than enabling audiences to get a proper look at the skills of dancers, ice skaters and gymnasts, who regularly seem to get the relevant parts of their bodies cut off on TV, but it does limit one's enjoyment.
a style over substance affair - but fascinating style all the less
Quinoa19847 December 2008
What does it mean exactly to say that Guy Maddin's Dracula: Pages from a Virgin's Diary is stylish? Movies that, conversely, have a seeming "lack" of style like a minimalist movie ala Jarmusch em to get the short end of the discussion, while Maddin tries his hardest to make his images and movements of cinematic dexterity *pop* like cracking of knuckles on a movieola. It is a crazily inspired vision, stylized with urgency and a force to be reckoned with as far as taking silent film and pushing it into a new kind of expression: the ballet. Whether or not this will please people looking for a solid Dracula movie is another matter, since it isn't much, at all, a coherent telling of the Stoker story.
And maybe rightfully so; people need to know right up front that Pages from a Virgin's Diary is one of the most unconventional vampire movies ever, and not because it changes around anything with the myth or even with many of Stoker's characters (although there is a Cowboy or other in the film that I don't remember in Stoker's story or Coppola's film). It's the expression of the story, told through the characters dancing and going through pantomime and detailed choreography that is both dazzling and frustrating. Unless you're really heavy into ballet and dance, after about half an hour some of this becomes just too much, and too much in the repetitive sense. Characters also keep popping up with title cards extended for them, but with the exception of Renfield (who's given a face by the actor that is remarkable), I couldn't entirely follow who was who, except that a Chinese guy drifted in and out and turned to be a vampire, yada-yada, etc.
I shouldn't be this dismissive of the story, or the manner in which it was told. And, besides, I didn't go into the film thinking I would get an instant classic of the most noted (maybe too noted) source of vampire lore in history. What I did get was a fever dream, nd kaleidoscope, and experiment tossed into a blender of 1920s expressionism given more freedom than ever with 21st century technology, and hints of what was to come a few years later with Sin City's attempts at giving black and white film-making some "color" from time to time. The symbols come flying out almost as much as the dizzying camera-work, sometimes going as fast as the dancers, and for someone looking for just inspired direction on a familiar theme this is definitely where to look; in fact as far as the kind of Nosferatu story goes, this is as daring as Herzog's film.
It just isn't entirely involving on an emotional level, and Maddin sets it all up and knocks it down like a very small-range technical exercise. Few exercises are this exhilarating or with such inventiveness with the process and history of film-making, but it's an exercise nonetheless. B+
And maybe rightfully so; people need to know right up front that Pages from a Virgin's Diary is one of the most unconventional vampire movies ever, and not because it changes around anything with the myth or even with many of Stoker's characters (although there is a Cowboy or other in the film that I don't remember in Stoker's story or Coppola's film). It's the expression of the story, told through the characters dancing and going through pantomime and detailed choreography that is both dazzling and frustrating. Unless you're really heavy into ballet and dance, after about half an hour some of this becomes just too much, and too much in the repetitive sense. Characters also keep popping up with title cards extended for them, but with the exception of Renfield (who's given a face by the actor that is remarkable), I couldn't entirely follow who was who, except that a Chinese guy drifted in and out and turned to be a vampire, yada-yada, etc.
I shouldn't be this dismissive of the story, or the manner in which it was told. And, besides, I didn't go into the film thinking I would get an instant classic of the most noted (maybe too noted) source of vampire lore in history. What I did get was a fever dream, nd kaleidoscope, and experiment tossed into a blender of 1920s expressionism given more freedom than ever with 21st century technology, and hints of what was to come a few years later with Sin City's attempts at giving black and white film-making some "color" from time to time. The symbols come flying out almost as much as the dizzying camera-work, sometimes going as fast as the dancers, and for someone looking for just inspired direction on a familiar theme this is definitely where to look; in fact as far as the kind of Nosferatu story goes, this is as daring as Herzog's film.
It just isn't entirely involving on an emotional level, and Maddin sets it all up and knocks it down like a very small-range technical exercise. Few exercises are this exhilarating or with such inventiveness with the process and history of film-making, but it's an exercise nonetheless. B+
Horrible dross
skipcoogan29 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Awful. I actually got sick to my stomach trying to watch this film. I've been registered for a long time on IMDb.com and I've watched a lot of movies in that time, this is the first time that I've felt compelled to leave a review. This is more of a warning than a review. Run! Run away from the nasty piece of trash that can only mockingly be called art. Run! I found this film searching via Google because I'm a fan of classic silent horror films such as "Nosferatu" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0013442/), "The Phantom of the Opera" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0016220/), and the "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0010323/). If you are a fan of horror films or if you are a fan of silent films, do not believe any good reviews of this film you may have seen. This is NOT a good film. RUN! Beware!
If you like ballet and like cinema then you'll find you should like this
bob the moo28 October 2003
At the end of the 19th Century, immigrants come into England, not all of them gentle. One such immigrant is the evil Dracula who claims his first victim, Miss Lucy Westenra. Her three suitors call for help from Dr Van Helsing, but it is too late and she turns to vampire. They set out to kill her for good, but can they prevent Dracula claiming his next victim - Westenra's cousin Mina?
As part of my approach to films, I try to not just watch the big new releases or the well known smaller films, but I'll give things a try even if I know little about them but they sound OK. I'll admit that I have been burnt by this on many occasions but this time it worked out for the best. I'm not a big ballet fan, but I enjoyed this film as it mixed the ballet into a story that was told very easily though dance and closed captions. The fact that it was a very cinematic ballet really helped me get into it - the film's style is a homage of sorts to silent film, in it's filming, caption cards and whole look. I like this and it made it more interesting to me. Even the exaggerated looks on he casts' faces reminded me of the silent movies.
The actual ballet in the film is mixed. Some scenes are excellent and flow so very easily, the best by far being Dracula's final dance with Mina. However other parts are not so strong and the motion is not well captured by the camera, which itself seems to want to get in on all the motion and doesn't stay still long enough to really let the eye take in the movement. Happily this is the minority of the scenes as most of it is very nice to watch.
The direction of the ballet is good, but so is the direction of the film. The style captures the silent era well but also has enough clever touches in it to keep it fresh. The tinting of frames and selective use of colour make for interesting flourishes without over doing it. The cast also do reasonably well but are mixed. Zhang is magnificent in both his portrayal of Dracula and his ballet. Most of he rest of the cast do well, but only Birtwhistle (Westenra) and Moroni (Helsing) really stand out for their skills and characters. The support has no weak links in fairness and everyone does what is required of them.
The bottom line is, if you don't like ballet, then you probably won't like this film. If you do like ballet and also like cinema then you should take something from this. For me, I enjoyed the ballet as part of the story telling process but also got a kick out of seeing a silent movie version of Dracula done with modern touches.
As part of my approach to films, I try to not just watch the big new releases or the well known smaller films, but I'll give things a try even if I know little about them but they sound OK. I'll admit that I have been burnt by this on many occasions but this time it worked out for the best. I'm not a big ballet fan, but I enjoyed this film as it mixed the ballet into a story that was told very easily though dance and closed captions. The fact that it was a very cinematic ballet really helped me get into it - the film's style is a homage of sorts to silent film, in it's filming, caption cards and whole look. I like this and it made it more interesting to me. Even the exaggerated looks on he casts' faces reminded me of the silent movies.
The actual ballet in the film is mixed. Some scenes are excellent and flow so very easily, the best by far being Dracula's final dance with Mina. However other parts are not so strong and the motion is not well captured by the camera, which itself seems to want to get in on all the motion and doesn't stay still long enough to really let the eye take in the movement. Happily this is the minority of the scenes as most of it is very nice to watch.
The direction of the ballet is good, but so is the direction of the film. The style captures the silent era well but also has enough clever touches in it to keep it fresh. The tinting of frames and selective use of colour make for interesting flourishes without over doing it. The cast also do reasonably well but are mixed. Zhang is magnificent in both his portrayal of Dracula and his ballet. Most of he rest of the cast do well, but only Birtwhistle (Westenra) and Moroni (Helsing) really stand out for their skills and characters. The support has no weak links in fairness and everyone does what is required of them.
The bottom line is, if you don't like ballet, then you probably won't like this film. If you do like ballet and also like cinema then you should take something from this. For me, I enjoyed the ballet as part of the story telling process but also got a kick out of seeing a silent movie version of Dracula done with modern touches.
Strikingly fresh yet familiar
ThrownMuse14 December 2004
I have been looking forward to this Canadian film ever since I saw Maddin's "The Saddest Music in the World" this summer. I finally found it for rent and was not disappointed. It is supposed to be a movie version of the Royal Winnipeg Ballet's adaptation of Bram Stoker's "Dracula." That sounds like something one should avoid at all costs. With Guy Maddin at the helm, it turns out it is a crazily perfect postmodern take on a classic, with a bit of ballet thrown in--and the ballet works! Maddin draws from countless styles and forms from cinema past (it is pretty much silent, and almost all black and white), and pieces them together to make an utterly gorgeous and often witty film. The actual plot adheres to Bram Stoker's novel more so than most movie versions I've seen, with a few clever twists thrown in. It is obvious which parts of the story Maddin adores and finds most intriguing. He devotes around 40 minutes to Lucy's story, and then zips right through Harker's in a couple minutes. Recommended to anyone interested in seeing a horror film that seems radically new yet oddly familiar. My Rating 9/10
Nice Trip
Tweetienator15 October 2021
If you are on the search for something special and experimental you will sooner or later stumble upon the name of Guy Maddin who is specialized in such kind of movie making. Dracula: Pages from a Virgin's Diary is a experimental retelling of Bram Stoker's famous Gothic novel Dracula filmed as a ballet including music and in the visual style and expressionistic technique of early silent movies. So if you like ballet and the great novel of Bram Stoker, and if you don't mind or even like the silent movie approach, this may be a new gem for you.
A (Post)Modern Silent-Film Ballet Gets Stoker's Story Right
Cineanalyst27 June 2018
Warning: Spoilers
After reading Bram Stoker's novel "Dracula," I've been seeking out a bunch of movie adaptations of it. I wouldn't have guessed that my favorite would turn out to be a ballet made in the style from the silent film era, but it has. "Dracula: Pages from a Virgin's Diary" does many things well. As an adaptation, it succeeds because it focuses on and accentuates a couple major themes from the novel and doesn't get bogged down in details of faithful rendering of the book or peripheral nonsense, such as the movies that turn the Gothic horror story into a romance, or about the historical Vlad the Impaler, or both. As a silent-film ballet, it succeeds by the marriage of two mute art forms and by integrating the editing with the music and the camera within the dance rather than outside it as a spectator.
Stoker's novel is about many things--it's a relatively long, even too long, book, after all. No movie has, should or could encompass it all. The ones that some people claim have come closest (Franco's 1970, the 1974 and 1977 TV-movie, or Coppola's 1992 versions) tend not to be very good adaptations or even very good movies. The better ones, including the 1931 films and the 1922 "Nosferatu," or even some of the Hammer splatters, and this one, stray considerably from the word of Stoker, but they all do a few things well. This one concentrates on the sex and xenophobia inherent from the novel. We get the xenophobia part from the start, as words blazed across the screen shout about the threat of a foreigner from the East landing on the shores of England. Casting an Asian performer in the role of Dracula was a stroke of genius, as it has considerably more resonance in today's West than would yet another incarnation of Bela Lugosi's suave, Latin-lover type. Later, the xenophobia is tied in with money--literally, a casket full of cash that Dracula sneaks back to his home country--which also has more resonance today, where racism is frequently rationalized as economic. The fear of miscegenation that Dracula's bloodsucking on Englishwomen presents is, perhaps, less of a panic nowadays, but it ties these two major themes together.
And, boy, does this movie bring out the sexual subtext of Stoker's tale. The blood transfusions of Lucy play out like a gangrape. Others had made this connection before in readings of "Dracula," of blood as a stand-in for semen--that of the Englishmen being used to combat the exchange of fluids from the foreign Dracula. But, it's one thing to read and think about the subtext; it's another to see it so visually and vigorously implied. In the first act, Van Helsing's examination of Lucy also includes a rough gynecological look. From here, the sexual references continue to pour. Lucy, as a vampire, is attacked by the men again--this time all bearing especially phallic stakes, or spears or pikes, to poke her with. Later, the men turn their weapons upon the sisters/wives of Dracula with gusto equal to their blood donations, and despite the homoeroticism of it, upon Dracula, who they leave impaled upon the phallic object.
Not content with merely male sexual aggression, however, there's also a brief glimpse of Harker's stay at Castle Dracula, which is consumed by imagery of the lustful female vampires. To combat this foreign threat to her betrothed, Mina even attempts to perform fellatio on Harker in a scene akin to that of the blood transfusions on Lucy. This episode is brought on by Mina reading Harker's account of the fem vamps in his diary (hence the movie's title), which along with an earlier scene of Van Helsing stealing Lucy's journal, alludes to the epistolary structure of Stoker's novel, which was largely composed of diary entries. The sets for these later acts involving Mina also contain pathways suggestive of vaginas--contrasting with the phallic pikes otherwise employed throughout. You don't have to appreciate Freudian film theory to understand this stuff; it's blatant. One title card even reads, "cuckold's counterblow," as the Western heroes attack the vampire's lair.
This is a gorgeous and rhythmic picture. As many of my IMDb reviews will attest, I've long been a convert to appreciating the silent film era. Oddly, although I've long known about Guy Maddin's postmodern tendency to adopt this era's style, this is the first movie of his that I've seen. It's clear that he knows how to compose an image and how the silent art form enhances this. The use of framing, such as irises, and filters, petroleum jelly on the lens for soft focus edges, slow motion and other image distortions, sound effects, dissolves and tinting/toning are exceptional. The sparing use of color, including for red blood, and the lighthouse strobe light in the first act are especially nice touches. And I've never seen two silent art forms--the silent film and ballet--integrated like this before.
Although I'm a fan of silent films, until now, I've never much appreciated ballet. At university, I had a class where we were tortured with a statically-filmed, live-ballet performance. There's not much worse in filmdom than a camera that forces one into the position of a second-generation theatrical spectator--removing any benefits of the live performance and leaving only static dullness. Here, however, the camera is part of the performance; like the human performers, it dances. Additionally, the quick editing style is in rhythm with the music. The effect is immersive and visceral. As with the actors of the silent film era, who used a system of gestures adapted from theatre to express their characters, ballet has its own expressive codes. Thus, not only are the performers' expressions enhanced by cinematic elements such as the close-up, but, here, also by transmuting it through another art form that relies upon coded gestures. The themes from Stoker's novel are likewise enhanced by the transmutation.
(Mirror Note: Dracula's lack of a reflection isn't addressed, but there is a beautifully-done scene of Lucy looking in the mirror.)
Stoker's novel is about many things--it's a relatively long, even too long, book, after all. No movie has, should or could encompass it all. The ones that some people claim have come closest (Franco's 1970, the 1974 and 1977 TV-movie, or Coppola's 1992 versions) tend not to be very good adaptations or even very good movies. The better ones, including the 1931 films and the 1922 "Nosferatu," or even some of the Hammer splatters, and this one, stray considerably from the word of Stoker, but they all do a few things well. This one concentrates on the sex and xenophobia inherent from the novel. We get the xenophobia part from the start, as words blazed across the screen shout about the threat of a foreigner from the East landing on the shores of England. Casting an Asian performer in the role of Dracula was a stroke of genius, as it has considerably more resonance in today's West than would yet another incarnation of Bela Lugosi's suave, Latin-lover type. Later, the xenophobia is tied in with money--literally, a casket full of cash that Dracula sneaks back to his home country--which also has more resonance today, where racism is frequently rationalized as economic. The fear of miscegenation that Dracula's bloodsucking on Englishwomen presents is, perhaps, less of a panic nowadays, but it ties these two major themes together.
And, boy, does this movie bring out the sexual subtext of Stoker's tale. The blood transfusions of Lucy play out like a gangrape. Others had made this connection before in readings of "Dracula," of blood as a stand-in for semen--that of the Englishmen being used to combat the exchange of fluids from the foreign Dracula. But, it's one thing to read and think about the subtext; it's another to see it so visually and vigorously implied. In the first act, Van Helsing's examination of Lucy also includes a rough gynecological look. From here, the sexual references continue to pour. Lucy, as a vampire, is attacked by the men again--this time all bearing especially phallic stakes, or spears or pikes, to poke her with. Later, the men turn their weapons upon the sisters/wives of Dracula with gusto equal to their blood donations, and despite the homoeroticism of it, upon Dracula, who they leave impaled upon the phallic object.
Not content with merely male sexual aggression, however, there's also a brief glimpse of Harker's stay at Castle Dracula, which is consumed by imagery of the lustful female vampires. To combat this foreign threat to her betrothed, Mina even attempts to perform fellatio on Harker in a scene akin to that of the blood transfusions on Lucy. This episode is brought on by Mina reading Harker's account of the fem vamps in his diary (hence the movie's title), which along with an earlier scene of Van Helsing stealing Lucy's journal, alludes to the epistolary structure of Stoker's novel, which was largely composed of diary entries. The sets for these later acts involving Mina also contain pathways suggestive of vaginas--contrasting with the phallic pikes otherwise employed throughout. You don't have to appreciate Freudian film theory to understand this stuff; it's blatant. One title card even reads, "cuckold's counterblow," as the Western heroes attack the vampire's lair.
This is a gorgeous and rhythmic picture. As many of my IMDb reviews will attest, I've long been a convert to appreciating the silent film era. Oddly, although I've long known about Guy Maddin's postmodern tendency to adopt this era's style, this is the first movie of his that I've seen. It's clear that he knows how to compose an image and how the silent art form enhances this. The use of framing, such as irises, and filters, petroleum jelly on the lens for soft focus edges, slow motion and other image distortions, sound effects, dissolves and tinting/toning are exceptional. The sparing use of color, including for red blood, and the lighthouse strobe light in the first act are especially nice touches. And I've never seen two silent art forms--the silent film and ballet--integrated like this before.
Although I'm a fan of silent films, until now, I've never much appreciated ballet. At university, I had a class where we were tortured with a statically-filmed, live-ballet performance. There's not much worse in filmdom than a camera that forces one into the position of a second-generation theatrical spectator--removing any benefits of the live performance and leaving only static dullness. Here, however, the camera is part of the performance; like the human performers, it dances. Additionally, the quick editing style is in rhythm with the music. The effect is immersive and visceral. As with the actors of the silent film era, who used a system of gestures adapted from theatre to express their characters, ballet has its own expressive codes. Thus, not only are the performers' expressions enhanced by cinematic elements such as the close-up, but, here, also by transmuting it through another art form that relies upon coded gestures. The themes from Stoker's novel are likewise enhanced by the transmutation.
(Mirror Note: Dracula's lack of a reflection isn't addressed, but there is a beautifully-done scene of Lucy looking in the mirror.)
Astonishing. You must see this film.
ghamm30 October 2003
It's like walking through a dream, with a beautiful, haunting, sometimes disturbing but humorous story attached. It's amazing how Guy Maddin takes the mood of the silent film era (including film speed, story-telling, and the feel of disintegrated celluloid) and tells the story of Dracula as a ballet. Initially, I thought that seeing a silent ballet of a story we all know would lure me to sleep immediately, but I was happily surprised that I wanted to absorb every second of this film.
The costumes, movement and facial expressions are so memorable, and while the film is in black and white, key portions are emphasized in color. The inside of Dracula's cape is red, for instance, as are the wounds he inflicts. Money is shown as bright green, because there is a parallel of money being the source of his evil within. Sounds too surreal to be true? Perhaps, but highly recommended.
The costumes, movement and facial expressions are so memorable, and while the film is in black and white, key portions are emphasized in color. The inside of Dracula's cape is red, for instance, as are the wounds he inflicts. Money is shown as bright green, because there is a parallel of money being the source of his evil within. Sounds too surreal to be true? Perhaps, but highly recommended.
Pity...
UnderworldRocks31 May 2015
Warning: Spoilers
This film may not be the best adaptation of Dracula, but it is definitely the most special version.
Bravo! It combines the charm of a silent film with the beauty of ballet. How unique it is! Throughout the film, one can hear no dialog, only music. Ideas are conveyed through graceful dancing movements. Never seen anything like this! A vampire film done like this, WOW!
Seeing Dracula portrayed by an actor who looks Asian is also very interesting.
What ruins the film is the finale. What happens towards the end makes absolutely no sense. Apparently, Dracula killed the small group led by Van Helsing, including the leader himself. Then later suddenly these dead guys all miraculously came back, and staked Dracula to death instead. What is also incomprehensible is that Mina took up a crucifix to repel Dracula while she, being a newly made vampire, was not affected by the holy item at all.
These faults/plot holes stopped this film from being the best Dracula adaptation on my list. The ending certainly remains to be tweaked a little bit.
So far, the best adaptation of Dracula is a 2002 Italian version called "Dracula's Curse", which is my favorite.
Forget about that crap by Francis Coppola. That 1992 version is an insult.
Bravo! It combines the charm of a silent film with the beauty of ballet. How unique it is! Throughout the film, one can hear no dialog, only music. Ideas are conveyed through graceful dancing movements. Never seen anything like this! A vampire film done like this, WOW!
Seeing Dracula portrayed by an actor who looks Asian is also very interesting.
What ruins the film is the finale. What happens towards the end makes absolutely no sense. Apparently, Dracula killed the small group led by Van Helsing, including the leader himself. Then later suddenly these dead guys all miraculously came back, and staked Dracula to death instead. What is also incomprehensible is that Mina took up a crucifix to repel Dracula while she, being a newly made vampire, was not affected by the holy item at all.
These faults/plot holes stopped this film from being the best Dracula adaptation on my list. The ending certainly remains to be tweaked a little bit.
So far, the best adaptation of Dracula is a 2002 Italian version called "Dracula's Curse", which is my favorite.
Forget about that crap by Francis Coppola. That 1992 version is an insult.
Bram Stoker's Vision Via Fever Dream
Seamus282916 July 2007
When the Winnepeg Ballet Company wanted to film a version of 'Dracula:Pages From A Virgin's Diary', what better director could they have chosen but Guy Maddin for the job. As the ballet featured absolutely no dialog, Madin was easily the best choice for the job, as dialog seems to be unnecessary for his films (his inspirations are old German silent expressionist films such as 'The Cabinet Of Dr. Caligari & Nosferatu, as well as Soviet directors such as Dziga Vertov, who was responsible for the long running 'Kino Pravda'series, as well as Sergei Eisenstein, who directed such films as 'Alexander Nevsky'). The film's visual look,which at times feels like one is watching this film while experiencing a 110 degree fever dream (while f****d up on magic mushrooms). A DVD screening is probably the best chance of catching this overlooked film (distribution was very limited in this country)
A stunning mix of genres
Dexter TCN6 December 2003
I saw this by chance on late night TV a while back and was mesmerised by it.
Sadly, I feel that putting it out to the cinema is a waste of time as the mass market just does not exist.
It should have gone straight to video/dvd so that it could be experienced again and again by those who would appreciate it. Like me.
Sadly, I feel that putting it out to the cinema is a waste of time as the mass market just does not exist.
It should have gone straight to video/dvd so that it could be experienced again and again by those who would appreciate it. Like me.
Gorgeous, witty,and fun --though maybe not for everybody
jlharker15 June 2006
This is the kind of movie that has a limited audience. It's what you'd call "artsy", maybe even "pretentious". It's not exactly a break-out-the-popcorn-and-huddle-on-the-couch movie. I can see why people would think it's overrated.
But I love it. Anyone who loves Bram Stoker's novel--not just the movies--needs to watch this because it is the most faithful adaptation of the book. It's not a perfect adaptation, but it preserves the basic plot which every other Dracula movie has more or less butchered. Most of the text in the movie comes straight from the book.
It also recreates the ethereal atmosphere of the old Universal movies but adds very modern cinematography and themes. The best part of this movie is that it is visually gorgeous but not excessive. You'll know that all the sets are made of cardboard, but you won't care. The film itself speeds up and slows down to create drama. It's simple but still beautiful, unlike the overwhelming decadence of Francis Ford Coppola's version. And ballet is a perfect medium for expressing both the emphasis on the body and the repressed sexuality of the story. The sex is satirized to an extent, too. Mina doesn't understand why Jonathan won't do things with her that he did with Dracula's brides. Van Helsing is kind of a fetishist. Seward and Morris seem to be flirting at one point. The film even features Dracula's hairy palm, which has never been done before on film.
If you're more of a fan of the book than the movies, you really should see this. If you want a horror movie, well, this isn't it.
But I love it. Anyone who loves Bram Stoker's novel--not just the movies--needs to watch this because it is the most faithful adaptation of the book. It's not a perfect adaptation, but it preserves the basic plot which every other Dracula movie has more or less butchered. Most of the text in the movie comes straight from the book.
It also recreates the ethereal atmosphere of the old Universal movies but adds very modern cinematography and themes. The best part of this movie is that it is visually gorgeous but not excessive. You'll know that all the sets are made of cardboard, but you won't care. The film itself speeds up and slows down to create drama. It's simple but still beautiful, unlike the overwhelming decadence of Francis Ford Coppola's version. And ballet is a perfect medium for expressing both the emphasis on the body and the repressed sexuality of the story. The sex is satirized to an extent, too. Mina doesn't understand why Jonathan won't do things with her that he did with Dracula's brides. Van Helsing is kind of a fetishist. Seward and Morris seem to be flirting at one point. The film even features Dracula's hairy palm, which has never been done before on film.
If you're more of a fan of the book than the movies, you really should see this. If you want a horror movie, well, this isn't it.
Astonishing. You must see this film.
ghamm30 October 2003
It's like walking through a dream, with a beautiful, haunting, sometimes disturbing but humorous story attached. It's amazing how Guy Maddin takes the mood of the silent film era (including film speed, story-telling, and the feel of disintegrated celluloid) and tells the story of Dracula as a ballet. Initially, I thought that seeing a silent ballet of a story we all know would lure me to sleep immediately, but I was happily surprised that I wanted to absorb every second of this film.
The costumes, movement and facial expressions are so memorable, and while the film is in black and white, key portions are emphasized in color. The inside of Dracula's cape is red, for instance, as are the wounds he inflicts. Money is shown as bright green, because there is a parallel of money being the source of his evil within. Sounds too surreal to be true? Perhaps, but highly recommended.
The costumes, movement and facial expressions are so memorable, and while the film is in black and white, key portions are emphasized in color. The inside of Dracula's cape is red, for instance, as are the wounds he inflicts. Money is shown as bright green, because there is a parallel of money being the source of his evil within. Sounds too surreal to be true? Perhaps, but highly recommended.
Dracula's erotic dream
lastliberal9 June 2008
The erotic aspects of Dracula are enhanced in this visual spectacle by Guy Madden. He uses the techniques of silent film and the Canadian Royal Ballet to produce a dream-like story of Dracula that is stunning and faithful. Even Dr. Van Helsing's examination of Lucy seems charged with eroticism.
Madden's love of the cinema of the 20s and 30s is evident in this avant garde film. Using Wei-Qiang Zhang as Dracula also adds a bit of xenophobia to the film. It would certainly have the stamp of approval from Lou Dobbs.
The use of color for emphasis was exquisite; and the dancing was absolutely beautiful. An amazing film.
Madden's love of the cinema of the 20s and 30s is evident in this avant garde film. Using Wei-Qiang Zhang as Dracula also adds a bit of xenophobia to the film. It would certainly have the stamp of approval from Lou Dobbs.
The use of color for emphasis was exquisite; and the dancing was absolutely beautiful. An amazing film.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
