The title says it all, this is a film about Dracula. I had heard about the production many years ago, they were thinking about getting Sam Worthington for the role! I mean he's brilliant but not sexy enough to play the most legendary vampire ever. This film tells the origin story of the world's most famous vampire.
A bit of Literature and history
It is interesting to note that in Bram Stoker's novel the origin and history of the Count is never really explained. In the novel the Count only recounts tales of his great family lineage. He explains that he is a Szekely, a subgroup of Hungarian people who were great warriors defending their land from the Ottomans. He also states that he is a descendant of Attila the Hun. He lives in a castle in the Carpathian mountains. Unlike the decaying undead living corpses which vampires are portrayed in Romanian folklore, Dracula is an aristocratic man. While conversing with Harker, he reveals that he is proud of his boyar heritage, a high born member of Bulgarian society, much like a baron or prince. He talks of his nostalgia of the past times, which he admits are only stories of heroism, honor and valor in modern times.
Though the rest of his story is obscure, it seems Dracula studied the dark arts, took up arms as a high ranking general or voivode, leading troops against the Turks across the Danube. Van Helsing states that for the Count at the time to have defeated so many Turks he must have been more than a man. He was spoken of as very brave, clever and cunning. He died and was buried but returned from the dead as a vampire. (Dracula, Chapter 18)
This proves that Bram Stoker did do an extensive amount of research in Eastern European folklore and the life of the famous Prince Vlad Tepes III.
Many readers of Dracula believe that the Vampire Count is Vlad Tepes Dracul. The Coppola film, the short lived TV series and this new film are trying to convince us that it is the case. Bram Stoker only suggests in the novel that Dracula is a descendant of the prince Vlad Tepes,
The real Vlad Tepes III of Wallachia, was called Vlad Dracul, this name was a derivative from the secret fraternity and order of knights called the Order of the Dragon. The men in the family belonged to that order and they were tasked with protecting Christianity and defend the land from invading infidels such as the Ottoman Turks. Vlad II Dracul father of Vlad III was called Dracul (dragon) because of his bravery against the Turks, thus his son was often called Dracula (son of the dragon) and his symbol or crest was the dragon. He was of course, not a vampire. It was believed that due to his extreme forms of torture and execution on his enemies, he was unable to reach Heaven and became a monster after death. He was known as Vlad the Impaler because he would impale the Turks on long spikes, reveling in the spectacle and even dining in front of executions. Despite his sadism and ruthlessness he is still seen as a national hero in Romania today.
Stoker read many books on Romanian history and came across the name and chose it for his main villain. This theory is still debatable by many scholars today.
His favourite past time.
Origin story
Looking at the origin of Dracula is not often done in film. Francis Ford Coppola decided to explore the origin and connected it with Vlad Tepes in his 1992 film 'Bram Stoker's Dracula'. In his film the character of 'Vlad' is the brave prince of history with a loving wife who kills herself after having been misinformed that her prince has died. When he discovers her corpse he renounces God and becomes a vampire. Centuries later he sees a photo of Mina and believes her to be the reincarnation of his lost princess.
This detail was similarly used in the short lived and awful TV series 'Dracula' with Jonathan Rhys Meyers. In this TV series, Dracula is the Vlad Tepes of history who was excommunicated by the Order and turned into a vampire. Coming to London as an American billionaire, he meets Mina and also believes her to be a reincarnation of his love that was killed by the Order.
After those stories I though looking at the origin of Dracula was a bad idea and should be left alone. Then I heard of this film and thought, let's hope it's a better take.
Jonathan Rhys Meyers in the short lived 2013 TV series
The Film
Without spoiling too much, the story begins as such: Vlad (Luke Evans) is the prince of Wallachia, for many years his nation and the Turks have been in conflict. He is a respected ruler, a husband and father. He was given by his father as a royal hostage to the Turks, (this is true historically). He was a brave soldier and later became prince. His image o Vlad the impaler is something he's rather not talk about and leave behind him. He has made a deal with the Turks and pays them tribute to keep the peace. One day the Sultan (Dominic Cooper) demands one thousand boy soldiers from his land as well as his son as a royal hostage. Unable to agree to those terms Vlad seeks the help from a vampire (Charles Dance) who lives in the mountain. The creature agrees to help him by giving him his blood to drink. Vlad does so and becomes a super strong man with incredible powers but with a few weaknesses that he must hide from his wife (Sarah Gaddon) and people.
Firstly, the actors are brilliant. Luke Evans is very convincing and handsome. He plays the loving father, husband and leader facing a difficult choice perfectly. He fits the bill of film vampires by being brooding and charming. Evans stated that this approach- showing how the man becomes the myth is a fresh spin on the centuries old tale.
The vampire who bestows the powers to Vlad is wonderfully played by Charles Dance (that's right people Tywin Lannister himself!) Though this is the second time Dance portrays a vampire, he had a very small role in the forgettable 'Underworld: Awakening' where he didn't do much. This time he gets to be scary and that is effective. According to some pre-production notes I read before, his character is supposed to be the Roman Emperor Caligula. So we're supposed to believe that the emperor of debauchery, sadism and sexual predator eventually became a vampire? OK makes sense.
Another note I read was that the famous witch of Slavic folklore, Baba Yaga was going to appear in this film, thank goodness they did not go with that because it would also have been too much or ridiculous I think. I still wonder if they were going to portray her as flying on her pestle or living in her house on top of giant chicken legs?
The scenes where Vlad awakens with new powers feels like watching Clark Kent discovering his super powers and learning how to fly. Clumsy at first but learning quickly, Vlad becomes used to his super strength and his ability to turn into a swarm of bats. That effect was cool, I quite liked that and how he could control them as well. This power is very 'handy' (pun intended, you'll get it if you've seen the film) when destroying the Turkish army when he takes them on by himself.
The battle scenes are well shot and fast but a bit all over the place and hard to follow. In one scene the assault on the Turks is seen in the reflection of a sword to a point of view of the soldier holding said blade. It seems original at first but still a bit messy, kudos to the idea and effort though.
The other small problem is the cliches or overdone tropes. So Vlad has weaknesses, OK we get it, every powerful being has a weakness. In this film it's silver and sunlight. I'm still annoyed at the sunlight thing, as I've mentioned in the article about tropes, according to folklore sunlight never burned vampires. I thought that if this film is set in Romania, they'd at least follow the folklore, but no. I also thought that him being the 'first' of his kind, he'd evolve and be immune to sunlight. In the end it adds to the drama and story I guess. The other problem is the lack of fangs and biting from the man himself, this only happens by the end of the film and briefly. This film is only PG 13 and not gory, I wish it was gory and scarier.
The film portrays Dracula as a sympathetic creature, a good man turning into a dark creature. It feels like a superhero movie except that the main character is a super villain. I've studied super villains and they always start out as being good people who through outside forces, madness, injustice, dark pasts and after obtaining powers, be it money, weapons or superpowers they seek to do harm as full fledged villains. It's a recurring trend these days, from the sympathetic vampires of Anne Rice, to Twilight and in the fairy tale world with "Maleficent'.
In the end I enjoyed it, though the story was very predictable, at least I liked it better than the Coppola film and the shit TV series.
