Dracula: Pages from a Virgin's Diary

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.

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.

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!

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.

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!