Creature Most Foul

In the Jan. 26 “Film Clips,” Columbia and Francis Ford Coppola are suggesting that their new movie, “Bram Stoker’s Dracula,” will keep faith with Stoker’s intentions by offering the “complete story” and playing up the eroticism of the novel. Since Stoker’s novel was pretty much straight-ahead Gothic horror with minor sexual overtones, the new version sounds like another step in the wrong direction.

Anyone who reads the novel will notice the eroticism, in the form of lascivious behavior that some of the vampires employ to trap their victims. Their objective is, of course, to gorge themselves on their victims’ blood, not to have sex with them.

The worst thing about the new version is undoubtedly the selection of Gary Oldman, complete with waist-long hair, to play Dracula. In the novel, the bloodthirsty count is described as tall, gaunt, elderly, mustachioed, superhumanly strong, red of eye, and foul of breath--a decidedly unromantic fellow. His very touch was enough to make Jonathan Harker shudder when he first met him.

Coppola has his sexy Count moving from Transylvania to London to find a woman who reminds him of an ancient love. In the novel, Dracula moved to London simply to find more victims for his blood-lust--hardly the stuff of romance. Stoker’s Dracula is unremittingly evil, cunning, and foul--and a threat to the very existence of the human race.

Coppola is free to put whatever spin he wants on the Dracula legend, but calling his movie “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” is an insult to the memory of the novelist, and to the many fans of his horrible creation.

PHILLIP E. SPRAGUE

Stanton