The Case for ‘Dracula’

I want to make some comments regarding Kenneth Turan’s review, “ ‘Dracula’: Letting the Blood Flow” (Nov. 13):

First, I resent any movie reviewer who foists preconceived notions on a film. It seemed inevitable that Turan would dislike the film, what with worries about the purity of Francis Ford Coppola’s motives in making “Dracula”--”What he wanted was the kind of hit that would enable him to get financing for one of those close-to-the-heart films”--and an obvious disgust for its cast.

Second, I cannot believe how many reviews I have read that criticize this film for its plot but whose authors seem never to have read the original novel. Many of the plot aspects that Turan calls silly--Lucy’s suitors, Dracula’s reverse aging--are in the novel. Whether virtues or flaws, they are the product of Bram Stoker, not Coppola or the cast. I found “Dracula” quite the closest film adaptation of the book I have ever seen.

Also, the young cast is not just an attempt at bigger box-office draw; most of the characters in the novel are quite young, and Winona Ryder is, if anything, older than the literary Mina, who was probably still in her teens.

I found “Dracula” a fine addition to the cinematic family of vampires, and, for the sake of accuracy, the next time Turan reviews a film adaptation of a novel, at least get the “Cliffs Notes.”

E. V. WALLIS

Glendale