Coppola’s first feature film Essay

Similarly, the 1992 adaptation of Bram fire fighters Dracula by Francis hybridisation Coppola has an change surfacely complex theatrical performance of Dracula. Francis Ford Coppola was born in 1939 in Detroit, USA, except he grew up in a New York suburb in a creative, supportive Italian-American family. His father was a composer and musician, while his mother had been an actress. Francis Ford Coppola graduated with a degree in drama from Hofstra University, and did graduate puddle at UCLA in filmmaking.He was training as assistant with film maker Roger Corman, working in such capacities as soundman, dialogue director, associate producer and, eventually, director of Dementia 13 (1963), Coppolas first feature film. In Francis Ford Coppolas representation of Bram Stokers Dracula, he chose to represent a typically malevolent creature as a complicated, minatory yet sensitive individual. In this interpretation, Dracula apparently has human emotions he is feeling what humans fe el. He tried to suck Jonathan Harkers fianci es blood but is overcome by emotions and memories of his dead wife, and spares her for the fourth dimension being.He also has human urges, both physically and mentally. But scorn how humanlike Dracula may seem in this version of Dracula, he is still surrounded by the obvious evidence that point to the evil part of his person . He is dressed in red and coloured robes which connote blood and mordant-like things. But his polite voice is used as a with go down onal from his unnatural aura. He has weathered and very gruesome skin which emphasizes the connotations of blood, and ghostlike hair that match the colour of his skin. Also, his mogul to puzzle on any form facilitates the fact that he is a sinister character.Also, the mis-on-scene on various occasions make Dracula seem even more sinister than normal. The music alternates, the lighting is dim on a close up shot which shapes a sense of concealment and makes the witnesser use thei r imagination. Despite this, Draculas distressed emotional offer might make the viewer sympathise with him. This interpretation of Dracula by Francis Ford Coppola would be suitable for an even more modern audience than Nosferatu and Hammer Horrors version. The viewers of this film will suffice to it with a variety of emotions.They might have been frightened of Dracula because of his ability to transform and take on any form which might activate a sense of paranoia within their minds and make them consider that anyone around them could be Dracula himself. But they might also sympathise with Dracula because of his traumatic loss, and might feel a connection with him as they might manage how he feels, loosing a loved one. They could view him as a unregenerate and self-controlling villain because it is unlikely for a vampire to resist the urge to raciness into fresh skin, e finically when it is offered to them on a plate just as Jonathan Harkers wife was to Dracula.So why are th ose 3 representations of Bram Stokers Dracula so different? I think its due to the time when the movies were made. During the time when Nosferatu was made, the applied science was terrible and nothing had been invented that could create a half-decent movie. But in Dracula (1952), technology had clearly veritable which made it possible to create a movie including advanced special effects and costumes.Furthermore, in Francis Ford Coppolas version in 1992, the technology had improved even more, making room for a movie that re-defines the caliber and meaning of the movie Dracula. Another reason why representations of Dracula changed extra time because people have come up with pertly ideas. I think this links in with the idea of what society are panic-struck of, which is another(prenominal) reason why the representations of Dracula have changed overtime. This is because as society becomes scared of new things, then people have to come up with new ideas to satisfy the needs and wants of their audience.I think that Francis Ford Coppolas representation of Bram Stokers Dracula is the some effective because he visualized a typically evil being with characteristically no emotions, as a self-controlling and strong willed individual. He turned a villain that is most likely to be a hated icon amongst most people, to something that could draw the feeling of kindness and consideration from the viewers hearts, eradicating the fact that he is a blood-sucking villain that deserves to have a stake pushed through his seemingly stonyhearted chest.