Besson's Dracula is literally insulting

As you might have guessed by now, I am very serious about Dracula. These dark times are right for my hyperasfixiations, a little more than a year ago we've had Eggers' Nosferatu, and there's a new Frankenstein whose elitary release will be easily overcome by a good ol' act of piracy. Naturally, I was excited about this new Besson adaptation. A couple of minutes in, my female instinct warned me something was off. As soon as the lights came in my expression was something between disappointed and disgusted. I'd like to illustrate a couple of issues I've had with Dracula: A Love Tale, but keep in mind there will be spoilers. Let's begin slowly: 

WAS IT A JOKE? 

I've read some reviews on Reddit, and I found that many had this very same feeling. In some scenes, the movie felt like a joke. The perfume scene would be an easy mention; however, I will condone it because it's relatively funny, meaning I can still watch it and smile. That sort of humorous, absurd touch was okay once, but as the movie progressed, it became annoying. However, it was the gargoyles that made me lose it. 1925 Nosferatu by Murnau perfectly captured Jonathan's oppression, being held prisoner, and slowly coming to the realisation that he is the only one in the castle with the Count. That was taken from the book and perfectly transported, and by itself, it's already a classy trick of tension and horror. The low-quality CGI rock minions are just not the way of doing things. Are they cute? No, they're monstrous. Some might find them cute. Perhaps, and it feels like it was the only sort of gamble they were trying to play. That brings me to my second point: 

I DON'T CARE HOW IDENTICAL IT WAS TO THE NOVEL 

First of all, because it wasn't. In addition to that, I genuinely don't believe everything with Dracula in its name should be faithful to Stoker. However, you would expect novelty to come with at least a general idea. Here's my impression: this movie was a sort of "second-hand" adaptation, the loser son of a great father, Coppola's Dracula. That movie held a solid idea, redirected the classical monster trope towards a romance, and made it more painful by not changing its fate. Dracula: A Love Tale, however, took the best he could get from the funky cool parent, including ledbianism and erotica, here completely worthless and with no context, and banalised it. As for Besson himself, I'd be glad if anybody could transport me inside his head to see what was going on while he was reading the novel. And the kids at the end? why where they all bold and ghostly? Was it supposed to evoke pity? And even if there was a reason, what purpose does it serve at this point in the story?

...BUT THE VISUALS! 

A little bridge to elaborate on what seems to me a very easy point. One could easily argue the visuals were undefeated. The costumes, even the ones that had a couple of minutes of screen time in total, were near to perfection. But how much are we willing to sacrifice for it? Nietzsche used to say only a fool would think a beautiful painting is one depicting a beautiful subject. I am not trying to subordinate art ti literature right now or something, I am just saying it's easy to sell a beautiful ingenuity. I am genuinely sorry for the costume designers and scenographers who worked with Besson, as their talents could have been used for something more elevated. I am guessing nowadays it's easy to sell something beautiful that lacks brains, and we ask a lot of the other arts and not enough of literature. 

REDEMPTION? MORE LIKE RECESSION

Now for the big problem: the finale. Again, I am not saying it should always be Stoker's, as Coppola changed it in the 90s. However, in Bram Stoker's Dracula, the tragedy ends with the two lovers dying together. Together, I can't stress this enough. Like Romeo and Juliet, they share their corruption. In the end, the spectatoris left to ponder their actionslike they are one person. In Besson's version, Mina, casually a woman, is not even held accountable for her actions. That is somehow incoherent if you consider how clear it is that she wasn't corrupted by that weird eau de vampyre. In the movie, Mina is nothing but a face card, as a quantity of static close-ups remind you of. no dark feminine, no discovery of her inner power, just a few lines about how she feels like she doesn't belong where she is, all washed down the drain with a terrible, if not misogynistic, finale. Dracula got a redemption arc, a sort of contemporary take since it wouldn't be the case for a monster in a gothic novel, as it is essentially a tragedy meant to show you the power of evil. that I could accept, with the premises of it being a huge loss and an oversimplification of the general idea, but not without Mina being involved. Dracula searched her through the centuries, half of the movie rotates towards that, then when he finally finds her-and please not, GETS her- he is easily convinced by ANOTHER MAN to rethink his whole philosophy, because "he is not fighting God but himself!" (the ultracatholics are going to love this one). Jokes aside, why does he do that? because we are sadly going towards the idea of a "military" virility, where strong men don't think about women when they act. I don't use the word "misogynistic" with a light heart; this whole movie had the time structure of an ejaculation with subsequent clarity. Overall, Dracula: A Love Tale felt like a terrible reading of both Stoker's and Coppola's. It steals their story with no respect for it, not for the living nor for the dead. I can't possibly understand why it was made, but I won't be fooled like that.