For a character who doesn't have that large of a role in the original source material, Renfield has managed to make quite an impact on Dracula lore. In Bram Stoker's original novel, Renfield is a patient in an insane asylum, delusional, insane, and loyal to the Count. He eats insects and other small creatures in the belief consuming their lifeforce will add to his own.
Dwight Frye, the memorable character actor of Universal's Golden Age of Monsters, brought him to the life in the 1931 adaptation, which expanded his role, having him go to Transylvania instead of Jonathan Harker, and there, he falls under Dracula's spell, travelling with him on the Demeter and becoming his devoted slave.
Just as much as Bela Lugosi defined Dracula, so too did Frye define Renfield. His manic, wide-eyed, creepy smiling performance is what we think of when we think of Renfield, and this image of Renfield as Dracula's familiar, his human watchdog, has remained with the character throughout other interpretations.
Renfield has often been a scene stealer in various Dracula adaptations that it seems appropriate he get his own day in the, uh, sun. Renfield (2023) opens with promise, featuring footage from the classic Universal Dracula but with Hoult and Cage inserted in place of Frye and Lugosi. We see Renfield sitting in on a 12-step support group, and the movie feels like it's going to offer a quirky, hilarious take on the Renfield-Dracula relationship.
It doesn't, at least not for long. Here, eating bugs turns Renfield into John Wick, resulting in several overproduced action scenes that overwhelm everything. Renfield was never a heroic figure; he was just a creepy, pathetic weirdo. Watching him run around, fly through the air, and take out dozens of mooks at a time feels out of place.
Worse, the plot loses focus. Instead of concentrating on the Renfield and Dracula dynamic, the movie gives us a subplot involving a traffic cop named Rebecca (Awkwafina), who is out to avenge the murder of her father by the same crime family Renfield gets involved with and whom controls the police. It not only feels so off the shelf and generic, it eats up so much time, taking away from what I'd rather be watching. The dialogue, in particular, is clunky and flavorless, weighed down by tedious exposition.
Renfield has too much activity going on that distracts from what I wanted to see. I didn't care about Rebecca or the crime family or the corrupt police department. The support group material should have been funnier than it is, but the movie never builds on the idea nor develops the members in any meaningful way, except trying to generate some pathos for Renfield when Dracula slaughters them.
One element deserves praises, one thing I wanted to see more than anything else, and I got it: Nicolas Cage as Dracula. He manages to be both funny and kind of scary. Between his wild outfits, crazed makeup, and even crazier performance, Cage is everything we could want from his take on Dracula. He's unapologetically evil, ripping innocent people to shreds and nonchalantly requesting Renfield bring him a busload of cheerleaders and nuns to feed on. When he's on screen, I was entertained and wanted more of him, even if Renfield didn't, and I hope Cage gets another chance to play Dracula.
What We Do in the Shadows, both the original movie and the television series, mines the relationship between vampire masters and their human familiars much better than Renfield does, especially the show, and I wonder if the makers of Renfield were afraid of stepping on What We Do in the Shadows' toes. That dynamic is given token treatment before diving headfirst into action that feels like every other action movie and a plot that's been done better elsewhere countless times.
Cage injects some life into Renfield, but everything else feels lifeless. Maybe the makers should have eaten some spiders.
No comments:
Post a Comment