Vampires in Film: From Malevolent Monsters to Moody, Male Models
by Brian CherryAnybody who is familiar with the Twilight series of films is aware that these movies are the some sort of cinematic cat nip to lovelorn teenaged girls and lonely MILFs everywhere. This generally is because of the fact that today’s incarnation of vampires are suave, charming, deep, empathic and occasionally shirtless. They have become symbols of sensitivity and eternal romance. This is not where the movie vampire started out though. They have gone through the sort of micro-evolution that reduced the mighty wolf to a wiener dog. In the case of vampires, they seem to have changed from fearsome creatures of the night into Alan Alda.
For the purposes of this commentary, we will be staying with film vampires, not those in literature. An argument can be made that the only true bloodsuckers in Hollywood are filmmakers who stick their fangs into Bram Stoker’s masterpiece, extract bits from the story, and call it their own. For example, the “Day Walker” notion that is popular in contemporary films is not a new concept. The vampires from Mr. Stoker’s book were merely annoyed by sunlight, not destroyed by it. So it is probably safe to say that most vampire films, regardless of their era, have borrowed heavily from Mr. Stoker’s original vision.
A popular part of the vampire myth is that they cannot see their own reflection in a mirror. Ironically, vampires in film have often been an excellent reflection of society of and the mores that the film industry perceived to be in the mainstream. During the infancy of the cinema, film makers and the general populace were as close to being on the same page as they would ever be. Those early, silent, vampire films reflected this alignment.
There is often fierce debate over what the first vampire film actually was. While most accept “Vampire of the Coast” (1909) as the first film in the genre, there are many who consider the 1896 short, “The House of the Devil” as the vampires first step into the realm of moving pictures. In “The House of the Devil” a satanic looking character appears as a bat that turns into a demon. After performing some parlor tricks with a cauldron that involve conjuring an elderly man with some books and a beautiful woman, a knight appears and drives the vampire/demon away with the power of the cross. “The Vampire of the Coast”, “The Vampires Trail,” and 1913’s “The Vampire” involve similar story-lines where vampiric femme fatales lure weak men into lives of moral turpitude. In the end the victim in usually pulled from the brink by a loving wife or girlfriend before the damage becomes irreparable, and the vampire is punished for their evil deeds. In short, these early vampire films are morality plays.
1922 was the ground breaking year for vampires in film. It was in that year that F. W. Murnau brought his vision of the vampire to the screen in the film “Nosferatu.” The vampire was played to perfection by Max Schreck, a man that no teen girls, middle aged cougars, or even Mrs. Schreck would be enthusiastic about seeing without a shirt on. He was not sexy or charming. Count Orlock (as the vampire is referred to in the film) was a monster. In the end he was killed by the heroine, Ellen, who sacrificed her life by allowing him to feed off of her blood until the sun came up. Count Orlock had lost track of time while he fed, and was killed by the sunlight.
In just about all of the silent films, though the story-lines differ, there is always a clear and consistent view that the vampire is a monster. Some came to murder, other came to lure people away from life on the straight and narrow, but for the audience of the day (an audience some would call “unsophisticated”) there was a black and white morality where the vampire was squarely on the dark side of the equation.
As society changed, so did the depictions of Vampires. The evil Count Orlock evolved into the self-loathing Louis de Pointe du Lac (played by Brad Pitt) in the film “Interview with a Vampire.” Nosferatu is also the bedrock that today’s morally neutral vampiric anti-heroes is built upon. Ellen, who sacrificed her life to destroy a vampire has become “Bella,” a protagonist who yearns to become one with the vampires. So there has definitely been an evolution of the characters. In the next article we will take a look at the Golden era of film, vampires, and how they reflected the society of the day.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
148 Comments
There HAS been a shift from blood-sucking ghoul to emo model for the male vampires, but I cannot recall ANY ugly or monstrous female vampires. It seems that the current trend, though it does veer toward humanizing the inhuman, has moved toward gender equity in objectifying the vamp.
Good point.
I think the last great vampire film was Fright Night. The vampire only "appears" to be handsome, but we get to see his true physical nature by the end (and it ain't pretty).
The shift from blood-sucking goul to emo model for male vampires has happened at the same time that the shift from strong, self assured and masculine to emo man/boy has occurred for men in media in general.
Its a combination of two things, one is the demasculinization of men in our culture coupled with the need to turn every tradition of western culture on its head (a la post-modernism).
I guess here would be a good place to reference Isaiah 5:20
So, that would make them…………….Woosepires?
What do you expect from an industry largely embedded in West Hollywood. Calvin Klein embarked on the metrosexual crusade awhile ago. Let's hope the de-masculinization of the USA is waning.
And it certainly doesn't help American girls either. Girls have a problem when guys are skinnier than them. We have a generation hooked on eating disorders. Puking in the bathroom after a meal is no way to live a life.
Wusspires… or G A Y A S S E D Suckahs… At least in my neighborhood…
The original Nosferatu and the remake with Klaus Kinski are the most disturbing vampires movies ever, in my humble opinion. I watch the silent version at least once a year but I haven't been able to locate the remake on DVD yet. And these EMO/metrosexual vampires (emtrovamps?) are laughable. And the fact that women are all hot and bothered by them…well, I guess I never will understand.
ps. Don't dis the weiner dog. They were bred to burrow underground and hunt badgers! They can be tough (non-emo) little beasts!
Interesting article.
I think if you truly want to start with vampires, you don't start with movies or literature. You start with the old folk tales. One thing I found fascinating while learning mythology, pretty much every culture in history have something along the lines of dragons and vampires. Long before the far east ever had contact with the west, both had vampires and dragons. Something that fed on your soul, and a big ass monster that some what shaped like a lizard.
Back on topic, I think its pretty clear why the change. The cool, hip, edgy outcasts living on the fringe of culture and society. And when they do it with flare, all the more attractive.
Let's hope the de-masculinization of the USA is waning.
Which is why every red blooded male needs to see the Expendables. If it makes bank, there will be more Men in movies.
And with Justin Bieber-esque haricuts to boot!
The more recent vampire movies aren't really horror or monster movies, they are basically romances painted with vampire brushes. Hence the humanizing.
If you're to use a romance to bring in the girlfriends, you need some eye candy to keep the boyfriends from falling asleep. After all, they'll be paying to watch the sequels.
I was going to spell it that way, but I wanted to sound Transylvanian…..
"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter." Isaiah 5:20
Alas, it is the condition of our society today.
or women looking to see what real men look like. Though most real operators look like the guy that does your taxes….
I think my favorite, for staying true to the original story is this one. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103874/
As far as my favorite? Geeze I'd have to spend some time thinking about that. I've seen a lot of vampire movies. Have several books on them too.
I believe Béla Lugosi would say that makes them his bitches.
The allure is the hot, edgy, cool guy living on the edge of society. Trust me, my older sister explained it to me some time ago, and I have a teenage daughter who loves this genre, but in real life has picked a decent boy friend.
Interestingly enough I have another sister and associated nieces who've I caught checking out young, new priests. I asked them about it and it appears to be a combination of unobtainable and the uniform. By which I think they really mean is the level of commitment to an ideal rather than black suits with funny collars.
As for wiener dogs, I thought they were bred so all the kids could pet them at the same time?
I'd think if a woman truly were a MILF she wouldn't be lonely.
God I really really hate the moniker "MILF"!
Because they are sneaky that way.
I was thinking the same thing Saul. But since I hate the term to begin with, it wouldn't have made sense for me give it credence.
……beeeetches…
Agreed, EdSki. Coppola's Dracula stayed more true to Bram Stoker's novel than any of the others that I have seen. That's why its in my collection. Well, that, and I used to have a crush on Wynona Rider in high school…
Fright Night was an entertaining romp; and the vampire definitely wasn't portrayed as a love interest; that vampire was a monster through and through. Even though he was written to be charismatic and charming, I did not find myself feeling one bit sorry for him, and he only sort of whined once about not being given a choice in the matter.
Nosferatu was a great movie. Fright Night was fun to watch and so was the Lost Boys. Interview w/the Vampire wasn't bad as I thought it was going to be, but loved Bram Stoker's Dracula with Gary Oldman. The only ugly female vampire I've seen was when Charlie's girlfriend became a vampire at the end in Fright Night, but then that was pretty short.
[...] the original post: Vampires in Film: From Malevolent Monsters to Moody, Male Models This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
I have been complaining about this trend for a while now. The vampire myth has been co-opted by teenage girls. I used to blame Anne Rice, but her vampires were monstrous compared to what we see with "Twilight." Even "True Blood" is too violent for the emo crowd, and that's still a 'vampire lite' series– more sex than violence when you get down to it, so I guess "True Blood" is what happens when "Twilight" grows up.
I've seen some authors try to go back to the vampire-as-a-monster as part of their storytelling but I think vampires might become passé as grown-ups start looking for something with some real edge to it. Zombies seem to be cropping up a lot lately, and I can't think of a way they can turn that monster into a romantic lead (though lord knows they may try) so I expect horror fiction to veer off from the vampire. We'll see.
As a woman, I'm all about men going shirtless.
But I'm old enough to be Taylor Lautner's mother! And having watched him in "Shark Boy and Lava Girl" he's more of the "Oh, he's so adorable! Look at him all grown up!" kind of thing.
Give me "Abbott & Costello Meet Dracula, Frankenstein, and The Wolfman" any day!
Vampires are utterly selfish, amoral, soulless creatures who prey on and wreak havoc among good people. What literature and film was recognizing and dramatizing is now commonly called a "sociopath."
Best Vampire evah, Nicholas Cage "Vampire's Kiss" "I'm a Vampire, kill me!!!"
Check out the movie "Vamp" and Charlie's girlfriend at the end of "Fright Night"
Try the movie "Vamp" starring Grace Jones now that is one ugly vampire
Nope, sorry but that one was single-handedly DESTROYED by Keanu Reeves. Worst casting choice EVER.
Although Oldman was great as usual.
You have a bit of a problem with your comparisons. Interview With the Vampire and Twilight both started as books that were made into movies. If you are going to use those as baselines for "modern" vampires then no matter your stated intent you very much are comparing movie vampires to literary vampires, you are just limiting the literary vampires to ones that have managed to get films made about them. That is going to seriously skew your analysis.
Most such are going to display the dual-form – outwardly beautiful, but transforming into the hideous; From Dusk Till Dawn had hideous female vampires, and Fright Night II featured a female relative of the vampire from the first movie.
You also have quasi-vampires, such as the crone in the first Conan movie, and the demon thing in Kull the Conquerer.
The thing is, you are starting with most myth potraying female "monsters" primarily as sexual tempters. The few that are not such have that aspect transformed into a cannibalistic aspect, consuming human flesh in way or another instead of "merely" corrupting it by seduction. On that account you can treat almost any archetypal witch, such as Baba Yaga, as a vampire of sorts.
Interesting article. And you're right, as much as we might like to rip on "Twilight" (and really, who doesn't?), it didn't start this notion of emo vampires. The trend goes back at least to "Interview With the Vampire," which, though I personally enjoyed it, did have the idea of vampires as morally conflicted creatures. "Twilight" has just carried this idea to its logical (and pathetic) conclusions.
Well . . . that can be pushed too far. Remember, Asian dragons were divine spirits, more on the order of Arabic Jinn, even if they appeared virtually identical to European dragons.
And indeed, there are American "dragons" and "vampires" too. (Uktena, quetzalcoatl, wendigo, and the modern chupacabra among them.)
As for the change, it is more than that.
Foremost is the increased focused on the sexual aspect. Even Stoker's Dracula owed a lot more to succubi and incubi than it did to the vampire stories it took the name of. With that increasing sexual aspect, the vampire rather naturally evolved into a much more beautiful creature.
From there you add in the constantly expanding nihilism of the 20th century, and that brings out the "cool, hip, edgy outcast" effect. If you really want to investigate THAT, you need to look at White Wolf Game Studio's "Vampire: The Masquerade", which developed the trope far beyond Interview With the Vampire, to the point they wound up mocking themselves for it to forestall others doing it.
I still really like Fright Night. Good story, interesting characters (Roddy McDowell as Peter Vincent-just great), and horrific vampires. Yikes is all I have to say to the true form of these monsters. I really wanted Charley and Peter to end this guy.
Of course, a lot of people have argued that the whole vampire story is just a heavily (and sometimes not-so-heavily) veiled allegory for predatory sex. So while I don't care for "True Blood" much more than I do for "Twilight," you could at least make the argument, I guess, that the former has a legitimate place in the vampire club.
And as I've said before, mark my words, they will find a way to make a zombie into a brooding, romantic figure. I don't know how, but they will find a way.
Vamp was fun. And Grace Jones has never been cast as the gorgeous maiden in distress. Plus that film taught us that even though a wooden stake through the heart will kill a vampire, formica just doesn't work.
Give me "Abbott & Costello Meet Dracula, Frankenstein, and The Wolfman" any day!
The most awesome and entertaining Dracula movie of all time!!!!!!!
Er, are you talking about vampires here or politicians???
Try watching "30 Days of Night". The female Vampire (who gets roasted by UV grow lights) is pretty hideous.
I'll disagree with you here. 1987 had Near Dark (and the not quite as good, but well remembered, Lost Boys). 1996 had From Dusk 'til Dawn, and 2007 had 30 Days of Night. (I'd toss in a nod towards John Carpenter's Vampires as well, but the movie pales to the book it was based on in my view.)
All of these films use the traditional view of vampirism- as predators of humanity and embodiments of death and disease, not as the sex metaphor that's popped in and out of vampire lore since the 1800s. And all are pretty good horror films as well.
Hmmm, I'll admit that I'm guilty of humanizing the vampire in my own fiction, but I've at least kept away from the brooding vampire as a misunderstood hunter (This I blame on Poppy Z. Brite). At least my version of Vlad Tepes is still willing to do what is necessary to win, and to protect those things that he values. He may be something of a good guy in my stories, but he's still very capable of committing horrendous acts of violence and mayhem and refuses to apologize for it.
But for the most part the writer is correct. To me one of the BEST seductive vampires who was still an evil bastard was Count Mittenhaus from Vampire Circus, an old Hammer film. He was the good looking male modle-type with a taste for young children and other men's wives.
George Hamilton in "Love at First Bite."
Personally I loved Leslie Nielson in Dracula: Dead and Loving It! But Love at First Bite had some great lines: "Creatures of the Night, Shut up!" and of course the scene where he flips off the sun as it's rising is hilarious. I watched five minutes of From Dusk Til Dawn and then turned it off, discovering that there was nobody I could root for.
Heh.
I vaguely recall reading something long ago (in high school, maybe?) which compared Republican politicians to vampires. Old money, bloodsucking, scheming monsters.
It got better, though. Democrats were werewolves… unthinking and rapacious, laying waste to everything they touched.
Actually ANYTHING through the heart works but you also need to cut off the head. Dracula was killed by two determined guys with a Bowie knife and kukri.
However, one of the literary trends I have noticed is that vampires keep getting more powerful. They've gone from dangerous pests to demigods.
How about "Innocent Blood". She tried being good but when she accidentally allows the Mafia Boss to turn it got very bad. And Don Rickles going up in flames was perfect. Did I mention Anne Parillaud the vampire is HOT!
[...] Read it. Anybody who is familiar with the Twilight series of films is aware that these movies are the some sort of cinematic cat nip to lovelorn teenaged girls and lonely MILFs everywhere. This generally is because of the fact that today’s incarnation of vampires are suave, charming, deep, empathic and occasionally shirtless. They have become symbols of sensitivity and eternal romance. This is not where the movie vampire started out though. They have gone through the sort of micro-evolution that reduced the mighty wolf to a wiener dog. In the case of vampires, they seem to have changed from fearsome creatures of the night into Alan Alda. [...]
Mr. Barlow would run, fly, float circles around these teenage emo vamps. Mr. Barlow would scare the dead sh-t out of those emo vamps.
Salem's Lot had the last scary vampire.
Abbot & Costello's romp with Bela Lugosi and Vincent Price (invisible man) was & is one of my all-time favorites! 3 monsters and 2 hapless heros! Why can't anyone make movies like that anymore?
[...] link: Vampires in Film: From Malevolent Monsters to Moody, Male Models – Big Hollywood (blog) Posted by admin Filed in RSS News No Comments [...]
As probably one of the younger readers on this site, I have to say that Stephen Dorff's performance in "Blade" was simply one of the best vampire performances I've ever seen on screen for sheer entertainment value and pure malevolence. Simply one of the most evil vampires I've ever seen. Of course, AS a younger viewer, I get to compare it to other newer movies such as:
"Interview With The Vampire" (and sequel) – Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise, the unholy alliance.
"Bram Stoker's Dracula" – Keanu Reeves, no more need be said.
"Twilight" – A steaming pile of Hollywood. (My wife made me watch it, I still haven't forgiven her!)
"From Dusk Til Dawn" – Actually kind of entertaining, simply a gorefest.
"Underworld" (and sequels) – Really, I have only one reason to watch these movies, despite the fact that the 1st one actually had something commonly known as a decent plot, which has been mostly absent from Hollywood in the last 20 years or so. I'm only 30, so I can't really speak for pre-1990 Hollywood, really.
So, unless you count watching Kate Beckinsale trot around killing things while wearing tight leather outfits (which is good fun any day of the week), Dorff really has no competition for the best vampire performance from the ones I have seen.
Where's Captain Kronos vampire hunter when you need him to run through these prissified glampires? Abbott and Costello wouldn't be caught dead around this bunch.
Near Dark! Yes! My favorite vampire flick! Good to know that at least a few others found that sleeper and appreciate it.
Dang right! Or someone isn't doing their job.
We need a "Big MILF" forum.
Maybe they just want the challenge of seducing the forbidden fruit.
You always get bonus points for that. Extra bonus points for uniformed conquests.
All this stuff is written down somewhere.
The problem with the current "popular" crop of Vampire moivies and series is that there is no downside to being a Vampire. In Twilight the Vamps can do everything a normal person can do except they drink blood and are super human. Sunlight doesn't affect them, religion is passe', death and violence have been ritualized, sex is obsessive it seems with blood consumption, they can mesmerize people at will. Where is the bad side to being a vampire?
The Vampires of old subsisted on the lure of Power, they used seduction, deciet and death to enforce thier will on their victims. The normal mortals had the power of Sunlight, religion, and garlic to fight back, with the daytime as their respite from the Nosferatu. Now nothing seems to faze the new Sparkling Vampies and they can run around seducing your daughter or sister at will. The worst part is we are suppose to feel sorry for these beings simply because they are immortal and lonely. Boo hoo.
I also have a problem with how werewolves are shown. Now they are just big dogs….ooooh scary…..
Give me the terrifying visage of Benecio Del Toro's Wolfman anyday over Fido….
Charlie's girlfriend was hugely creepy after she vamped out in Fright Night…especially those teeth! Ick!
I've never been able to figure out why a wooden stake through the heart does in a vampire. (Technically a vampire is already dead, so you can't kill it. It's undead. So you have to de-undead it.)
If you cut off a vampires hand, it will regenerate it. The vampire doesn't need the heart to pump blood, because its dead.
Near as I can figure out is based on the concept that underneath it all, Dracula is a love story. Hence heart, hence demise.
Only in some mythologies. For example, in Brazil the only way to off a vampire is to cut off the head and then put it under fresh, running water (i.e. a water fall) for 48 hours.
You probably could say Baba Yaga falls under the subheading of feeding on souls. But if you ask me she squarely falls under the category of deity and/or demigod.
How about Lost Boys?
That was a great movie, and yes, Parillaud was smoking hot in that one.
1 Sam 8:11
He said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots.
Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots.
He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers.
He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants.
He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants.
Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle [a] and donkeys he will take for his own use.
He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves.
Many, many moons ago my wife was working towards a degree via night school. One of her classes was literature and she had to buy and read the original Frankenstein, which is also a love story at its core.
So I decided to read it when she was finished and the forward was fascinating. There was a group of rich elitists who used to summer up in the Swiss Alps, to get away from the heat, disease and death of the cities during summer time.
One year the weather was terrible, raining all the time, so all they could do was hang out, get drunk and converse. One of them came up with the idea of every one writing their own horror story. A contest.
Two of those people were Mary Shelly and Braham Stroker.
Trust me, Stroker's Dracula is a love story at it's core. So is Marry Shelly's Frankenstein.
Depending on the particular version of the myth, it is usually because of some mystical attribute of the wood itself, which is likely associated with elements of life and death, so using them would interfere with the undead state.
It actually gets absurdly complex when you start really tearing into the various myths.
Remember, the important thing to remember when discussing vampires is they are, before anything else, undead creatures.
The same with Lilith, and the underlying Mesopotamian legends she derives from.
That is why I note the issues with modern vampires merging with succubi/incubi. The legend just keeps evolving.
Weiners dogs are cool! The only toy-sized dog with ancestral wolf cojones.
I love the fact that it gets absurdly complex. That's history, people more or less doing the same thing we are, trying to get through life in one piece, and this is just how they tried to do it.
That's an interesting thought, wood as an element of life and death. I'll have to grab a tooth pick and chew on that for awhile.
But if it were just the wood, again, why the heart? Why not a tooth pick in the eye?
The heart because it is the source of life in a living creature, as well as the "source" of love. (Remember our passion/sex connection.)
I'd have to go digging in some of my source books to recall the exact reasons. Comparative mythology, which this requires, is insanely complex, especially the syncretic elements like these. Never mind a stake, you could beat a vampire to death with a copy of The Golden Bough!
30 Days of Night, now those vampires truly were monsters. Animalistic and instinct driven, no romanticzed creature of the night here. That's what a vampire should be. The scene filmed from above (looking down into the town as the citizens are being slaughtered), WOW. Scarey, scarey stuff.
on behalf of werewolves everywhere,and those who love them, I strongly object to the above comparison to Demoncrats!!!
werewolves think just fine, thank you! and at least they eat what they kill.
what about "Van Helsing"??
Kate Beckinsale again, still killing things, and she's not a vampire.
not only that, but the vampires in Van Helsing were scary, not wusses like the "Twilight" crew.
My mind just went somewhere very bad while reading your comment. No, I am not going to explain, either now or later.
Anyway, having not read much of either of those stories in the original, I guess I will just take your word for it that they are essentially love stories at their core–albeit sans the poor writing, cardboard dialogue, and wooden acting. Did I mention that I don't like Twilight?
"No.. never play with the food!"
that one had great moments and is in my collection.
Never got around to watching "Van Helsing". It had something to do with the fact that I was deployed to Iraq when it came out, and I never even heard of it until last year, at which point I thought it didn't look all that good. So, just never watched it – although I may have to now.
Ah, but Yorkies were originally bred to kill rats in the Yorkshire coal mines, and to be pocket sized so the miners could carry them in their jackets.
I've read Frankenstein, and made it about 1/2 way through Dracula. I have a version of the original annotated. Which means its like 5 times longer than the original. Still working on that.
LOL.. I don't know about that… some of us should really keep our shirts on.
Check it out. I think it is a lot better than most reviews play it out to be.
Yes, it got more than a little revisionist, but I really think they made the Steam Punk elements work, and I liked that they got Adam (Frankenstein's creation) a lot closer to the original than most movie depictions.
"…who's afraid of a bat anymore… and I'm not even a bat! I'm a black chicken… I'm a yenta with skinny legs!"
~ Dracula
I've read both.
Dracula is definitely a love story, warped through frenzied Victorian morality.
Frankenstein is different. It is a morality play that shows the effects of being written by a swooning girl in love with the "wrong" man. The real problem is, most people get the morality depicted completely wrong.
another take on Twilight's werewolves:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BBrRz5QYUQ
Chupacabra FIGHT!
And then Buffy staked Edward.
The End.
Now THAT'S funny…
I wish…
The reason I consider Frankenstein as a love story because that's where the creatures turmoil comes from. He'll never be loved, and he knows it.
Yes. I think that is related to Mary Shelley's torment over being rejected for shacking up with Percy Shelley. It is one of the critical things almost always ignored in the movies, and too often in commentary, as is the background of Adam learning of love, and morality, from the French family. (And is the story of that family, and their betrayal by a Turk mere puerile Victorian fancy, or serious insight from an 18-19 year old girl?)
When people say that the 1992 flick stays true to the original Dracula, I have to wonder if I read the right version of the book.
In the Dracula I read, the vampire in question was a monster whose only relatable human quality would be arrogance. The only genuine romance in the book was between Johnathan and poor, stricken Mina.
Bela Lugosi's version of Dracula was truly the beginning of the end of vampires as night-stalking leeches. I'm sure producers thought it deeply ironic that such a vilified monster could be played as charmer. How more ironic is that the charmer has become the standard? Part of the horror of traditionally frightening vampires is that, like zombies, you definitely wouldn't want to be one. Today's faux-vampires live an idyllic existence; they're essentially Nietzsche's superman.
I never got through the entire book. I have an annotated version which is about five times longer than the novel.
There so many side notes on that were interesting. Like in his journal when he stops for Chicken in Hungary (working from memory here) a side note had the recipe for Paprika chicken. I recognized it as the the same basic recipe my Slovak and Polish family uses.
All kinds of neat stuff like that. Which, ironically made the story even harder to follow because I kept getting distracted. I still have it for reference.
But I will say, they got closer to the original than any other one I've seen.
My yorkie is not exactly pcket-sized, but when he catches sight of potential prey look out! He and my maltese-poddle mix took on a skunk and won. Fortunately no spraying or bites/scratches from the skunk.
Do you know what a MILF is????
You scumbag!!!!!!!!
May your mother rot in hell.
You must have missed the line "For the purposes of this commentary, we will be staying with film vampires, not those in literature." Just because Twilight is a modern book, it doesn't mean that filmmakers have to make movies about it. Movies can be made about vampires from any era. It would actually be more interesting if they went back and made films from the oldest folk legends. Twilight suits the modern narrative though, so it is now on screen.
You must be logged in to post a comment.