A Bloody Good Time 11.20.08: No More Sexy Vampires!
Posted by Joseph Lee on 11.20.2008
Why Twilight will do damage to the vampire genre.
Welcome to A Bloody Good Time. Last time we met (which was three weeks ago) I presented the final part of my top 100 horror films countdown. It was tiring, and so I took a break before coming back to writing about horror.
Here are all the parts of that countdown, in case you missed anything:
Now that I'm back, I have something that I want to complain about. As you'll see me mention in this week's Fact or Fiction, there's a movie coming out that is an insult to horror fans. A movie that takes the myth of the vampire and markets it to tweens and takes away all of the fear that is supposed to be associated with it. I'm talking, of course, about Twilight.
Look at that guy up there. Brooding, emo-looking (I apologize if I offend the emo crowd) and not at all scary. He looks like he would be more comfortable on the set of a soap opera. I'm sorry to inform you, but regardless of what the plot description of the series of books tell you, that is not a vampire. As a horror fan, and a fan of vampire films, I'm insulted. The worst part of the situation is that Twilight is going to make a lot of money. This is going to mean that there will be sequels and other films just like it in attempts to cash in. The movie hasn't even been released to theaters yet and not only is a sequel in the works, but other books with similar plots are being optioned.
This may sound like I'm ranting, and I am. But Twilight is taking the horror out of a creature that was born in horror. Do you think when Bram Stoker wrote Dracula he envisioned a vampire that would protect a girl he is in love with (and loves him back)? An excerpt from the novel:
[Dracula's] face was a strong - a very strong - aquiline, with high bridge of the thin nose and peculiarly arched nostrils; with lofty domed forehead, and hair growing scantily round the temples, but profusely elsewhere. His eyebrows were very massive, almost meeting over the nose, and with bushy hair that seemed to curl in its own profusion. The mouth, so far as I could see it under the heavy moustache, was fixed and rather cruel looking, with peculiarly sharp white teeth; these protruded over the lips, whose remarkable ruddiness showed astonishing vitality in a man of his years. For the rest, his ears were pale and at the tops extremely pointed; the chin was broad and strong, and the cheeks firm though thin. .
Count Dracula, the original vampire, wasn't sexy. He used the powers of the vampire to seduce his victims, and when that didn't work he would simply turn into a mist and bite them in their sleep. While the vampire mythos have been tweaked a lot over the years, it's mostly been accepted that the vampire is a creature of the night, an undead monster that feeds on the blood of the living. It is most certainly not sexy, heroic or capable of love.
Of course, while I rant about Twilight, it's not the first vampire film or novel to depict vampires in this fashion. A common violator of the role of the vampire was Ann Rice. Of course her books like Interview with the Vampire have been turned into films. The original 1994 film featured Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt as vampires. Yeah, it's hard to believe they were played for scares. Basically, vampires are monsters and should be regarded as such. When Twilight is successful, you're not going to see the horrific vampire for a long time. It's a shame because it's actually been a while since we've had one.
The last attempt was last year's 30 Days of Night. Regardless of how you felt about that movie (I enjoyed it), at least it tried to make vampires scary again, and mostly did so.
Black eyes, wider bloody mouth, running around like animals consuming anything in their path...that's an undead creature. Vampires are essentially zombies but without the decay and the addition of powers (sometimes). Have you ever seen a zombie that looked like Tom Cruise?
Of course I'm not saying it's not possible to blend the two and form a seductive yet dangerous vampire. From Dusk til Dawn provided us with a Salma Hayek striptease before she become hideous and began a bloodbath. Bram Stoker's Dracula featured an ancient Gary Oldman who only turned into a "sexy" vampire when he drank blood. He also turned into a wolf-like monster and preyed upon people. Near Dark featured both an attractive, cute vampire girl and an insane Bill Paxton who leads a bar massacre.
So I'm not saying that it's not possible to mix both elements. What I am saying is that there are a lot of vampire films that are going to make the vampire a fad and remove all the horror. As a fan of these types of movies, I don't want to see vampires get even more "Hollywood-ized". So A Bloody Good Time was mostly a rant this week, but I feel it was deserved.
Next week, I'm going to go into a new topic. I'll let Arnold Furious, who suggested it, sum it up: "
Zombies. Lots of zombies.". See you then.
Total agreement. Every time I see a movie or book of this kind, I die a little inside. I think Near Dark walked the balance best...the vamps were alternately sexy and creepy, but always both at the appropriate time. 30 Days of Night skewed closer to scary, but did it quite well. I Am Legend was a golden opportunity to strike an iron that 30 Days had already made hot, but it was made into a mediocre zombie (or whatever the hell those CGI things were supposed to be) movie instead. And now we've got this self-indulgent emo crap. The trailers probably contain all the action the movie's apt to have. I pity the poor 15 year old boy who gets dragged to that movie with their girlfriend expecting to see a vampire movie and instead are suckered into a glorified chick flick.
I should also point out the other reason Twilight tends to turn my stomach - the whole "girl needs impossibly over-idealized boy to complete her" over-arching plot that teenage and adolescent girls are being spoon-fed. I have two nieces who're rapidly on their way into that age demographic, and in this particularly fucked up, misogynistic society full of guys raised on video games and porn, who already objectify and dehumanize women, that's the LAST thing I want them to be reading about.
Posted By: Danger Boy (Guest) on November 19, 2008 at 11:32 PM
Never heard about the Twilight novels until the movie hype started. That said, I disagree with the idea that there's only one 'right' way to do vampires. Buffy, and Angels shows us this. There's room for all versions.
Posted By: Volourn (Guest) on November 20, 2008 at 02:13 AM
Nice to have you back!!
I'll agree that Interview With the Vampire wasn't very scary. Although after watching it on acid, I still get a shudder every time I see Tom Cruise.
I think one other movie that did a good job of walking the line as far as having "good looking" vampires was Fright Night. Chris Sarrandon as Jerry Dandridge was a very appealing looking person, but when he turns into a vampire, he's scary as hell. He's also in my opinion one of the best vampire characters to date that doesn't get much love.
Posted By: Mario (Guest) on November 20, 2008 at 02:15 AM
I've always felt "Lost Boys" was a perfect example of what the modern horror flick should be. It still has it's scary moments, the cool characters for the male audience to watch and still give the female demographic their pretty boys.
Posted By: K. Bett (Guest) on November 20, 2008 at 02:55 AM
Anyone that's a true vampire fan has already read Brian Lumley's Necroscope series. Those vampires were portrayed as brutal fucking monsters and not the sissy kickboxing losers that Joss Whedon turned them into.
Posted By: Guest#5568 (Guest) on November 20, 2008 at 05:32 AM
I am surprised there was no mentions of the only Vampire (or Half-Vampire) to make the hero role possible for Vampires... That being Blade, but even he had to give in every once in a while.
Posted By: Travis (Guest) on November 20, 2008 at 09:20 AM
The vampire genre has been going downhill for a long time. Dracula really was the start of the romanticism of vampires, though. While I do actually love it, the novel humanized an inhuman monster.
Posted By: luna (Registered) on November 20, 2008 at 09:32 AM
I like pretty much any version of vampires but the trailer for this looks really bad, a teen vampire that goes to school during daylight... Really????
Posted By: Lucky (Guest) on November 20, 2008 at 09:47 AM
I disagree with you (and many of the posters here).
VARIETY VARIETY VARIETY.
As long as you guys live in the "there's only one answer" world you're actually depriving yourselves of the rest of reality for nothing but your own ego comfort.
I've read Anne Rice, Brian Lumley, Bram Stoker, and a lot of other vampire stories out there.
When Stoker wrote Dracula vampires were a metaphor for sexuality in a sexually represed culture. He figuratively dragged the animal out of the other characters in that too-polite world.
In Anne Rice's books it's more about need on a level with lust, attraction through intrigue etc.
Even in Lumley's Necroscope the character of Dragosani is molested as a child.
To me, Vampires = Sex to some extent. They are NOT zombies. They are NOT werewolves. The kind of vampires in "I am Legend" were more like zombies with werewolf viciousness than true vampires (nevermind the whole stupid "disease" thing).
One thing Joss Whedon did that I thought was good was gave his vampires TWO faces: the monster and the human. It actually bridges both sides of the debate quite well.
The bottom line is-- all of these horror icons (vampires, werewolves etc) are metaphorical figures. They can be played for myriad different angles and it IS the variety that makes them enduring figures.
Note though-- I have no interest in Twilight as I am not a 14 year old girl.
That said, I have NO problem with the "noble vampire" it speaks to one of the key questions of the genre: when one becomes a vampire, how much of the human self remains? Is it a struggle to maintain that? Do they just shirk it off no questions asked? Does it diminish gradually? Is there hope for redemption?
Vampires can be played as metaphors for single life, addiction, STDs, grief (outliving loved ones), anger management and anything else you can imagine.
This is an acceptable sungenre and all the whining and crying in the world won't make it otherwise.
Posted By: M:-X (Guest) on November 20, 2008 at 10:14 AM
I can't stand the fact that the main male character has the stupid bedhead haircut i had in 5th grade and was made fun of for (rightly so, I looked stupid. Just like he does), wears more lip gloss than my sister, and has dick suckin lips that would make Angelina Jolie jealous. Why are women attracted to queers these days?
Posted By: the Mad Redneck (Registered) on November 20, 2008 at 11:02 AM
I personally hate the emopire thing going on. I much prefer movies like From Dusk Till Dawn and Near Dark but those movies will always be made, even if they are just B movies, but most of the time B movies are way better than the mainstream.
Dance of the Dead is the best zombie movie I've seen in a long time and is a total B movie. Horror is a genre I think that is better as a B movie.
Posted By: Curtis (Guest) on November 20, 2008 at 01:08 PM
Stoker's villain had no redeemable traits. He was a demonic force of nature that represented the The Dark Ages and The Black Death. There was a sexual element there, but it could also be interpreted as having a duality with rape at times. Because while Lucy may fancy in some regard what is happening to her, Mina despises it and Dracula(suck it Francis Ford Coppola!) and uses Dracula's own methods against him. So it's kind of a morality tale there. I.e., be a pure Christian woman like Mina and not a flirtatious hussy like Lucy. People also forget it's a revenge tale. John Harker isn't the wuss he's often been portrayed as on film and TV. He killed several of Dracula's minions before his escape, and Dracula decides to get payback by going after Harkers wife and her best friend.
Anne Rice's vampires represent counter-cultures, sub-cultures, and ultimate freedom. Freedom to do whatever you want, whenever you want, to whom ever you want. Without social, personal, and especially moral constraints. Her vampires may be the most human of all the interpretations , but not in the good way. They represent our worst aspects magnified by a thousand. They're a bunch of self-indulgent, amoral, degenerate, murderous, sociopaths who will on occasion do something heroic if it amuses them. While she played up the sex and glamor and anti-establishment mores aspects of vampires as much as she could, much of that seemed to be a cover at times. Because underneath all that charm and good fashion sense, Lestat is really nothing more then an animal.
But I don't blame Ann Rice for this Twilight nonsense. Her vampires were pretentious as hell but at least they were evil monsters. No, I blame Joss Whedon. I love Joss Whedon and I love Buffy and Angel, but lets face it he invented the hot, cuddly vampire stud when he created Angel. As great as the character later became, that dynamic of the heroic, brooding vampire in love with the outcast human(who happened to be special as well in some way) was copied a million times over to the point where it's being sold to kids now. My God the guy in Twilight even has Angel's hair! Sookie and Bill on Tru Blood may be a ripoff too but at least I get to see Rogue's tits.
They need to find some way to make vampires scary again. Make them the evil force of nature that they're supposed to be. Here's hopping this movie bombs so we can find someway to get back to that.
Posted By: Height (Guest) on November 20, 2008 at 05:01 PM
Why do people have such a fascination with vampires? I'd be happy if I never see another tv show, movie, or book about vampires again, whether they be evil monsters or lovesick teenagers.
Posted By: Eric von Erich (Guest) on November 20, 2008 at 05:30 PM
I never even heard of Twilight until it was on the cover of Entertainment Weekly a couple of months.
The thing is that the sexy/emo vampire thing has been going on for a long time now. I think it started with the Spike and Angel characters on "Buffy." with Buffy falling in love with Angel and Spike turning into a pseudo-hero.
Besides Twilight, we also have the "True Blood" show on HBO where every vampire/vampiress looks like fashion model, just with sharp teeth. Not a bad show, but it's not great either.
We need someone to come along and reinvent vampires (and basically every other monster) the same way zombies were reinvented by "28 Days Later." "30 Days of Night" and even "I Am Legend" were nice attempts, but both were clearly missing something.
Posted By: JLAJRC (Guest) on November 20, 2008 at 05:33 PM
"The bottom line is-- all of these horror icons (vampires, werewolves etc) are metaphorical figures."
Posted By: M:-X (Guest) on November 20, 2008 at 10:14 AM
No they're not.
Posted By: Guest#4578 (Guest) on November 20, 2008 at 05:35 PM
Don't worry dude. There will be a backlash to this where some good flicks will be made. Anyway, everything is "tweened" at some point because young girls are where the money is. Look at "Never Back Down." How pretty and well oiled were those guys? Do real full contact fighters look like that? NO! The problem is that it's hard to sell a guy with cauliflower ear, a crooked nose, and a Brazilian accent to American teeney boppers.
Posted By: guest guest (Guest) on November 20, 2008 at 05:39 PM
Every monster gets turned cuddly.
Mermaids were origionally troublemaking creatures that ran sailers aground, then they got turned into pretty little princesses.
Vampires arn't pretty, and arn't beautiful, in the origional myths they were discribed as ashy, not these clearisil spokespople. and they don't walk around in the Freaking Daylight. They drink blood and don't give a damn.
and I agree with Danger Man. the last thing we need right now is thse damn romances idolizing men, when the young men of our generation are raised to either be sissys or dumbasses. Seriously What are we teaching kids these days!
Posted By: Freakzilla (Guest) on November 20, 2008 at 07:22 PM
Anyway, everything is "tweened" at some point because young girls are where the money is. Look at "Never Back Down." How pretty and well oiled were those guys? Do real full contact fighters look like that? NO! The problem is that it's hard to sell a guy with cauliflower ear, a crooked nose, and a Brazilian accent to American teeney boppers.
Posted By: guest guest (Guest)
I hear you. Also most MMA fighters are covered in tatoos, I didn't notice that many on those guys.
bring back real masculine actors like Shatner and Stallone. men who actually looked like they could fight!
Posted By: Freakzilla (Guest) on November 20, 2008 at 07:29 PM
Copyright � 2011 411mania.com, LLC. All rights reserved.
Click here for our privacy policy. Please help us serve you better, fill out our survey.
Use of this site signifies your agreement to our terms of use.
