So what does the right vampire story entail? Lore. The lore is really important. When I read "Dracula" in middle school (the unabridged version, btw) it entirely shaped the way I thought of vampires. Yes, there was a romantic quality to him, but there was also a vicious need that drove Dracula. The movie kind of made him more sympathetic than he really was in the book, but there was still that animalistic urge that made him want something and stop at nothing to get it. Beyond that, it laid the groundwork for what was necessary for vampires to maintain themselves (dirt from the homeland, the coffin in Lucy's case, blood, and minions), the shapes he could take (bat, wolf, and smoke) as well as what could damage them (crosses, silver, stake to the heart, beheading, roses (look it up), holy water, and fire). No sunlight to be found.
Let's discuss that last one. That little change been added in the last 100 years. Nowhere in Stoker's masterpiece is it said that vampires are damaged by sunlight. Dracula walks around in daylight and has no real effect, although it has been said that he is not as powerful. No, that part of lore was added by "Nosferatu" in 1922. And honestly, I really don't mind that. There has to be some changes from time to time in order to keep the stories fresh and new. Somewhere along the line the killing of the "master" will free the subjects was added and used to great effect in movies like "The Lost Boys" and "Fright Night (1985)" (2 of my other favorites). (SPOILER ALERT) "Dracula 2000" added that Dracula had a new back story (which was never really given in the book, just the movie version's Vlad the Impaler back story) of being Judas Iscariot which made many of the things he feared make more sense so I actually liked those changes.
What really rubs me the wrong way? The half-blood vampire stuff. The half vampire, half werewolf stuff. The sparkly, brooding, "vegetarian" vampire stuff. Or taking the Dracula story and warping it into something completely different that just uses the names (I'm staring daggers at you, "Dracula" TV show). I understand trying to move things into a new time and place since much of the Gothic style has been played to death from the '60s and '70s Hammer films, but do it right. Even with all it's faults, True Blood (or more accurately the BOOKS the show was originally based on since the show jumped the shark somewhere in season 3) actually stuck with much of the original lore with a few little twists to make it interesting. Don't bring back "Dark Shadows" and make it a farce! When they brought it back in the '90s, it was AWESOME. It was present day and it worked, not this pseudo '60s in the 2000s crap. I digress.
I just want my old school vampires back. I'm hoping this new "Dracula Untold" will maybe move in the right direction, but I doubt it. Especially since Vlad Tepes was not an inspiration for Dracula in the first place. Plus, it seems they've gone really Hollywood with it all. Ugh. If you want to see good vampires anymore, you've got to delve into the past. Seek out the movies I've mentioned above plus "Fright Night 2" and a lesser known series of movies called "Subspecies" which are really good (if not really dated now, lol). The first 2 movies of that one are great and then they decline, but still, good twists on the old formula.Let me know if I've forgotten any of your favorites!
No comments:
Post a Comment