Tag Archives: vampires

I might have waxed poetic about the written vampire before, but as I said in that post, there is something to be said for the onscreen demon. Watching a vampire incarnate, all charm and danger and sex appeal on the television screen, well. It conveys this excitement that literature cannot always guarantee. Besides, the freedom of the camera allows for slightly more depth. Visual clues can hint at scope for evil in a mere camera pan, a twitching lip can signal eternal hunger, a twinkling eye can add personality to the tortured soul. That being said, there are favorites. Amidst the Dracula knockoffs, the Hammer films, the eternal sexiness of Damon and Stefan and Bill Compton, there are some celluloid vamps that deserve my special attention and love.

“Bad Blood”, The X-Files

This might seem like cheating, putting an entire episode of a TV show, one not even primarily concerned with vampires, on my list about favorite vampires. To those naysayers, I have one response: it’s my list, and if you don’t approve of including The X-Files at any opportunity we have some core fundamental differences, and I might recommend a different pop culture site. “Bad Blood” is one of the first things that comes to mind with vampires on screen. A lot of that has to do with its place in The X-Files canon, as this Vince Gilligan-penned* script shows a Mulder/Scully counterpoint that must be experienced, setting the two against each other as they recall the events in Cheney, Texas, adding their own peccadilloes and interpretations.** This is episode is also unique in its portrayal of vampires. Yes it’s humorous, a rarely seen trait I’ll touch on more in a moment, but it also plays up the stereotypes while keeping an underlying menace. These vampires seem campy but still pack a punch.

* Yes, that Vincent Gilligan

** “And it wasn’t even real cream cheese; it was light cream cheese!”

Viago, What we do in the Shadows

Speaking of the humorous vein of vampire screen lore, something we’ve alluded to but haven’t quite discussed, Viago is by far my favorite. A close runner up is Paul Reubens in the Buffy the Vampire Slayer movie, with his extended death scene, but Viago wins the chuckle-off between the two. What We Do in the Shadows is a recent film, still in theatres near you if you’re lucky, but it’s well worth recognition. A hilarious mockumentary that gives Christopher Guest films a run for their money, Shadows follows vampire roommates as they traverse their afterlife. Viago is one of the youngest, a mere 183-years old, and still hangs on to some of the genteel markers of the Victorian age. A polite, fastidious vampire, Viago’s humor comes from his naturally sweet personality, especially as contrasted by the necessary bloodthirstiness of vampires. Watching him narrate his “hunting” process might have been the hardest I’ve laughed in a while.

Claudia, Interview with the Vampire

All vampire stories tend to skew towards one type: young and sexy. With the promise of eternal youth, why wouldn’t vampirism be attractive? What a tempting offer, to be at your prime forever. Claudia, the scheming “child” vampire played by Kristen Dunst in Interview with the Vampire, disabuses viewers of that notion with remorseless efficiency. Killed by Louis and revived by Lestat, the five-year old begins her eternity simply enough, learning about the world and murder from her two older companions. But then she grows mentally throughout the years, entering maturity internally while externally remaining cherubic. The division drives her mad. Having the capability of an eternal being while trapped in the body of a minor leads Claudia to become one of the most vindictive, heartless creatures. Incidentally, that’s what makes her so fascinating to watch.

Nosferatu, Nosferatu the Vampyr (1979)

Nosferatu is the original on-screen vampire. F.W. Murnau’s unapproved rip-off of the Dracula story introduced viewers to a stalking menace. The original is a gorgeous movie, currently found on Netflix, and if you have the disposition to sit through silent films it’s well worth your time, building an astonishing air of menace that aged beautifully. But if silent isn’t your thing, consider Werner Herzog’s version, which more than preserves the fear and desperation of the original. Klaus Kinski is absolutely astounding as Nosferatu. While the original Max Schreck was rumored to actually be a vampire, I willingly believe it with Kinski. He achieves an entire era of hopelessness through one frame, the pale face and staring eyes striking terror and pity in the heart of any who look upon him. As he ushers in plague and walks suddenly into frame, Kinski’s Nosferatu is the epitome of ageless villain.

Spike, Buffy the Vampire Slayer

The ultimate bad boy, the king of quip, the punk prince of darkness, and hands down the best vampire in the Buffy-verse. Eat your heart out, Angel (and Angelus, while you are almost interesting, you just don’t measure up to this amount of wonderful). Spike isn’t just the best vampire on TV, he’s the best vampire to watch. He fits all requirements a fan could possibly have: he’s totally violent and insane, and yet there’s heart. He has the slight stalker tendencies that make every Twihard’s heart flutter (I won’t elaborate further on those Buffy-bot years), but they develop into a rich tortured soul, the demon besieged by a bad case of the loves. Watching Spike progress throughout the seasons, all snark and sexiness, is enough to justify the vampire’s eternal life on screen. Writers take note: this is how you do a vampire. And trust me, with Spike, I’d like to.

Some of our topics are those we know we want to cover even before we sit down to map out each month’s posts. And some of them come as we look at what’s been left out and what, in the moment, we are saddest to leave out. This is one of the latter. To make sure that this and my other posts were made with the content fresh in mind, I watched loads and loads and loads of things. Aside from being awesome for its own sake, I learned a little about my own tastes and found some threads between things I might not have otherwise. No complaints here.

Last week, I told you a little about my tastes and I pointed you at some of my favourite English language vampire films that you might not have seen. I mentioned there that it was lacking a few titles to make it my comprehensive favourites list. Some of those missing weren’t major cinematic releases (at least not, as far as I know, in English-speaking countries), and those are listed here.

Today, I want to take a look at vampires through the lens of some non-English language media. Seven films and one programme…yikes! But still not every possible thing, because the whole world has vampire stories to tell. I find that the less culturally familiar expectations, ideologies, and thoughts of such films and programmes can increase the escapism of a piece. So, let’s escape with some bloodsuckers who don’t speak our language.

I’m going to opine a bit, so I ought to remind you that vampire stuff is a matter of taste. Last week’s post about English language independent vampire films I really adore should have given you a better idea of what I prefer. It may help you decide whether my tastes are applicable to your viewing habits. Most of what I’m including here is stuff I rather enjoyed. Some of it was…mediocre. I know myself well enough to have avoided things that I was likely to find thoroughly uninteresting.

Note: I would really have liked to have seen A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night and include it here, but I haven’t had a chance. Good to have something left on my media to-do list though, right? (I also tried but failed to get my hands on Frostbiten with English subtitles, but it’s funny, so maybe for the best….)

Update: Just before the month ended, A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night showed up on Netflix. Hurrah! I’m not going to bulk up an already long post, but see this one. (And find me the soundtrack, okay?) Another great female vampire in a Persian film. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Persian film before…

Let the Right One In (or Låt den rätte komma in): Sweden
This was one of the first few things that came to mind when I chose this angle on the topic. I loved this film. For those of you unfamiliar, this is, basically, a coming of age story—you know, the type where a young protagonist meets his first love…and she happens to be a young girl-sized vampire called Eli (pronounced like “Ellie,” English speakers). Re-watching this time, I was struck by Eli’s obvious upset after having to feed herself and the way that she knows better than to be involved with a human but can’t help herself. The film is broody and moody (and quite a number of scenes occur in places that are woody), and proves that I don’t need my vampire to be someone attractive to and age-appropriate for me. I normally wouldn’t care much for a coming of age film…but they put in vampires and made it something that I will watch on purpose and without anyone else suggesting it. Maybe because the normal adolescent feelings aren’t something I want to deal with unless there’s a supernatural angle to make the intensity and ill-fitting-ness feel like it’s appropriate to the situation. (Though I do love when a film manages to remind you that it might actually not be cool to live forever, especially if you had to live forever on the threshold of puberty. Ugh.) Or maybe I just can’t think anything is sweet unless it involves a bloodsucking creature of the night.

Vampire Princess Miyu (or 吸血姫(ヴァンパイア) 美夕): Japan
I hadn’t seen this anime in years, but it was another that quickly came to mind for this list. I didn’t remember anything other than thinking Miyu, our vampire lead, was adorable and that she had a habit of giggling. The internet tells me that there were two versions of this made. The 1988 version, also known as the OVA (short for original video animation) has the giggling. It also has only 4 episodes and a less cute, darker story arc. I’m focusing here on the longer (26 episodes total)  1997 version, though I enjoyed and recommend both.

Miyu isn’t your standard Western vampire with your standard goals. It’s not spoiling anything if I tell you she’s a young girl (or appears to be) and she’s our heroine, fighting a different supernatural foe (that’s her fate) each episode. It starts out seeming pretty light, but takes some turns for the darker and more complicated. (I wouldn’t say this is for kids…teens and older, maybe? If you liked Serial Experiments Lain, one of the main creators of that was, apparently, a force in this as well. Though this doesn’t get nearly as surreal as Lain.) I don’t know that I think it’s incredible, but it was enjoyable and steps outside the usual in a manner preferable to some of the others I watched in this vampire binge. For those of you who love cute schoolgirl plots in your anime (plots that, so we’re clear, don’t get sexual), there’s some of that in here for you. Plus, here’s another vampire who goes out in the sun. Always a bonus for me.

We Are the Night (or Wir sind die Nacht): Germany
As with the previous two, this film was quickly added to my list of subtitled delights. I know I’ve (unintentionally) mainly stuck to female vampires so far this month, but for those of you who want vampires you can ogle, at least the vampires in this one aren’t kids. Though one of the things I’m sure I’m subconsciously enjoying is the way that being vampires finally seems to give some less-privileged people a chance at being empowered and not at the mercy of men and a male-centred society. Yeah, I went there. But I’m just dipping my toe in “there.” Unlike the four women at the centre of this film. They’re definitely enjoying the vampiric traits that helped them out from under the gender-based oppressions of the times they lived in. Which isn’t to say that this film is just for the women, definitely not, but that they might enjoy some bits of it a little more. That said, other cool features of this film…We get a glimpse at the world as if seeing it via a vampire’s eyes. We get to see the aspects that, as one character notes, every woman would kill for, but we also get to see some of the downsides (we aren’t being sold a feminist utopia). We get to watch them teach a newbie what she can do, so we get shots of fun abilities being tried out that might not have come up normally. This lets the filmmaker show us their vision of what vampires are like. I love little touches like seeing the transformation that comes from being turned into a vampire or the unique “kickback” from administering the changing bite rather than the killing bite. We get to see a range of personalities and levels of acceptance of their nature and their peers’ actions in our vampires. As a fan of individualism, I appreciate that each of our four vampires has their own personality rather than one homogeneous take on their species. There’s death, brutality, and a little gore right alongside beauty, yearning, and a glimmer of hope for the humanity of the inhuman. (This more than most others caused me to get really hung up on the question of how vampires would primp. Because I can’t buy into my own inevitable future as a vampire if I don’t know how I’ll keep myself made up the way I like.)

As noted last week, whilst they’re quite different films, I think this would pair well with Byzantium for those of you who like to do double features.

Night Watch (or Ночной дозор): Russia
Before we get to the vampires, I want to make sure to mention the fine job done on the subtitles for this film. That’s not sarcasm, either. Having now watched quite a number of subtitled films all in a row, I’ve seen all sorts of good and bad examples. And they’ve made sure that the subtitles on this one are part of the film. They’re a bloody work of art, and I want you to appreciate that. So, aside from subtitles…This film is a sort of gritty, modern fairytale about power, on a personal and a societal level (but not in the sort of moralising way that will take away the fun). The vampires in this one are a mixed lot and commonplace. Few, if any, are living the life of pampered, superior beings. Plot-wise, it’s probably helpful to know that this is based on the first in a pentalogy of books. You are going to get something of a cliffhanger. In good news, the cinematic plan (and, no, I don’t know if it covers all 5 books) was for only two films. Hunt down Day Watch and you’re sorted. (I made sure to re-watch that as well to confirm there were no relevant, tasty bits for this post. There were not, but that doesn’t mean that I think you shouldn’t watch the film. You should.) The real stand out thing for me with these vampires is that they can send out a call for their victims so they don’t have to go hunting (somewhat similar to what the lead vampire in the second—and truly horrible—Lost Boys film could do). And they can see themselves in mirrors sometimes. For this one, even if you’re not huge on vampires, I’d say check it out to enjoy the larger supernatural world it shows is imposed on the one in which we live.

Rigor Mortis (or 殭屍): China
Initially, I wondered if I’d misunderstood and this was actually a ghost story. Instead, it is one of the most alien of all the things I watched or read for this month and probably also the grimmest. I’m sure my very limited familiarity with the culture made it creepier, but maybe there are creepy implications I missed because of that? Either way, I’m glad I watched…but I’m not sure what I can tell you without spoilers. A retired actor moves into (what seems to me) a run-down building where sinister things are afoot. Not a film for my easily scared friends, but I’m calling it a must-see for my other vampire-loving mates. And don’t be like me and multi-task, because you might miss some really well-done visuals, some of which are nicely subtle.

I should mention that the very end made me angry. Which makes me extra angry, because poor endings can ruin entire films…Though the way it’s described in the plot synopsis on Wikipedia, I might be reading the intent of the last scene incorrectly. Totally possible given my limited cultural perspective, so I’m going to believe that…(Check Wikipedia if the very end also made you angry because you thought they were using an over-used cop-out of a trope.) Wikipedia also tells me that this was an homage to the Mr. Vampire films, of which the lead actor in Rigor Mortis was the lead. So there’s likely loads more I’d have appreciated if I’d seen the Mr. Vampire films…

Strigoi: United Kingdom/Romania
This one, I acknowledge, is a little bit of a stretch (strigoi aren’t technically the same thing as vampires and the film is written in English). But! Strigoi are vampire-like creatures from Romanian folklore and are one of the inspirations for Dracula, the film takes place in Romania and uses Romanian actors, and the writer’s husband is Romanian (and she wrote this in English because she knew her Romanian wasn’t good enough for the wordplay and slang that are such a part of the language). This film about a young man who returns to his village to find things aren’t quite right is billed as a comedy, but I find that aspect of it subtle and well-done, so don’t let that put you off if, like me, you find vampire comedies don’t often work for you. There are actually scenes that I wouldn’t think of as comic if it weren’t for the music during them. It was during this film that I finally realised that the thing where a new vampire who doesn’t know what they are but just feels hungry, so hungry, and doesn’t know why is one of the normal experiences for many vampires. They (vampires in general) are beings of hunger. Hungry for blood, often hungry for other corporeal delights (quite often symbols of sexual hunger), and emotionally hungry (for companionship or revenge or thrills if they’ve been around long enough for the boredom to kick in). For the strigoi, the only real benefit to their condition seems to be immortality. There are some interesting twists and definitely a perspective on the topic that’s not like the others I watched. One of its non-standard ideas (though not entirely unheard of) is that some are born vampires and others become vampires after they die. As in Night Watch, we have a range of types of vampires, mainly not living in anything at all near luxury.

Cronos: Mexico
Here’s another unique take on what it takes to become a vampire and what it’s like to be one. It’s Guillermo del Toro, so you already know this isn’t going to be a suave and sexy kind of vampire story. And, really, when it’s a bug to blame for vampirism, can it be sexy? (And, really, when it’s Guillermo del Toro, a bug seems like a pretty unspectacular creature…) Extra un-sexy to me when it’s a bug that’s not biting anyone I’d consider age-appropriate. For me, this was enjoyable but not in a “you must see this!!!” way. Probably not something I’d watch again.

Thirst (or 박쥐): Korea
This was the other film that I watched that was, for me, mediocre. A priest becomes a vampire due to a disease. He keeps the core of his personality and morality, but finds it challenged by the physiological changes and demands that come with being a vampire. It also has some of the least sexy sexual stuff that I think was supposed to be sexy. Maybe it’s a cultural difference. I don’t know…but the person who made these choices is definitely not invited to have sex with me (nor is anyone who finds these scenes sexy…we are clearly on different pages). Also possibly a cultural issue is that I kept wondering if some of this was supposed to be funny. I’m honestly not trying to mock it…I’m just baffled and, in spite of the fact that I feel like this had some promise, it didn’t really click with me. I watch plenty of long films, but something in this one (the erratic pacing or maybe just a story that wasn’t sufficiently engaging) had me feeling very done at only an hour in. (I looked at the clock, sure it must be wrapping up, found I had an hour left, and was filled with dread.) This one gets the award for Least Good Result In Spite Of Plenty Of Potential. Or something less wordy.

One conversation that Cat and I have had multiple times is one where we are mutually upset about what TV and films have done with Dracula. Whilst I think Cat’s enjoyment of the book is greater than mine, I do like the book and I do think it was an important point in the history of how vampires now exist in the public consciousness. Cat already covered that…so, today, we’re going to pretend to be restrained as we touch on the two adaptations (and we use that word with…well, with some looseness in the case of the film and with barely-repressed laughter in the case of the programme) that bother us.

Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992 film)

Cat: First off, I have to give some sort of credit: this is by far the most faithful film adaptation of Dracula the world has ever seen. It includes all three of Lucy’s suitors (even, as one of my film professors was always excited to say, the Texan! There’s a Texan in Victorian England!). It has both Mina and Lucy, not some strange amalgamation of them. And it includes the basic story beats—a sojourn in Transylvania, the long slow death of Lucy, and the final showdown. Yet somehow all that initial faithfulness just makes the film’s ultimate betrayal of story and tone all the more painful.

Coppola’s direction makes this far too lurid, and, as such, far too obvious. The book does have some moments of bloodshed and mayhem—like the staking of Lucy, which I have to say the film got spot on—but there’s nothing like the waterfalls of bright red corn syrup that constantly flow throughout the film. The same thing happens with the sexiness of it all. Three vampire brides hesitating alluringly at Jonathan’s throat become three Turkish belly dancers instigating an orgy. A tall hooded figure leaning over the prostrate Lucy becomes a werewolf going to town on her. Lucy herself goes from sweet bimbo to queen of innuendo. It makes her role way more slut-shaming than the book’s actual metaphor, which actually argues that anyone can fall prey to the unnatural appetites of the Count. The way Coppola portrays her, Lucy totally had it coming, I mean, did you see how she was dressed? And I’m not just being a prude. Obviously I’m of the opinion that vampires have an innate sexiness and brutality that make them interesting, and I’m all for that being used in the appropriate situation. But when you’re adapting Stoker’s novel? Not appropriate. The beauty of the novel is the subtle horror. Dracula is all the more terrifying for the things we don’t see. For the deathly promises he whispers in your ear, not shoves down your throat. Stoker instills fear by putting the reader on edge, building scenarios that are pieced together separately and made all the more terrifying for the slow reveals. In tone, it’s closer to a dry Brontë novel (the lurking fear in the pit of your stomach) than something by Stephen King (the car’s aliiiiiive!). Coppola makes everything so over-the-top that the film plays more as comedy than horror. A man turning into a humanoid structure of rats? That’s comedy gold!

But my main complaint is the damn framing device. Coppola decides to take an already-overloaded story and pile a pointless narrative on top—the narrative of Dracula as Vlad Dracula, the Turkish invader who only became a vampire after his one true love, Elisabeta, accidentally committed suicide. Thus, all his actions from that fated Turkish beginning are only motivated by him mourning his lost love. Who turns out to be reincarnated in Mina Harker! Twist! Again, this is all not included in the book, nor hinted at even, and works only to coat the entire story with a sickening veneer of saccharine. I won’t even touch the fact that Dracula was not Vlad the Impaler (though he wasn’t). Even without the historical inaccuracy, this convention doesn’t work. It makes Dracula a tragic figure, a man spurred on by love. It’s a modern vampire convention to make the beast sympathetic. We love that in our current vampire stories, but it’s not Dracula. Drac isn’t spurred to London in hopes of reunification with his wife. He doesn’t seduce Mina by dances and the floating candles from Hogwarts. He’s trying to seek fresh blood. In the book, Dracula is primal, not lovestruck. And making Mina a willing victim of Dracula completely destroys her significance to the story. Mina is supposed to be the perfect balance between modern and traditional. She’s the ideal. She’s set up as the ultimate woman: caring in a motherly way, intelligent and familiar with new technologies, a doting wife, sexually experienced, but religiously pure. Making her an ancient damsel-in-distress throws a wrench in all that character construction. In short, the whole “Love Never Dies” tagline of the film is a travesty and makes me want to puke.

Amber: Cat pretty much nailed it. But I want to make sure to point out that this film is basically a high budget fanfic of the type that’s supposed to tell the same story but in a way that we have sympathy for the villain. Look, I’m all about those, but why can’t you just make DRACULA? Cos this wasn’t Bram Stoker’s Dracula; this was Coppola’s Dracula fic. But at least this Dracula could go out in the day, which is canon, unlike the whole cool-but-not-canon plot about trying to address the sunlight issue in the programme…

Dracula (TV programme, 2013-2014)

Amber: Initially, I was kind of excited. I’m a fan of Jonathan Rhys Meyers and had seen him do enough “sexy and dangerous” to believe in him as Dracula. Just look at some of his hungry and calculating moments in Velvet Goldmine. The trailers looked sensual and plush…And, here’s the thing, if they hadn’t called it Dracula, it probably would have been mostly okay with me. They had a reasonable budget (or the ability to fake it), some talented actors, some interesting twists (given my main interest on my current re-read of Dracula is the gender role stuff, watching them give some power to a woman, even if it sometimes felt a bit ham-handed…well, that was nice…also, as a big Tesla fan, I was into the technological innovation thing), and one of the few non-useless Renfields ever to grace the screen. And given one of the things I’m constantly annoyed at in terms of standard practices when people do adaptations is how they take away all the real power and intrigue of Renfield as Stoker wrote him, I was pleased with this capable and clever Renfield. Anyway, yes, they had good things here. But!

But this was not Dracula. They took names, they placed it in London, but they otherwise leave the book out of the picture, if you will. I know they wanted the name recognition, but vampires are big enough (and JRM isn’t exactly an unknown actor) that they might want to freak out a little less over that. I mean, really, I can sum it all up as: THIS WAS NOT DRACULA. This wasn’t even the character of Dracula in an alternate universe. This isn’t the same person. As I re-read the book last month, I was constantly pausing to shriek at things that prove that. My current big one is that Dracula makes it clear to Harker that he wants to blend in, calling out in particular his desire to have no discernible accent when he speaks English. So, yeah, the clear move for the programme to make was a Dracula who has a really huge American accent—look, I’m not asking for JRM’s lovely normal accent, but we know he can do a posh British accent—and couldn’t stand out more unless he wore a sequin-covered suit and was also a one-man band.

And, just in case they’re thinking they’re going to try to revive it…Listen, in addition to just giving the characters different names (which will appease me a lot), could you also try to get corsets that fit the women? There were times I was sure Lady Wetherby was going to lose her lovely breasts to some of the ill-fitting corsets into which they shoved her. And whilst the men’s costuming is pretty good, the women’s is not right for the period. If you’re making a period piece and asking me to suspend disbelief for the vampire-ness of it, which I will gladly do, please at least get things like costuming correct. And…well, now I’ll shut my gob and give Cat a chance…

(However, dear reader, I feel constrained to make a recommendation. If you’re looking for a TV programme with a dark aesthetic, set in Victorian times, and containing a strong female character and assorted other supernatural things– including vampires, I must suggest Penny Dreadful. That programme is brilliant.)

Cat: Amber has covered all my book whingings well, and seriously? Not using JRM to his full potential? What a travesty. My main complaint with this sad pile of drivel is that it was a waste. A waste of prime, Victorian vampire potential. I went into this willing to suspend my belief and my novel-loving soul. After all this was TV, my other main love, and I am not blind to the ways a story has to change to fit the television landscape. To make Dracula last throughout several season there would need to be more. So much more, in fact, that this is an area where all the exaggeration of Coppola’s version would have been a welcome addition. Instead of going full-vampire, this Dracula went full-business, and I went full-yawn. Boring subplots about financial intrigue, boring subplots about Mina’s medical career, and boring whining about Dracula’s lost love (oh yeah, don’t worry, the TV show took all that malarky from the Coppola film). Not only did this program fail as a Dracula adaptation, it failed as anything interesting.