From: Montague_Kevin @Tandem.com (Kevvy Kev)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Firght Night (was re: Dracula)
Date: 21 Aug 92 18:03:22 GMT
Organization: In Effect Enterprises

In article <2723@nlsun1.oracle.nl>, gbradley@uks197.Berkeley.EDU (Gary Bradley) writes:
> 
> Montague_Kevin @Tandem.com (Kevvy Kev) writes...
> 
> >  Stoker certainly struck gold with his novel, but he was in 
> > fact anything but faithful to vampire lore.  In point of fact a vampire has
> > no ability to change into a wolf or for that matter a bat
> 
>   I agree 100%! (I did know this!). However, firstly everyone will tend
> to agree that vampires do not truly exist! They are legendary. 

Well. . .I know several people personally that would tend to disagree w/you.
And if you go to more primitive parts of the globe, I'm sure you'd be a bit
surprised.  Heck, even some not-so-primitive parts.
Also, this depends on your definition of "vampire," as per:

> Research
> suggests that in times past, diseases such as catatonia often resulted
> in premature burials (remember medicine was very primitive way back then
> [I don't know when "then" is]) and reviving sufferers popping out of
> their (shallow, in those days) graves gave rise to the vampire ledgend.
> However, it is a ledgend, it exists because enough people are prepared
> to believe it. Now the European version of a vamp is but one example;
> there are many interesting variations throughout the world's many cultures.

True, true, and true.  But the fact is that just about every culture has some
type of legend about vampires, and that there are chillingly similar elements
to every account.  The theory that they started because of premature burials
is but one; there are several others.  In point of fact, the etymology of the
word proceeds from 'vrykolakas,' a Slavic root referring to the swollen state
of a dead body.  This of course precludes the possibility of premature burial.

>    Secondly, Stoker took the European version, and pepped it up a bit to
> suit the purposes of his novel. In general, he romanticised it. 

No, he sensationalized it.  Again, to suit the tastes of the day.

> However,
> Stoker's novel then becomes unbelievably popular. It actually supercedes
> the proper vampire ledgend. It hits a wider audience, so it itself
> becomes the new "offical" ledgend. I like to think of a ledgend as a
> constantly evolving story. Who knows what a vampire will be supoosed to
> be like in 500 years more??


Ah, and here we come to the sticking point.  Stoker's novel in no way
"supercedes the proper vampire legend."  As you point out, there really is 
no definitive "vampire legend."  However, if you went to Rumania, and 
started asking questions, I'm sure that you'd get many strange looks; then
if/when you found someone to take you seriously, their idea of what a
vampire is would be quite different from what Stoker describes.  
Keep in mind that Hollywood has reached a Lot more people than Stoker, at
this point.  And since just about every movie about vampires has been 
influenced by Stoker, what people watching these films are getting is a
corruption of a corruption.

>    My point is that Stoker's vampire "rules" enjoy more acceptance than
> the original ledgend. 

Not at all.  As per above, depends on who/where you ask. "vampire 'rules'"
are not something set out by roleplayers or moviegoers.  They are 
rationalized by people who Believe. . .who pass what they believe on to
their children, and their children's children.  And this is not going to
change no matter how many works of simple fiction or Hollywood are produced.

> This is why I like to see vampires turning into
> wolves. However, nowadays Hollywood has more influence than Stoker and
> the "rules" have been altered again for better or for worse. But it's
> still a ledgend; if people want to treat Hollywood's rules as offical,
> then fine. If the masses accept it, the ledgend evolves. 

See above.

> The big
> advantage of Copolla's film sticking to the novel is not, I suppose, in
> choosing any "better" set of vampire rules, but using the mood, the plot,
> the characterisations and the eroticism in the novel - some things
> Hollywood often under-emphasised or omitted completely. In my original
> post, I was just trying to point out that using a vampire-as-wolf image
> at least includes one of the ingredients of an evolving ledgend that is
> so very often omitted.

A couple of points: 1) I see what you mean; I'm most interested in seeing the
most faithful adaptation of _Dracula_ possible.  I just wanted to point out
that this is not going to be a faithful representation of vampires. 
2) I will reiterate: I don't really believe the "legend" per se is evolving.
A couple of good books for those interested were written by Montague Summers
(no relation. . .I don't Think. . .): _The Vampire in Europe_ and _The Vampire
His Kith and Kin_.  They're both Real hard to find, but most libraries should
have one or the other.  
It's worth pointing out that Montague was an ordained Reverend, well-educated,
who became interested in the subject and decided to make a (fairly) scientific
investigation.  So he travelled the world, compiling case histories, talking
to people in various locales, examining evidence and written records.  
At the end of his travels, he was firmly convinced in the existence of vampires.

> P.S. For 'Hollywood' read any source of cinematic vampires.
> 
> P.P.S. The best "vampire" film I have ever seen has to be George A.
> Romero's "Martin". In that film, the vampire is a teenage boy who is not
> supernatural in any way, but definately mentally unstable. A great film,
> I would say more but I don't want to spoil it. Any comments?
> 
> +---------------------+------------------------------------------+
> | Gary Bradley 

I've heard about it, never got around to seeing it.  Now that you've given it
the thumbs up, I'll take a look.

An aside:  This is a subject close to home for me; I'm in the middle of my 
magnum opus, and it deals with many of these issues.  A free gift to whoever
gets the riddle in the sig:

Kevvy Kev
"I saw the dead produce the living, 
  And by the breath of the living the dead were consumed."
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies