From: gbradley@uks197.Berkeley.EDU (Gary Bradley)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Firght Night (was re: Dracula)
Date: 21 Aug 92 12:13:37 GMT
Reply-To: gbradley@uks197.Berkeley.EDU (Gary Bradley)

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

   My point is that Stoker's vampire "rules" enjoy more acceptance than
the original ledgend. 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. The big
advatage of Copolla's film sticking to the novel is not, I suppose, in
chosing 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.

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        |   "You receive a love letter from me and |
| ORACLE Corp, UK     |                  you're f*cked forever!" |
| Edinburgh, SCOTLAND |        - Frank Booth ("Blue Velvet")     |
+---------------------+------------------------------------------+
| "God damn the censor man"                                      |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+