From: Montague_Kevin @Tandem.com (Kevvy Kev)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Fir^h^hright Night (was re: Dracula)
Date: 21 Aug 92 18:15:45 GMT
Organization: In Effect Enterprises

In article <1719lqINNb0g@network.ucsd.edu>, mmaxwell@ucsd.edu writes:
> 
[snip]
> 
> Copppola's intent is to remain faithful to the novel "Dracula", whether
> or not "Dracula" itself is faithful to its source material is another matter.
> So i think that Coppola could care less about how accurate "Dracula" is
> in reference to its source material (ie, European mythology).  

I think you're right. . .but it would be interesting to see an effort to 
reconcile the two.  Because there are differences; this was my point.

> >Fright Night was even more ridiculous with that "as long as we kill the head
> >vampire before sunup she'll revert back to normal" business.  This is pure 
> >Hollywood. The reason the movie worked for me was that the writers clearly 
> >did this on purpose. . .Peter Vincent even has a line in the film, "Why 
> >shouldn't it work. . .so far everything else has been just like in the
> movies!" 
> >Good stuff.
> 
> At this point, anything that we call a vampire is a vampire, and any attributes
> we give them, we just accept.  

Hardly.  (I'm not sure how to attribute the "we"s you use above, but I think
you've taken liberties.) There are several well-defined legends, which have 
persisted since before the written word.  I doubt Stoker's novel or Coppala's
movie adapting Stoker's novel will affect that.

> (I'm not saying that this is a good thing, but
> that this is how things are.)  I was merely judging the movies on their own
> merits, not by their faithfulness to a legend that i don't even fully know.

This is what I plan to do: (Re)read the book, then go and watch the movie with
an eye towards consistency and faithfulness.  I expect the look and feel to 
be wholly authentic; what I'm interested in is more of the subtle nuances.
Coppala's already taken liberties with the novel, in that he went to the
source (Vlad Dracul(a)) as opposed to the text.  We'll see.

> "Fright Night" was surprisingly good, for one example.  Another vampire
> flick, "After Dark" was a well-done movie, stylish, darkly humorous, even if
> the
> ending is a complete deus-ex-machina happy ending.  (Oh, we'll just change
> out the evil vampire blood and put in good human blood and you'll be cured,
> live happily ever after).  Faithful to vampire legends?  No.  Good movie (minus
> the ending)?  Yes.

All of which I'd agree with.  I also liked The Lost Boys, to which all of your
comments apply as well.  I think you mean "Near Dark," however.  Featuring 
three _Aliens_ alums.

> BTW, what is a good sourcebook for vampire legends?  And what movies come 
> closest to following those?  

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.

A good movie?  Try Nosferatu. Coppala agrees it's the most faithful to Stoker's
novel.

> Matt Maxwell
> mmaxwell@ucsd.edu
> 
> "He took personality tests
>  and stapled them to his lower lip" -- Stan Ridgway

Great sig.  Solve the riddle in mine and win a free prize:

Kevvy Kev
"I saw the dead produce the living, 
  And by the breath of the living the dead were consumed."