Horror Taboos

[Pumpkin_Man]

So many if not most people don't really know the true nature of vampire lor. A vampire, according to the lor that was prevelant hundreds of years ago when people really believed in that sort of thing, was a disgusting, horible smelling, horible looking, rotting corpse that walked around at night, and attacked the living for their blood. In other words, an un dead serial killer who needed the blood of the living to maintain his existance. This who idea of the suave, sophisticated, romantic Count Dracula type vampire didn't relaly happen until Bela Lugosi portrayed the infamous cont first on stage, and then in the 1931 classic film. Bram stoker's idea of Count Dracula was more along the lines of what was portrayed in the silent era movie "Nosferatu," which was based on his novel. Since I read the book years ago, and also read a lot of the original vampire lore that came out of places like Romania and other Eastern European countries, it's easy for me to seperate what a vampire is really supposed to be. The Suave, handsom, undead, reluctant monster that sweapt women off of their feet was purely the invention of Hollywood.

It's the same deal with wearwolf lor. The use of silver to kill a wearwolf was purely an invention of Hollywood, and was unheard of in genuine wearwolf lor. That notion came about when Lon Chaney's classic "The Wolf Man" was released to the movie houses back in the late 30s or early 40s.

Mike

[VanHelsingStandIn]

You got that right PM! How do you go from something as nasty as described by Bram Stoker to what Eddie Murphy looked like in Vampire in Brooklyn?

You listen to Stoker describe what Draculas Brides look like, and you think...."No way can I get drunk enough to get jiggy with that!!"

Speaking of horror taboos. Angela Basett was really good in Vampire in Brooklyn. But what I want to know is; what on earth possesd her to make Critters 4?!!! If that ain't a horror taboo, I don't know what is!

[Murfreesboro]

LOL! Never saw Critters 4.

About the suave, romantically appealing vampire--I am re-reading Dracula right now (haven't gotten very far with it yet), and it's true that Stoker doesn't make the Count sound like an irresistibly handsome man. However, I suspect that the novel Dracula, back in its day, did have a kind of erotic energy that helped make it successful. Especially if you try to re-imagine the mores of that time, and the kind of literature then prevalent, I think much of what the vampire was doing, or trying to do, had an erotic edge to it. The Hollywood vampires made more explicit what was probably implicit in the book.

[Pumpkin_Man]

It's been a long time since I read the book "Dracula," but I could not see anything erotic or romantic about Bram Stoker's portrayal of Count Dracula. I did see something of a "rescue the damsel in distress" scenario with the character of Dr. VanHelsing, but that is all the romance I could pick up on. I did read the book when I wa only 17, though. Perhaps I missed something being so young, and not really knowing the mores of the Victorian Era, other then they were very strict and repressed.

Mike

[Murfreesboro]

Well, I'm still in the early part (Jonathan Harker is still a prisoner in Dracula's castle), so I haven't gotten to the attacks in London yet. But I'm thinking the Count's attacks on the young, unmarried women, and the intimate nature of those attacks, is a sort of veiled eroticism. It's not so much that he himself would have been appealing, but that the nature of what he was doing might have seemed sexually threatening, especially in that long-ago time. It could have been seen as a metaphor. It's probably not such a big step from that interpretation to the idea that he would be in some way alluring to his potential victims. Sort of like the serial killer you mentioned (perhaps in another thread?), the Ted Bundy type, who was actually rather attractive.

[Pumpkin_Man]

Murf, in real life, monsters are attractive. True evil is not going to come right out and tell you "hey, I'm EVIL." True evil is going to try to hide behind some guise of goodness. Ted Bundy used his good looks and charming manners to lewer his victims to their deaths. The vampires of lor are more or less obviously evil monsters, but have powers to victimize the living. I do agree, that you may have a point about Bran Stoker's character. Sort of a veiled eroticism, or some air of mystery that women find attractive in the old count.

Mike

[Murfreesboro]

You are right about the real-life evil-doers. As my mother used to caution me, They don't have horns and a tail.

[VanHelsingStandIn]

Dracula is taught as a class at many colleges. And yes there is an erotic element to the book. The book was written during the Victorian period and sexual repression was running rampant. Stoker uses the biting of someone by the vampire as a metaphor for making whoopie. Blood is used instead of semen. It was never confirmed but, strongly hinted that even though Stoker was married, he was in fact gay and was involved with his agent.

Of course the biggest surprise to most people is when they read the book, they find Dracula can come out during the day, has the ability to change the weather, and insted of being killed by a stake in the heart; he meets his end by an American cowboy from Texas, who kills him with a Bowie knife.

[VanHelsingStandIn]

You are sooooo right about true evil. True evil doesn't hide behind a cape or fangs or turns into some type of creature. True evil can be standing next to you right now and you would never know it.

[NeverMore]

You've obviously met my roommate.

[Pumpkin_Man]

Good one, NeverMore.

VanHelsing, I don't buy into Bram Stoker being gay, but one never knows. It was over 100 years ago, and he's no longer around to tell us. As for what goes on in the book, I was very suprised to find how much Hollywood took 'poetic license' with vampire lor inorder to suit their agenda. Not that I really see a problem with it, as I enjoyed all the Universal Monster Classics, as much as I enjoyed "Dark Shadows," but there are a lot of inconsistancies with genuine vampire or wearwolf lor, and what you see in the movies or on tv.

Mike

[VanHelsingStandIn]

I think you're right PM. If you look hard enough at any famous person you can find some story or myth about him/her being involved in some type of deviant behavior. I think its gotten to the point that we over indulge, instead of kicking back and enjoying the book/movie for what it is; entertainment!

You know the movie Wolfman was very much a metaphor. It was heavily influenced by WWII. Many of the people behind the scenes of the movie, wanted to show that man can change into a monster and it doesn't matter how good of a man he is. Given the right conditions even a good man can become a cold blooded killer. The fact the Wolfman went back and forth from being human to being a monster showed the internal and eternal struggle man must go through to keep from going over to evil. Sometimes it doesn't work though, and he becomes a beast. We saw it in 1944 with the Wolfman and we saw it in 1977 with Darth Vader, who even dressed like a Nazi.

Long after we're gone, they'll be coming up with new ways to package evil.

[VanHelsingStandIn]

You've obviously met my roommate.

You're roommate is my ex girlfriend!???

[Boogeyman]

You've obviously met my roommate.

You're roommate is my ex girlfriend!???

That is some sick twisted triangle.

[Rising Dead Man]

I think the sexual repression thing is actually a myth.