I discovered this National Geographic documentary on vampires on YouTube. It’s from late 2006 but probably more relevant and interesting for people nowadays than 3 years ago.
Watch it – the narrative and ideas are very enjoyable. It’s a crash course on vampire folklore as well as weaving an argument pro-and-con vampire existence using history, forensic science, modern medicine and chilling case studies.
The most intriguing part of the episode for me was when they interviewed so-called real life vampire Don Henrie. I’ve seen Don before on television interviews (Tyra Banks show I think from a couple years ago) and he’s apparently the “face” of the real life vampire community in the U.S. That being said, I recall hearing that the vampire community is torn about having a real life celebrity face like Don. Though it’s nice that real vampires finally get some recognition (Don’s openness welcomes others of his kind to step out), other vampires are furious because their very existence is supposed to be shrouded in mystery. Also, anti-Don vampires are upset because now pseudo-real vampire posers are stepping out and claiming the dark gift and they’re obviously not the real real thing. Because technically real real vampires would never do such a thing. And pseudo-real vampires are obviously just impostors channeling the fictional myths fed to the public by media so no one truly knows what vampires are really like … and then the argument gets supremely confusing (and preposterous) and probably best not to think too deeply about it.
Visit Don Henrie’s Myspace page if you’d like – he lives by the motto, “You cannot see the stars without the darkness.” (I believe he only found his darkness a couple years ago because he used to be a computer programmer or something in a 9-5 job… before he suddenly realized that he was a vampire. That’s called “awakening.”)
Some of the stories National Geographic shares concerning real vampires are not as nice as Don’s (since he doesn’t prey on innocent humans). Some are deeply unsettling. But that just means it makes for a good watch and lessons to learn.
I was roaming Suburban Vampire when I came across an intriguing list of vampire-related films that are slated to be released in 2010. Being a huge film buff, I’d like to share the ones I think are going to be most exciting with you. I was pleasantly surprised by the length of the list (or perhaps not judging by the widespread hype about the genre nowadays), but as usual, most offerings coming up are strictly B-movie fare and not worth the light of day. (Unfortunately since I am so dedicated to dark material concerning immortals, I tend to suffer through these horrid films anyways. And yes, they never do get better.)
Bucking the trend were the following mentions. Of course, I won’t know until I actually view the films whether they’re of merit or not but my hopes are high. Sorry to say for many of the films I won’t be able to offer a more specific time frame of when the movie will be released, other than to say “sometime in 2010.” (Helpful, I know.) I tried to uncover this information online but other sources seem at a lost also. I think the only way to find out is to upgrade to an IMDb Pro account and alas, that is not going to happen.
The Historian
Based of course on the 2005 best-selling novel of the same name by Elizabeth Kostova, people are sure to get excited about this film as more news emerges. I’m envisioning a similar historical thriller film style to the Da Vinci Code, except much more eerie. Kostova was originally inspired to write this book because of childhood stories her father told her of Dracula; hence, the novel blends history and folklore surrounding Dracula and his real life inspiration Vlad Tepes, or Vlad the Impaler.
Sony bought rights to the novel for $1.5 million and the film is currently in development. Kostova has recommended certain famous names to portray her characters, however, she is insisting that the actor who plays Dracula must be unknown. For someone to convey a truly frightening and strange presence, she believes that the audience must be unfamiliar with him.
The Knights Templar
Universal Pictures always gets the most interesting pick in movies. The Knights Templar story is definitely not new, but this time around the twist is that the knights are forced to defend the Holy Grail from a band of vampires who seek to have it destroyed. Variety states that the storyline occurs following the Crusades where these legendary fighters from the Middle Ages combat an evil vampire army. We wonder what motive these vampires will have for wanting to destroy the cup of Christ. If it’s anything like Dracula 2000 then I am beyond excited. I love religion and folklore mash ups. Plus, good-old-fashioned showdowns with swords are also a perk to watch.
Let Me In
If the title sounds vaguely familiar (along with the poster) then it’s because this is the U.S. remake of the beloved dark Swedish film Let the Right One In. The original coming-of-age tale discusses feelings of childhood alienation, bullying, improbable friendship, young love and vampires. The original has garnered major praise as both bleak and wonderfully beautiful. Though a critical success, the Swedish version didn’t attract mainstream American audiences, which is what this new adaptation aspires to do. I loved the original – the film’s vibe is definitely chilling, but you can’t help but smile at the growing love between Oskar and the vampire Eli. Watch it and then wait for the adaptation to hit theaters.
There is an official release date for this and it’s October 1, 2010.
Last Blood
Post-apocalyptic world where vampires must protect the last remaining group of humans safe from the zombie plague… because or else they would starve. I know the story sounds like a joke (and not a very good one), but I read a bit of the comic (that the film is based on) online… and I must say, I was quite pleasantly surprised. The vampires are skilled killers but they also seem to have hearts. (One of them was responsible for killing Hitler back in the day.) I think the vibe of the comic is pretty tongue-in-cheek and definitely makes you smirk. If this is preserved in the film adaptation then the movie should prove to be quite entertaining. Enjoy an excerpt below and read the comic online here.
The Twilight Saga: Eclipse
… Small film coming out summer 2010 sometime. About a love triangle between a human, vampire and werewolf. Don’t expect too much buzz.
I’ve noticed a major factor in the post-Twilight craze over vampires is the idea presented that all vampires are beautiful… handsome… super sexy and just so darn alluring. Which makes them perfect addictions for mainstream culture. I find this Twilight-era of pushing “pretty” vamps is a bit overwhelming. Don’t get me wrong, I agree one hundred percent that vampires intrinsically possess a haunting and hypnotic quality. It’s an aura humans find irresistible… a sort of carnal call to our blood and bodies. But what I LOVE about this concept… what is so intriguing about it is that vampires are so addicting even though they aren’t stunningly good-looking. They’re supposed to look average. Or even lesser than if they’re letting their demon side show.
Think back in the day to European folklore and Nosferatu. Both pretty well summed up as 1) pale and 2) hideous. Vampires were something that villagers didn’t understand so it was necessary to describe their appearances as such ugly ducklings to warn people not to walk alone very late at night. Or else you might end up torn apart. Or pale and hideous.
Luckily with Bram Stoker’s Dracula there came a shift in vampiric appeal – vampires that were pretty decent looking, but primarily they just knew how to work it. It was the air about them that was oh-so-enticing: the confidence (you would have it too if you were immortal), the silkiness, the power, the seductive attitude. And maybe most important – the hypnotic eyes. Irresistible.
But I’m not naive. I know that such depictions of only decent-looking vampires would never survive in Hollywood. (It would be difficult to fool the mind without fooling the eyes on screen.) BUT then I think about Buffy the Vampire Slayer and the Blade films and I think, well kudos to them for keeping the “pretty vamp” thing under control. In Blade, the vampires pretty much looked like everyone else except they had fangs. But you couldn’t help but be dazzled by their power – coolness – and ease with which they could rip your arm off.
And just look at Buffy where many of the vampires are supposed to look like your average human before they were turned. Not only that, the most important idea is that their human face is always masking their true vampire face… an appearance that is completely demonic since it represents their true evil nature. (Because let’s not forget that what makes a vampire such is the lack of a human soul. The idea is that they have no moral inhibitions and are therefore more free than any of us will ever know how to be is what results in their evil deeds.)
Below are pictures of my eternal undead love, Spike (aka William the Bloody from Buffy):
In his angel face…
And his real one when he’s not so happy…
Not very pretty in the above. But even in his demon face, everything that Spike did still had such a strong magnetic quality. I was always hypnotized by him.
Vampires are supposed to be raw, and sometimes it’s refreshing to see the ugly. It’s fun.
A friend of mine (non-vampire) sent me the following clip because he said it reminded him of me.
I wasn’t sure what to expect when I clicked the link. (Well, other than the fact that it would surely feature blood-sucking creatures that is.) I never expected this:
You just had the pleasure of witnessing Jason Segal’s rendition of “Dracula’s Lament.” I watched this clip having no background information about the film, “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” in which it was featured. Understandably then I had no clue what went on to lead up to this spectacular number.
At first I was completely boggled and couldn’t understand what he saying with his pseudo-Transylvanian accent. Maybe I was just in awe of the accent… maybe it was sheer horror… I don’t really know.
During the following verses, I really started feeling Dracula’s plight:
“And if I see Van Helsing, I swear to the Lord I will slay him! A-ha-ha-haa!
Take it from me I swear I will let it be so! A-ha-ha-haa!!
Blood will run down his face when he is decapitated…aah!
His head on my mantle is how I will let this world know:
How much I love you…”
His girl seemed to like it. That’s all that matters.
I believe “Dracula’s Lament“ needs to fall along the lines of this more:
There’s an overwhelming amount of films about Dracula out there. As I’m reflecting on all the films I’ve seen thus far, most of them are pretty mediocre. I know when most people consider a Dracula film, the first title that usually pops in their head is Francis Ford Coppola’s interpretation of Bram Stoker’s Dracula. Remember it? Dracula is played by Gary Oldman and Winona Ryder features as his eternal love, Mina Harker.
They're a handsome couple, but this is not the best Dracula re-telling.
Maybe I set my expectations too high when I first saw this film, but I didn’t feel anything while watching it or after it was over. Many people loved it. I suspect their opinions were swayed after seeing Francis Ford Coppola highlight as the director. (He was responsible for the Godfather’s after all.)
To be fair, the overall cinematography of this film was beautifully done – it LOOKED great. It also faithfully follows Bram Stoker’s original Dracula story. What didn’t I like about it? I felt more than a few scenes were extremely slow-moving and over-dramatized. Also, it was just such a faithful rendition of the Dracula story… nothing new or intriguing to spark my imagination. This kills me since I’m a very story-driven person.
Hence, I was so thoroughly amazed the first time I watched Dracula 2000. I immediately fell in love with the Dracula myth presented in this film and it still reigns in my heart as THE explanation of how Dracula came into being and why vampires exist. Plus, Gerard Butler lends his dark good looks for the role of Dracula. (He’s the same actor who played the Phantom in the musical film version of Phantom of the Opera, representing yet another dark tortured soul who steals my heart.)
Gerard Butler as Dracula
Though this is not Dracula's leading lady, it's still a nice shot.
**PROCEED WITH CAUTION: SPOILERS AHEAD**
If you saw the trailer for this film you’re probably casting distrustful eyes in my direction. I whole-heartedly agree that the trailer for this film was horrendous – to be nice. It was so bad that even though I found a clip of it on YouTube, I cannot bear to include it here. And yes overall, the film itself was nothing spectacular. It was predictable, contained some pretty cheesy dialogue at times and didn’t do justice to Butler’s acting skills. The characters (vampires and non-vampires) were pretty flat and I basically went along with the film’s superficial ride to get my vampire+blood media fix for the week. That is – until the final 20 mins or so of the film when Dracula discloses his mysterious origins… then I was hooked.
I'm addicted to vampires and blood. This is where I'll share my musings on vampiric film and TV, as well as other thoughts on vampire culture. Read my ramblings - I could think endlessly about vampires and other divine creatures of the night.
The Knights Templar
Let Me In
