Dark Shadows Trailer
Remake, reboot, or hot mess. You decide. If there’s a Christopher Lee cameo in this movie, it might be worth one glance.
Melodramatic Vampire Adventures
Louis wants his story told.
In 1994, there was this darling of a film called Interview With a Vampire directed by Neil Jordan and based on a novel by Anne Rice of the same name. Interview starred, Tom Cruise as the Vampire Lestat, Brad Pitt as Louis emo vampire extraordinaire, and Kirsten Dunst as Claudia, the child vampire. Damn if vampires don’t look decadent, somewhat mysterious (alluring), and downright lethal killers. This film masks a potent vision that immortality is not without a high amount of tragedy.
“Decadent” is a key word here, as vampires in this world are very indulgent, and embody the dark fantasy powers that make immortality both exciting and disgusting. To live forever one must kill living beings. It’s pretty nasty. The allure fades quickly. These creatures don’t seem sensual or magnificent, but dark twisted beings. In this respect they are shadows of the human psyche.
The framing narrative is interesting. Louis is so calm and sedate as the world passes him by. Telling his tale to a stranger appeared to bring him some peace. He was resigned to his fate as an immortal to an extent. Let’s talk about the biting for a moment. This seriously has a sexual aspects going here as fangs penetrate skin with a mix of pain and pleasure. There’s a plenty of biting going on for victims and converts .
Lestat fails to understand what Louis meant by "personal space."
This is a world filled with a bit of melodrama, and about the pain of losing a child, which is not fully thought or acted upon until the child is gone. Rejection seems to be a silent theme here as well. Lestat is rejected, as is Claudia, and Armand at different points in the film.
Like many people back in the day I scoffed at Cruise playing Lestat, a true bastard of a vampire. Well he did a good performance. I’m not here to knock it. Granted this film isn’t for everyone. If you like Anne Rice novels, you may or may not even cared to see it adapted to the big screen. I’ll say Cruise does put some energy and charm behind Lestat. Clearly the character is meant to enjoy his actions and that comes through here. Every act is meant to tease and amuse Lestat in some cruel, inhuman way. He’s elitist, arrogant, and evil. He delights in killing and teaching Louis the ways of vampirism.
Claudia's hunger is only beginning.
While Cruise impressed as Lestat, I think Pitt and Dunst stole the show here. As Louis, Pitt is melancholy, super emo, and somewhat annoying. He cannot enjoy being a vampire because he is still too much like his former human self. While Lestat promised Louis that his transformation to a vampire would “pluck out the pain,” it only seems to intensify his misery. Louis remains at odds with the world around him. He takes little or no pleasure from anything around him. Where vampire films may bring about a doppelganger effect to the character’s persona, it does nothing for Louis. He’s still brooding. He resists the urge to give into his need to kill humans for blood/food.
Dunst’s performance is interesting as Claudia. She’s an efficient killer and her wrath is immense as she feels the pain of not being able to grow past a child’s age into a woman (even though she is thirty). Her anger and revenge is swift and cruel, and only highlights the tragedy that will befall her.
The Electra/Oedipus Complex comes to mind when one thinks of Claudia. It is her separation from her two fathers that sends her down the tragic road she leads. Lestat can be seen as her father as he did turn her. Louis is the mother figure since he does nurture and care for Claudia. To Lestat she is a means to control Louis. Claudia in effect kills her dark father, and knows her mother will abandon her soon. Louis is so wishy washy that Claudia has to die before any emotion can be pulled from him. His revenge on the theater of vampires is without pity. For Armand’s (Antonio Banderas) part in Claudia’s demise, Louis rejects him.
Washing that hair must be a bitch, Armand.
The makeup and effects by Stan Winston are wonderful. Lestat’s death at the hands of Claudia, and back from the swamp after Claudia’s failed assassination attempt was creepy as hell. Claudia’s own ashed body was haunting. Fire comes into play a few times in this film. Louis’ manor, Lestat’s home, and the theater where the vampires dwelled. Perhaps it suggests that it is the only element the immortals fear, as it kills them. Fire can mean passion, and passion can destroy the strongest of beings (or redeem them).
I wondered where Lestat was all this time. He was so pivotal at the beginning of the film, but is barely there when Louis and Claudia leave the States for France. When Lestat finally pops up again in what appears to be a chance meeting with Louis, he’s lost his impact as a mentor to Louis and as the monster he truly was. Mind you, Lestat still proves that life is merely a game to him.
Bram Stoker’s Dracula: The Sublime Power of Eros and Thanotos
There used to be a time when vampires didn’t fake their way through high school to seduce a mopey teenager. They were quite evil, selfish, and got what they wanted with little care or consequence in the world. Your virginity be damned, like your soul. People didn’t come back from this nightmare, or they were so changed one wondered what happened after the film ended.
Dracula represents Christianity vs the Turks in the prologue
So in 1992 a film was released, and boldly called, Bram Stoker’s Dracula. One of its key slogans was, “love never dies.” Directed by Francis Ford Coppola, starring Gary Oldman (Dracula), Winona Ryder (Mina/Elizabeta), Anthony Hopkins (Van Helsing/Priest), and Keanu Reeves (Jonathan Harker), this film does its best to give us gothic horror mixed with fairy tale motifs, and angst for the centuries.
Doppelgangers are abound in this film. You will see so many of them. Look for Van Helsing twice in the film, as well as Dracula, Mina, and Lucy. Each displays the other self that compliments and damns them. It’s quite a vicious site to behold. As we know the other self can be a sight to behold. More importantly, being a vampire seems to suggest that a person looses their inhibitions, and their humanity.
"Love never dies," yet it did. Bye, bye Elizabeta.
Religious themes cannot be ignored here, as God is brought into question. After all, when Dracula was human, he fought on behalf of the church. It is the tragedy of his beloved’s Elizabeta (who commits suicide), that causes him to question his faith and his “reward” for fighting on God’s behalf.
Eroticism plays a sly and sometimes disgusting part in this film. Dracula seduces Mina, then rapes and kills her friend Lucy. This visitations to Lucy are brutal, and Dracula does not keep his charming, young form he uses on Mina. Instead he looks bestial, deadly, and terrifying. By contrast, he looks young and studly when he visits Mina. When Jonathan encounters him, Dracula appears as creepy old man whose shadow does stay in place and often reveals what the count is feeling at the time. The shadow is a classic Jungian archetype, and the other self and unconscious desires do come to the surface.
To say Dracula represents all the aspects wrong with our psyches is a fair statement. He is the id (switching from Jung to Freud here), and boy is he ugly. There is a reason we as humans suppress and repress our desires. Not all of them are fit for the material world.
As an adaptation goes, the film doesn’t stay as faithful as one would like to believe to the source material, however I will say that Coppola went for a different route than most Dracula films I saw before it. This go round, Dracula knows love, and ultimately love can redeem him, as it was love that cause him to spite and curse God, resulting in his transformation into a creature of evil. This film definitely goes for the artistic, emotional side of storytelling with some commercial concessions. Bram Stoker’s Dracula cannot be accused of lacking style or ambition. Noter the use of the old school Pathé camera when Dracula comes to England. It’s a street scene that again emphasizes the techniques, which reinforce the atmosphere.
The prologue sets the stage well with who Dracula was before he became a creature of evil. Here the fairy tale motifs come alive: We have a warrior prince, a princess, love, yearnings, and one ugly curse. Lucy’s buried in a glass coffin that is straight out of Snow White. The fight scene in the prologue is a little odd as it takes place in shadows against a reddish-orange sky. The scene reminds me of stage plays where color could be used to show emotion.
Poor Lucy get's "turned out" just cause Dracula wanted it to happen.
Much is made of blood and contamination in the film. If it reflects society, AIDS became a major issue. Its not surprising someone who needs blood to live is at the war with the world around him who has no real idea he exists.
Note several of the editing and special effects in the film. When Lucy is revisited by Dracula t some point the film is reversed. Her moves appear unnatural. Likewise when Van Helsing confronts Lucy as a vampire, and she backs into the coffin, the moves again appear unnatural. The cut away scenes from circular and round shapes add a distinct, otherworldly feel to the world.
While this film makes a strong connection to love and redemption, make no mistake Dracula is very evil. He and his wives suck the blood of babies, he kills and kidnaps Jonathan in order to seduce Mina (whom he believes to be reincarnated version of his lost love, Elizabeta). He rapes, then murders Lucy out of spite of Mina’s rejection of him for Jonathan. Being a vampire is gory, unholy, and to a great extent ugly. Dracula has many brides, but he only has eyes for Mina. Sadly love can’t make him whole, just make him see the error of his existence. Also turning Mina is something of a bitter struggle as Dracula confesses to Mina, it’s not pretty.
Is this what they mean by "short end of the stick?" Ouch.
Color is abound in this film as it takes on multiple energies. Note Lucy’s colorful and somewhat outlandish outfits (in fact several of the outfits are more artistic that historically accurate). The night outfits Lucy and Mina were to bed are sublime but out of place for the era.
Bram Stoker’s Dracula’s score, composed by Wojciech Kilar, plays a key part in providing the atmosphere with some extra demented, gothic emotions. The music moves from serene, elegant, to sublime. There are simply moments where the one realizes there is danger in the score itself. Such heartbreaking melodies with somber elements to emphasize the romance and tragedy.
There are a lot of downers in this film as well so don’t think this is all a love-fest. Keanu’s accent is terrible. I wish someone told him to keep his American accent. It would have fit him (and the film) better. Instead when I hear it, I laugh. I love Oldman’s accent, but not everyone falls for it. A friend suggested it’s overplayed, and his hairdo and get ups are so over the top you may laugh (be warned Jonathan Harker laughs at Dracula and gets a sword in his face for his amusement).
The ending could have been, much, much, stronger because it’s clear that Mina is in love with both Jonathan and Dracula. I thought Jonathan and Mina’s confrontation was weak considering he fought so hard to get back to her, and she turned Dracula away to be with Jonathan. Mina plays both ends of the fence here. She may need the closure like Dracula, but she half-asses it.
If you purchase the DVD or Blu-Ray, the commentary and extras were worth it for me, as Francis Ford Coppola and his son Roman Coppola discuss the visual effects for the film. There is talk of the screenplay, director’s commentary, and some behind the scenes goodness I enjoyed. If you like your vampires evil and with a touch of redemption, then this the film for you. Mind you, nobody gets what they want but Dracula in the end, and the accents are grating.
Twilight Saga: New Moon: A Vampire Weepie
I went to see New Moon (dir Chris Weitz, adapted from the novel by Stephenie Meyer) with the film posse. I really had nothing to lose (so I thought). This was film time with friends. It would offset the heavy world cinema films I was watching (which were all good, BTW). I thought there would be a disconnect when I saw this film. That I would not like it based on the fact it’s a generation thing. I dismissed this notion knowing my love for supernatural creatures would win out.
Mind you, my ears have been burning about how bad the Twilight books are. Only two people I know actually read them, but it’s got vampires AND werewolves! How can that be a fail? This is gonna be fun!
Well I am most disappointed in this film. While it’s billed as a romance/fantasy, it fails at both.
At first glance, New Moon has a lot in common with soap operas, romance novels, and to a great extent shoujo manga (girl’s comics)/anime. I say shoujo manga cause let’s face it, where else do characters sparkle? I did expect rose petals or feathers to fall from the sky too. It was that kind of scene when I beheld Edward’s “skin glow” moment. I confess to laughing. I wasn’t ready for it. Shoujo usually brings the romance, the love triangles, and the melodrama, which can range from excellent to sweet or syrupy. Bella’s depression reminds me of how some female characters in manga/anime behave. Her tailspin lasts for months.
The pacing of this film is disgustingly slow. So slow my mind began to stray from the film, which is never good. There is a lot of standing around and hearing plenty of dialog. What’s up with that? The film slows itself to a crawl that by time the action comes in, I was hoping it would stay.
New Moon could be better served if the director removed several chunks of the dialog, and added much more action. As an adaptation, I don’t think a few liberties would be too upsetting to make cuts or add action. Not necessarily fighting action, but doing something other than standing around. There so many long-winded speeches that lack any wit to make them fun.
Typically in a romance you have a triangle, which is not surprising that Jacob comes in the picture. Here’s the problem: Jacob never has a chance with Bella. He’s on the edge, waiting for a moment to make a move. Bella keeps him at bay in such a way it appears she’s toying with his emotions.
I like the character of Alice (Ashley Greene). She seems a little kooky, but real at the same time. She also speaks the truth to Bella about getting herself into some really dumb situations.
As a romance it lacks the depth that I’d like to see. Edward’s love seems on the surface. Bella (Kristen Stewart) seems far more interested in being a vampire, and literally harps on the fact of being made into one. Maybe that’s why Edward walked away. She’s such a damn nag.
Looking at the character of Bella, she is most annoying, and prone to acts of great stupidity. She begins taking on high risk behaviors by riding with strangers, bike riding (nearly killing herself), and cliff diving. Her friends are appendages and she ignores them as well. Her poor father is confused and unable to help her at all.
None of her risks seem to pan out. She keeps seeing ghost images of Edward (Robert Patterson). This is how we know Jacob and her won’t hook up. She’s got Edward on the brain all the time. She knows she’s using Jacob (Taylor Lautner), but she doesn’t care. That’s jerky for someone in emotional need.
Speaking of jerks, what’s up with Edward? Why does Edward he leave Bella so completely unguarded when he knows Victoria wants to kill her? Edward acts completely moronic to service the plot, which to me equates to failure in the story. Even further evidence of Edward’s stupidity comes when a phone call is all it takes to confirm that Bella’s died. Had he done a little investigation of his own, he would have known the truth.
Edward should be smarter than this. Someone suggested that this is a “young adult” to me, therefore it should not be allowed to have crappy plots. That is a feeble excuse for piss poor writing. The statement suggests that young adult readers don’t deserve a good plot or consistent characters.
On the other hand, as I stated about George Lucas films, I suspect the story is rife with old school melodrama influences. It is an outdated method of story telling where things can happen to characters for no real reason. For a modern audience, we need contemporary storytelling techniques. There can be a dozen reasons for Edward leaving Bella that kept the character intact, and still retain melodramatic elements.
As vampires we get some really neutered and spayed blood drinkers. They aren’t predatory (except Victoria). They’re kinda sweet and misunderstood. In other words boring and safe. Who the hell creates boring and safe vampires. That;’s like a cocaine dealer who’s cocaine only makes your nose “tingle a little bit.” Seriously. Why introduce a dark, supernatural creature only to pretty it up? We have a taboo relationship that only flirts with danger, then plays it safe.
The Volturi (ancient vampires) look promising with their ancient, grandiose ways. Actor Michael Sheen (who played the werewolf Lucien in the Underworld series) plays Aro with some weight and bite to his role. Too bad he’s not featured more into the plot. He’s have brought more shine than sparkle to this film. Only in Italy do we see how dangerous the vampires are, not only to Bella and Edward, but to tourists whom they prey on.
Can we call Jacob and company, “werewolves?” They’re more like mutants who turn into giant sized wolfs. Mind you, they look intimidating enough, but the aspect of a wolf with human attributes (which could be genuinely creepy) gets lost here. They’re more like animal totems.
To me, Twilight is a phenomenon that refuses to acknowledge characters, plot, or even real vampires. It does know how to turn up the old school melodrama AND the scenery. In other words, “oooh pretty.” I found myself calling this the first the many Vampire Weepies!
