Throughout all of the legends, all of the stories concerning the un-deadI think most people would agree that the vampire takes the cake. Then maybe would come werewolf, zombie, mummy, ghoul, essentially whichever "creature of the night" has been most focussed on by Hollywood and other popular mediums of media. However, whichever the creature they always pose a threat to humanity (especially to the main characters which we come to love so much) and our heroes must adapt and respond to this threat "before it is too late." The only way to stop this seemingly unstoppable creature takes form in a completely human way. Through technology and religion human beings always have the hope and resources to combat an evil such as this.
Concerning the vampire, which is epitomized in the story of "Dracula," there are certain ways the beast must be dealt with in fear of it's return to the living world. The most notable weakness a vampire has is its inability to face sunlight. Depending on the case sunlight could merely be an inconvenience or it could completely disintegrate the creature. Among this most well known "achilles' heel" the vampire has many others including his avoidance of garlic, the cross, wolfsbane, and being killed by wooden stake or silver. Looking at Bram Stoker's "Dracula," Nosferatu by F.W. Murnau, and Francis Ford Coppola's adaptation of the novel I will show how the creature's weaknesses have varied and fluxed in order to fit a certain generational genre.
The year is 1897. Bram Stoker an Irishman living in London has just published Dracula. Leading up to his story concerning the world's most notorious vampire, "Bram Stoker spent several years researching European folklore and stories about vampires." He also had a strong belief in Irish Protestantism and was "strongly interested in science, medicine, and the notion of progress." Stoker was a man of science with a strong attraction to the occult and the seemingly mysterious portions of life. Dracula was published in a time when science was on the rise. It gave great hope to humanity and illuminated a promising road to the future. With science, with concrete results one could see under the microscope, most anything seemed possible. The original conception of Dracula was brought into a world where superstition was superstition and science was science. To combine the two was a strange thought. Maybe that's why Stoker did it.
Count Dracula's character is hardly human, he hardly has emotion or feeling, or any trace of life at all. He was created as a creature, a demon which could walk through this world but was not tied to its boundaries like mortal men. The only way to combat this crazy notion of evil, of the absolute upheaval of humanity was with the powers of science and religion. Until recently most common interpretations of the vampire had not just an aversion to sunlight, but would be killed on touch. However, going back to classic roots of this folklore, vampires and Dracula in particular did not like sunlight, but were able to move through it if necessary. He also could not stand the smell of wolfsbane and seemed very terrified of things like the cross (which is said to immobilize the creature, nothing more). Also, religious artifacts are used more than any other account. The communion wafers act as a sort of lock to the undead and so does holy water which is used to thwart Count Dracula's wives. Garlic also plays a more significant role. The flower is often given to the protagonists by Van Helsing and he often says the mouths of a vampire must be stuffed with it, then cut off.
It seems Stoker introduced this creature to the mainstream during a time of great scientific evolution, but all the while most people still held their traditions, their beliefs center at their very souls. To say religion could not save them is to speak blasphemy itself!
The year is 1922. Bram Stoker's popularity has reached Eastern Europe. With film now on the rise men like D.W. Griffith and German director F.W. Murnau were making silent "moving pictures" which could captivate and hypnotize the audience like never before. Murnau decided to take the story of Count Dracula and tweak the frames in order to fit the new era. First of all, Count Orlock's appearance is well known to resemble that of a rat which carries the plague and he is monster-like in appearance. However, with this new depiction came another new aspect of the vampire: that of a more"romantic" creature, one which can be sympathized with. Orlock's sudden death also single handedly introduced the vampire's absolute weakness to sunlight. Sunlight became his doom. Sunlight as well as love, or emotion. There seems to be no other way to harm Orlock other than a woman giving herself to him innocently and waiting "until the first cock crows." The are no wooden stakes, no silver bullets, there's hardly even any religious repellent (aside from that of the crucifix). We see no holy water, no garlic, no wolfsbane or any other religious/superstitious weaknesses condemning the Count. This could be attributed to the new age of the 20's especially after World War 1, one of the most brutal and bloody wars in which reality was faced with science's progression.
The year is now 1992. So much time has lapsed between Nosferatu and Coppola's Dracula it is almost unfair to compare them. However, in this modern interpretation of Bram Stoker's novel, we see the romantic vampire in his full light. Although he is afflicted by many of the same relics and rituals as other Draculas, it is love which is eventually his downfall. This new vampire is elaborated on Murnau's Count Orlock when romatic, the emotional creature is brought into existence. He shows little weakness to the sunlight, as well as most other religious artifacts. It seems he can only be killed through force, through man's power. He is slain by Jonathan Harker in response mainly to the vampire's obsession with his wife Mina. Like Coppola says about his film "Love never dies."
No comments:
Post a Comment