First, if biting in vampire films is a metaphor for sex, and the thrall is a way of subduing the female victims into enjoying it, then all biting in vampire films is actually a metaphor for rape (it is non-consensual "sex"). Most vampire films reinforce the bite=sex metaphor by making the vampires incapable of physical sex or of procreation through traditional methods (ie sperm and egg): they reproduce through biting.
This film is unusual, therefore, in that the vampire is a rapist—both when he was alive, and now that he is dead—and can reproduce sexually. Not surprisingly, therefore, he is impotent when it comes to producing more vamps through biting. It is suggested he is capable of producing more undead but, he refuses the one opportunity offered to him and all his victims of the bite die or are already dead.
Second. the story line is essentially a rape-revenge. The central character, a young man named James Eastman, is a half-human vampire. He is the offspring of a vampire who raped James’s mother and killed her fiancé. (This is only the third film of 170 we have viewed with a vampire child conceived sexually; vampire children are also fairly uncommon.)
It is not clear if James himself has taken to biting human victims but his mother fed him on her own blood as an infant. There is also a hint of bloodlust when James caresses the neck of his lover, but he shows no sign of giving to temptation. It is not until the end of the film, when he has fulfilled his Oedipal destiny by killing his vampire-father, that James's latent vampire fangs emerge and he screams wildly to his lover, Anne, to run away.
There is a really interesting moment in the film which combines these two main elements (the collapsed bite/rape metaphor and the rape-revenge film conventions). When the vamp goes to the library (yeah I know, but I am not kidding) he is told that the book that he wants cannot be borrowed so he tries to cast a thrall over the librarian. The librarian seems to be under his influence and unleashes a gorgeous mop of red hair which she brushes and fluffs.
The preening seems to have sexual overtones and of course the vamp and the viewer believe the power of the thrall has worked. But the librarian still refuses his request for the book and asks him to leave when he repeats his request. His reaction is rapist psychology 101: he becomes enraged, blames the librarian for leading him on, only to turn into a cold bitch and refuse him the book/a bite/sex. So he kills her on the spot. The whole scene is quite unsettling.
There a few other genuine shocks along the way. The cop who is tracking our rapist vamp—and who features for most of the first forty minutes of the film—confronts him by his graveside. Since he is the only person who knows what might be going on the viewer expects him to continue to play a prominent role, but in the confrontation the vamp crushes his head with the heavy stone lid to a coffin! Eew.
The acting for the most part is actually pretty good, the human-vamp character, James, is really well acted and developed. Understated, a little strange, though enigmatic and attractive like all good vamps should be. So despite the absence of castles, diaphanous gowns, angry mobs or hunch-back assistants we both liked this film.
No comments:
Post a Comment