Yep, Salem's Lot sounds like a witches-and-burning kind of film but no, it’s about vampires. A whole lot of them, as one big bad vamp takes a small town to hell.
The uber vamp is ugly as … well it would be best not to say, just ugly. He says nothing through the entire film, he just looks ugly and scary and very mean. He has an appetite for anything and everything, kiddies, old folks, pretty young things and of course the tastiest of them all, uuuummm, yummie man of the cloth…
The pace is swift and makes this epic TV series originally shown in two parts fly by, yeah three-something hours. There are even a couple of genuine “jump from your seat” moments and seriously it is hard to scare such seasoned viewers as P & M.
Convention would have it that most vamps want to remain anonymous, killing in secret for as long as they can before an angry mob runs them out of town. However, this vamp seems to want to make a real statement. “Hey, check me out,” “Lord of Darkness” scary and all.
His first victim, a little boy, is not killed outright and vamp’s henchman, Mr Straker, doesn’t seem to care about cleaning up after his master. So the bodies start piling up as the vamps go looking for tucker. It would seem this convention would have gotten in the way of telling a good story so the film makers just allowed for a blood bath. (I am not talking about the 1975 book on which it is based). This is not the only anomaly in this film.
While Salem’s Lot is not of the romantic or sympathetic vampire film type, it does aim to have it’s cake and eat it too. The romantic interest established early between the hero, Dan and local girl Susan, it used to justify a mystifying finish. All the local town folk who are turned into vampires show the same symptoms; they become animalistic grunting and hissing instead of speaking, display a blue-greenish tinge to the skin and a great set of fangs, as well as cat-like glow in the dark eyes.
But the sweet girl linked romantically to the hero doesn’t turn green and nasty; in fact she remains beautiful appearing well dressed and groomed, to seduce the hero in climax of the film. She whispers promises of eternal love and youth. He leans in for a snog and she fangs, snarling with her eyes alight with a supernatural glow. The hero is ready for this moment and stakes her. (Just like the tortured love affair between Lucy Westenra and Arthur Holmwood in Dracula.)
Showing posts with label Vampire Child. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vampire Child. Show all posts
Saturday, 9 January 2010
Tuesday, 3 November 2009
Grave of the Vampire, 1974
This low-budget film is actually pretty good and offers a number of interesting twists to the usual vampire story.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
