Quote:
Originally posted by Haunted
In Dawn of the Dead, what was the symbolism of the pregnancy in a dead world? Was it a new hope for the reformation of life or did it symbolize the true death of human beings as a whole?
Nobody wants to talk about that shit. Here's something else I might ask: When you compare Dracula the book, versus Dracula the original movie with Bela Lugosi, with Bram Stoker's Dracula, we see a progression of the Byronic vampiric theme that Stoker hinted at in his novel (pulling from The Vampyre by John Polidori, which was a book featuring Lord Byron as a Vampire) where as in Dracula with Lugosi, Dracula is not "handsome," yet charismatic. In the Copala film, he alternates from hideous to strikingly handsome. Is this a reflection of Hollywood's idealism of beauty or were they trying to recapture the Byronic antihero more clearly?
|
- Dawn of the Dead :- the pregnancy and the birth were shown as two diametrically opposite facets of the same whole. Whereas the pregnancy rekindled hope, the birth did not. The birth actually squashed any kind of hopes which had arisen before. So the answer is the second part of your question. :)
- Dracula :- Stoker basically visualised his anti-hero as an all-powerful, savage
leech who had only one motive in mind, to be an agnostic sadist who wanted to make the world his slave. The name "Dracula" attracted Stoker from a book he read on the history of Moldovia and Walachia, in which Dracula meant "devil" in the walachian language. His original choice of name was "Count Wampyr" which he changed later to Count Dracula by "borrowing" the name.
Many people think that Vlad Tepes (the Impaler) was Stoker's role model, but nope. Stoker didnt know much about Vlad Tepes either. This
original Vlad Dracula (so called because he hailed from a race who followed the order of the dragon, which was called "dracul" in native language) was NOT either a count, nor a vampire.
The anti-hero elements in Lugosi's depiction and in Coppola's 90s version had a more colorful approach to them. If read carefully, Stoker's Dracula is actually an
aged old man. That certainly doesnt fit with the depiction in the movies. Those depictions follow the more colorful myths sorrounding the whole vampire history, about them being remarkably handsome, having qualities which made their victims powerless, mind-boggling hypnotic powers, and two sharp canine teeth. Comparative analysis suggests that Stoker's Dracula, if depicted
exactly page by page, would make an interesting movie, but it would not have the colorful effect which the myth of the vampire brings with it. Coppola only modernised the Lugosi version. Stoker's depiction of the Dracula and its story, is a different channel altogether.
If there wasnt Stoker's novel to follow, Dracula would have disappeared into the pages of history as just another 14th-15th century entry. The novel forms the basis of the age-old tale of good vs evil, and Dracula is depicted as the strongest possible source of evil yet in this world. The anti-hero of Stoker was never meant to be a handsome attractive fellow, rather an old-man who needed blood to survive, and in the exact words of Stoker, "and there he lay as a bloated filthy leech filled with blood" which suggests that he didnt look any lovelier when he was full of blood.
The biggest sufferers out of all this were the bats. (poor creatures!) While Nosferatu (1922) didnt make any reference to them (it was based primarily on rats), Lugosi's 1931 version brought them as the aide to the Prince of Darkness. Added to that the fact that
desmodus rotundus (the vampire bat) does exist in some countries which sucks blood of cattle for its survival. Lugosi's 1931 version brought with it into the twentieth century, the most memorable and lasting images of Count Dracula (including the bats), images that survive to this very day.
whew...who says you cannot discuss movies, H? :D