Considering all that we have learned about monsters over the course of the semester, what are your final thoughts? How do vampires and monsters represent the times in which they are created and what do you feel are the correct monsters of our time?
The true monsters of our time are those who, as the world is slowly opening its eyes to the deep roots of inequality embedded in the earth, oppress and exploit others for greed. Their disregard for the rest of humanity effectively makes them monsters. Our once traditional monsters such as vampires have become synonymous for being both a misfit in modern society, someone who has lost their way and needs redemption, and someone who is still capable of humanity and love. As discussed in class, Blacula is a product of the Blaxploitation genre of film that followed the civil rights movement. The wealthy, educated African Prince still fell prey to racism. Mamuwalde was turned into a vampire against his will as a metaphor for slavery, but used his power to fight back against oppressive system that has restrained and harmed him and the woman he loves. Another contemporary film The Lost Boys, besides being referenced in its successors Buffy the Vampire Slayer and What We Do in the Shadows, was a response to rising divorce rates and socio-politics of the Reagan Era. The monsters represented the fear of losing nuclear family bonds. Director Joel Schumacher has said the film “is, in a way, about the fear we have of the Other—those who live outside of the mainstream.” The vampires are attractive, unruly, gay teenage boys whose codependence and relationships with each other is literally blown up by the proper, stable parental dynamic. But the current wave of vampire cinema has given us Twilight, showing a protective, albeit possessive, nature a monster can have for a human. What We Do in the Shadows portrays vampires as foolish, campy, admittedly reckless, but ultimately harmless. The Transfiguration maintains an element of horror with an introverted outcast vampire than can still take on gangs to save his love. The monsters we have are not traditional, because our society no longer fears the unknown. We aren't being told to conform to society's standards, as was the purpose of the folkloric vampire. We aren't afraid of losing cultural values, like the Eastern immigrant Dracula said we should. We are not even afraid of homosexuality or independent women or immigrants. So what are we afraid of? Considering the state of the world and monster fiction today, we are most afraid of forgetting how to love one another and losing the thread of humanity that binds all people together. We have all seen a monster film at some point, but what was memorable about it? Who or what was the monster and what do you think the role of that monster was?
By far the most memorable monster film for me is actually the animated series Castlevania. The show has a myriad of vampire characters with diverse and colorful personalities, morals, appearances, and roles in the narrative. The season one and two primary antagonist is Dracula while the secondary antagonist is Carmilla. Carmilla is one of Dracula's generals, yet she is secretly trying to undermine and usurp him. Through these two, we are able to see the dichotomy of human emotion. Dracula's love for his human wife was so strong that when she was killed, he decided to destroy all of humanity against her wishes. On the other hand, Carmilla's heatless, unemotional distaste for humanity makes her simply want to turn all humans into livestock. Dracula's role is to show the dangers of too much passion and how easily they can destroy everything good, while Carmilla's role is to show that monsters and evil can appear in many forms. She has a fearsome reputation despite her femininity, as the vampires in this show appear to be unconservative. Still, she uses her sexuality to manipulate others when she can, which is something we never see the male vampires do. I do not think the show follows all of the principles of vampire cinema laid out in Weinstock's Introduction to Vampire Cinema. Specifically, Principle 2: The vampires are always more interesting than those who pursue it. While I would normally agree with this statement in a cut and dry manner, it feels much more subjective in this show where our 'heroes' are are as layered, harsh, and complicated as the vampires. The greatest testimony to this is the dhampir character Alucard, Dracula's son with his mortal wife. He wants to honor his mother and knows his father is wrong; he never strays from his righteous path. And yet, consistently, we learn more about him in categories that should define a vampire yet make him different and more agreeable- his want for companionship, love for his family, journey with sexuality, and selfless altruism. These all make him not a monster, considerably human, and just as contextually rich as the vampires he is fighting. That being said, the show is an excellent example proving the other 6 principles quite well. Technology plays a tremendous role in exacerbating or aiding the parties, nearly every vampire is inevitably queer, and Dracula will always haunt his son. |
AuthorSoumya Jaiswal Archives
April 2021
Categories |