I'm definitely in the horrible undead monster school of thought when it comes to vampires. It's much closer to their mythological origins than a lame book by a syphilitic (and Count Orlock was way scarier than fancy pants Dracula anyway)...Sunday, April 5, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Had just bought the restored edition DVD from Image Entertainment few months back - exquisite, quite a different species of animal than the "30 Days of Night" breed (don't *even* get me started on "Twilight."
ReplyDeleteAlso got turned on to the Spanish version of Dracula (on disc 2 of the Universal Legacy Series' 75th Anniversary set), filmed at night on the same set w/same props as the Lugosi film; heretical to say, but I actually prefer it over the more famous one.
This after re-reading and studying Bram Stoker's book; there's something to be said about how his constantly shifting viewpoints using different points of view & narrative devices is more effective at eliciting horror than the filmed versions. A lot like how similar issues with "Watchmen" translating from graphic novel versus movie.
I've heard about the spanish editions, if I remember correctly that wasn't the only Universal film that did that. As far as Stoker's book, I just wasn't very impressed by it. I read it and Shelley's Frankenstein around the same time and found Frankenstein far more compelling. It's not even the book but the influence on the vampire myth that really's not my cup of tea.
ReplyDelete"Shadow of the Vampire" is my favorite Nosferatu tale outside of the original. How can you not like Willam Defoe as the man with the fangs?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt0189998/
Interesting point about the multiple narratives making for bad translations.