Dracula: Done to Death

Cafe Society
1

Around the time of Coppola’s Bram Stoker’s Dracula, there was an episode of “Rocko’s Modern Life” where Rocko went to the movies. He saw a trailer for a movie called Dracula: Done to Death, in which the vampire hunters throw open the Count’s coffin to reveal. . .a fanged skeleton with a stake through it. Whoops, looks like someone beat them to the job by a wide margin! After a moment, they decide to go for doughnuts.

This was funny enough at the time, but in the past decade it’s become increasingly obvious to me that the Dracula/vampire film genre is played out. I like vampire movies, but I must admit that I feel that almost everyone who’s made a vampire film lately would have been better off just going for doughnuts. Or even making a movie about going for doughnuts. I stayed away from the recent Underworld and Van Helsing, but unless they were both much better than their reputations I don’t think I missed much.

It seems to me that part of the problem is that filmmakers want to put their own “twist” on the vampire movie, without realizing that this is about the least original thing they could do. We’ve seen Dracula’s daughter, son, and dog. We’ve seen vampires in the Middle Ages, the Victorian Era, the Old West, in modern times, and in the future. We’ve seen black vampires. Child vampires. Jewish vampires. Homosexual vampires. Romantic vampires. Comic vampires. Tragic vampires. Hipster vampires. Every variation has been done, and done again. The only vampire movie that has ever impressed me with its originality was 1922’s Nosferatu, and it had the distinct advantage of being the first one.

At this point, I think the only way to make a new vampire movie that’s at all entertaining would be to not attempt to revamp the vamp. There wouldn’t be anything especially original about getting Christopher Lee back into a lined cape and having him bite the necks of a couple of ladies in lingerie, but I’d find it easier to endure than more “Cool vampires going to raves and riding motorcycles”, or worse still “Depressed vampires moping about being vampires”. And I could really do without the cheesy CGI.

Oddly enough, despite there being hundreds and hundreds of movies with the name “Dracula” in the title, I’m unfamiliar with any straightforward adaptations of Stoker’s novel. Everyone’s tried to be clever and rewrite the story. As Dracula is quite long and has an unwieldy cast of characters it would probably be impossible to film it without making drastic cuts, but every movie version I can think of also made huge plot and thematic changes. There might be some novelty in a Dracula movie that was actually about the novel, although I’m not sure how satisfying the result would be.

Honestly though, I feel it would be for the best if the film industry declared a moratorium on vampire movies. And I’m saying this as someone whose first screenwriting project was a short vampire script, and who nearly did her thesis on vampire movies. I think it’s time for Hollywood to just step away from the coffin for a while and do other things.

As for me, I’m going to Mr. Donut.

2

I sort of agree with you here, but it’s the genre that gave us Buffy the Vampire Slayer, so I’m willing to forgive it anything. Although when you think about it, Buffy stopped featuring vampires as the Big Bad after season 2 (with a couple of exceptions).

Perhaps the film industry should take a cue and expand their horizons to big giant worms and singing, dancing demons. Or Vampire Bunnies…

3

I’m reminded of an old Brunching Shuttlecocks column:

[quote]

Vampires
I could make a crack about “Vampire: The Masquerade” being D&D for people who own “The Downward Spiral,” but I have a copy of both, so I’ll limit myself to observing that with the increasing popularity of vampires, we’re on the verge of the unicorn syndrome all over again. If it hasn’t happened already, in a few months look for airbrushed posters of sad vampires in Wal-Marts everywhere, and in a decade look for female college students saying to each other “Were you into vampires when you were nine? Me too! We were such dorks!” C
[/qoute]

We are so there already.

4

I was never a Buffy fan, but to its credit at least it is Buffy the Vampire Slayer and not Buffy the Vampire. The very thought of a movie/TV series about a California cheerleader who discovers that she’s the latest in a long line of vampires has me reaching for the crucifix.

5

Can we also add Broadway Producers to the moratorium? Please?

6

Gaaah, a Dracula musical with a “surprise” ending? A Vampire Lestat musical with a score by Elton John/Bernie Taupin and a book by Linda “Disney on Broadway” Woolverton? Garlic, I need garlic NOW!

7

You know, if Sting had wanted to extend Moon Over Bourbon Street into a musical, I’d sort of understand. But Elton John? Pshaw!

8

Not about a vampire, but a movie based on Cecil’s column on the subject might be watchable.

9

I want more Dracula!

  1. CSI Transylvania: Mysterious lead cop solves crimes (but only works nights) while dealing with his own personal demons.

  2. The West Batwing: Dracula is elected president but must keep his secret from the voters.

  3. My Big Bloody Neck Wedding: Mismatched vampires attempt to wed amidst family differences and religeous protests.

  4. Farenheit 98.6: Seering expose of vampires and their lies.

  5. Undead Bachelor: Reality show wherein beautiful women compete to see who ultimately gets the big bite.

10

I do think a biopic about Vlad the Impaler could be pretty interesting, but only if he does not become a vampire at any point in the film. There also should not be any hint that he’ll ever become one. I’d be willing to accept a title at the beginning or end mentioning that his nickname lived on as the name of the world’s most famous vampire character, but that’s it.

It is kind of funny that Vlad is best remembered as the real man behind the Count Dracula character, as Bram Stoker says almost nothing about him in Dracula. The name “Vlad” doesn’t even come up, nor does the nickname “The Impaler”. The only thing the historic Prince Dracula has in common with the fictional Count Dracula aside from the name is that he fought against the Turks. This may have been all Stoker knew about Vlad. He says nothing else in the book about the man Dracula was in life, and it’s not clear that he is meant to be the same person as the historic figure. It seems that Stoker just thought “Dracula” was a cool name for a vampire.

Another interesting non-vampiric Dracula movie might be the story of the current Prince Ottomar Rudolphe Vlad Dracul Kretzulesco. Some years back the Romanian family descended from Vlad the Impaler realized they were in danger of losing their inheritance unles they could produce a male heir. So they adopted Otto, an adult family friend. I’ve come across a few references to Prince Otto in various publications, and he seems to be having fun being “Dracula”. He’s also put the name and his castle to good use helping the Red Cross. He’s organized numerous vampire-themed blood drives.

11

Don’t forget Law & Order: Vampire Detection Unit. Every week there’s an exciting new twist as to who the head vampire is.

12

I sympathize with your sense of Vampire Fatigue, but there’s a reason Dracula keeps coming back: He’s one of the handful of great, iconic characters of literature (even though his literary source kinda sucked). Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan, Superman and Dracula have all been done to death, but every once in a while someone with a fresh take on the concepts manages to grab the public’s attention again.

I think Hannibal Lecter makes more sense if you think of him as a “fresh take” on the Dracula legend. And as of the third book, he too has been done to death.

13

THe vampire is the best monster because he’s the most human. THe best vampire stories deal with human issues, just twisted a little or colored a little to provide a fresh perspective. I don’t think it’ll ever be played out, any more than the Western or Noir or any other genre, in the hands of a decent artist, will ever be played out.

14

I think a tangential reason most new vampire movies suck is that filmmakers simply will not wean themselves from the irritating Goth chic that is now de rigeur in vampire movies. Sallow-looking guys with black hair, eyeliner, leather coats; candles, flapping curtains, hand-me-down Catholic iconography; so many vampire movies seem to pitch themselves at a 14-year-old’s idea of cool. No wonder it’s all so stale.

Writing the above, I begin to realize the issue is a larger one. Basically, vampires have become heroes. They’ve gone from being evil to being tragic, and while the vamp may get it in the end, the vampire “lifestyle” is obviously being offered as something to envy. Maybe the key to making a good vampire movie again is twofold: 1) Lose the kitchsy goth nonsense; 2) Recognize that vamps are evil. They prey on the living with no remorse (Anne Rice’s whiny heroes not withstanding), and are thoroughly vile. Start with those two assumptions and stick to them, and you could wind up with a very interesting tale indeed.

15

Vampires are also one of the best monsters because they’re just so darn cheap. All you need is some fake fangs and a little stage blood and you’ve got your vampire. If you want to get super fancy you could add spooky contacts, some latex, and of course regular makeup. Vampire powers are also easy on the special effects wallet. Some creative use of the camera combined with good editing and you’ve go a vampire with all sorts of supernatural powers!

Finally, the best special effect of them all for modern vampire movies, boobs. A lot of vampire movies made in recent years are just B-movie excuses for soft core pornography. Even more mainstream vampire movies make sure to sex things up and we all know that sex sells.

Marc

16

If Hollywood did a straight take on Terry Pratchett’s “Carpe Jugulum” I’d go see it. His vampires are as evil as his elves.

17

Actually, most of them aren’t. Outside of that book, every other vampire in Discworld seems to have taken “the pledge.”

Of course, that still works because he’s mostly making fun of the “tortured bloodsucker” cliche, and because Terry Pratchet can get away with almost anything.

18

I’ll say! Sherlock Holmes had been done to death by the 1980s, but Jeremy Brett managed to turn out the best performace of Holmes ever.

Of course, that’s just my opinion. :smiley:

19

Don’t forget the ducks and bunnies.

20

Now now, Bunnicula was awesome when I was 9.

I’m with you, Lamia, although my personal pet peeve is zombies. (They shouldn’t be fast, damnit!)

Anyway, I just love it when the “I’m so goth I’m undead” crowd thinks they know everything about the mythos because they read Anne Rice regularly. Sheesh.