From Angel to Bill; The Decade - Long Evolution of TV Vampires

They’re everywhere these days – and they’re becoming increasingly ‘humanised’.

Emma-Louise Howard investigates changing representations of the vampire and what they reveal about contemporary society.

With the global recession, people have been wanting to escape and go to a place where imagination goes. That’s kind of sexy, seeing creatures living with normal beings.Sam Trammell, True Blood actor, on the current popularity of the supernatural Vampires.

They’re everywhere right now, from the cinema screens to our televisions. One of the themes that many of the current vampire texts share is that of a relationship between vampire and human, often with a male vampire as a tortured hero, a dangerous yet misunderstood creature in love with a human female and struggling with his sexuality, anxious over the potential to become ‘over-excited’ and cause harm, conflicted about the desire to attack, yet all the while remaining fiercely protective over the object of his desire.

In the TV series Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1997-2003), the titular character experienced relationships with vampires Angel and Spike, and the difficulties these couplings brought were explored in full. Angel (formerly sadistic vampire ‘Angelus’) is ‘cursed’ with a conscience by gypsies, echoing the complications the vampire Louis encounters in Interview with the Vampire where he chooses to feed on animals as opposed to humans. Similarly, sneering human-hater Spike suffers a microchip implantation which renders him unable to harm humans, and causes him to fall in love with Buffy. Even following the microchip removal he remains fiercely loyal to her and in seeking the restoration of his soul, he explains his motivation: wanting to become the man she deserves. Indeed, for these vampires the act of biting and feeding is akin to sexual transgression, whilst for others, frenzied attacks against human victims provide hedonistic and bloody satisfaction.

Buffy offered many interpretations of the vampire, from the animalistic, demonic form reminiscent of rat-like Nosferatu to the seductive, stylish vampire that has endured in the collective cultural consciousness. Yet over the years, the vampire has seemingly become less dangerous. In the film 30 Days of Night the Nosferatu-esque vampires’ lack of empathy or emotion is subverted in the closing scenes, where main character Eben becomes a vampire to save his fellow humans and dies as the sun rises in his weeping wife’s arms. He does not harm her despite his killer instincts. He is compassionate, empathetic and restrained.

This is the vampire we are seeing so much of now. Louis, Eben, even former cold-blooded killers Angel and Spike are all tortured and conflicted in their vampire forms when it comes to particular female humans. It is these vampires that have paved the way for benevolent, ‘vegetarian’ animal-feeding (channelling Louis), chaste and harmless Edward of the Twilight Saga. What happened? Vampires are, as we have traditionally seen, either dangerous, sexual creatures or frenzied, violent killers. Edward has no ‘Angelus’ alter-ego, nor the wise-cracking, cynical cold-bloodedness of Spike. Where’s the bite?

True Blood: the TV vampire regains its fangs

The answer has come in a controversial, violent, sexually-explicit US TV phenomenon: True Blood. Based on The Southern Vampire Mysteries novels, it takes the darker and more dangerous elements of Buffy and seemingly mocks Twilight with its similar plotlines. In True Blood, there are ‘vegetarian vampires’ too. The show’s title refers to bottled synthetic blood (‘Tru:Blood’), developed by Japanese scientists meaning vampires no longer need humans for sustenance. Thus, they have ‘come out of the coffin’ and are adapting to everyday society. They announced their existence in ‘The Great Revelation’ on network television, and some have since attempted to ‘mainstream’, living as fellow citizens amongst humans and obtaining the vote via the ‘Vampire Rights Amendment’. The series is set in America’s Deep South, a traditional setting for vampire and Gothic stories (despite this seeming somewhat incongruous for a region also renowned for its religious fundamentalism, right-wing political beliefs and conservatism.

As with Buffy, at the centre of True Blood is a beautiful blonde with secret powers. Sookie Stackhouse is a telepathic waitress, and the treatment of her power is evocative of Buffy as the gift encroaches on her everyday life. Buffy struggled to balance vampire-slaying with school and relationships whilst Sookie cannot form ordinary human bonds. She is frequently distracted during her job because rather than being able to ‘listen in’ on peoples’ thoughts, they bombard her in a confusing frenzy of white noise. Sookie has never had a boyfriend, as being able to hear what her date is thinking has often proved somewhat difficult to say the least! Like Buffy, Sookie is fearless and powerful. The women also share a feisty streak; Buffy offering sarcastic quips at regular intervals and Sookie speaking up for herself at every available opportunity. The appearance of the vampires in Buffy and True Blood is also comparable. Both sets appear fairly normal in waking life, yet they ‘turn’ – Buffy’s vampires undergo demonic facial metamorphoses, whereas True Blood’s dormant fangs emerge from a set of seemingly standard teeth.

There is something of a love triangle at the centre of True Blood. Bill Compton, the first vampire to walk into Merlotte’s, captures Sookie’s attention; she has harboured a desire to meet one ever since they ‘came out of the coffin’. Eager to attend to him, she realises she cannot hear his thoughts. This is comforting for Sookie; the lack of internal noise means she can enjoy Bill’s company, much to protective Sam’s chagrin.

Yes, Sookie is a human caught between a vampire who instantly captivated her, and a shapeshifter who’s a longtime friend holding a torch for her. (Bella too is caught between two such creatures in Twilight, signifying the somewhat satirical link.)Changing vampires, changing TVCharting the journey from Buffy to True Blood generates debate about how television has changed in just over a decade. Viewing habits are certainly different; audiences have become much more fragmented due to multichannel packages and multiple TVs/viewing facilities in many homes. Many shows (True Blood included) have the same episode screened twice in one week, while online catch-up services and recording facilities (for example, Sky+ or digital recording) create the opportunity for bespoke viewing experiences.

Audience expectations have also changed and the supernatural genre (like any that wishes to survive) must transform in order to avoid becoming too repetitive or clichéd.There are, of course, risks associated with change; moving too far away from the generic expectations of the audience could provoke dissatisfaction. Media producers, therefore, must try to balance repetition and difference. It could be claimed that the success of Buffy was due (in part at least) to the fact that it was a ‘hybrid’; in other words it incorporated the familiar codes and conventions of the supernatural genre whilst introducing elements from other popular genres such as horror, comedy, romance and soap opera.

True Blood does the same. However, where Buffy succeeded in claiming the supernatural genre for a teen audience, True Blood has, one could argue, reclaimed the genre (and the vampire itself) for adults.. It maintains familiar supernatural conventions whilst adding original touches (the vampires ‘mainstreaming’ for example). Also in an attempt to engage, excite and satisfy its audience, True Blood dares to go where its predecessors couldn’t; it is darker, raunchier, more sexually explicit and far bloodier.At the time of its release, Buffy was groundbreaking and forward-thinking. Its creator Joss Whedon said he specifically wanted to demystify the convention of the weak blonde female who stumbles into dark alleys and gets herself killed; Buffy was a hero who didn’t have to sacrifice her femininity or good looks for strength. Despite the constraints of the WB network which broadcast it, it incorporated a gay character via Willow’s coming out and ‘subtextual’ relationship (implied, not depicted) in Season 4, and after transferring to the more lenient UPN network, Buffy became the first broadcast network TV series to depict a lesbian sex scene and is credited with changing television forever.

Compared with True Blood,, however, Buffy’s sexuality looks tame. Not only does True Blood present a number of homosexual and sexually ambiguous characters without drawing attention to their sexual identities or giving them ‘token’ status, it offers a great many sexually explicit scenes. Yet perhaps none of this would have been possible without the pioneering Buffy.So while there are definite similarities between Buffy and True Blood, the decade or so that separates them has had its effect. True Blood has created terminology that appears to resonate with contemporary cultural, social and political issues. A sign in the opening credits reads ‘God Hates Fangs’. This can be seen as a direct reference to the religiously and politically right-wing ‘God Hates Fags’ slogan. It not only highlights the show’s Deep South location but also suggests a comparison between vampires and homosexuals, underscoring their position of ‘otherness’.

In the world of True Blood, vampires have had to fight for recognition and citizenship in much the same way as gay males and lesbians have. The reaction of some humans to the rights afforded to vampires in True Blood could be seen to mirror the responses of some sections of society to the rights recently afforded to gay men and women. The vampires even have their own anti-vampire religious fundamentalists to deal with, aptly named ‘The Fellowship of the Sun’. Recognition of civil partnerships (albeit in very few American states) and the recognition of the rights of same sex couples to foster and adopt children (again, not in all states) are seen by some as evidence that the moral fabric of society is being eroded. This is not dissimilar to the reactions of some Bon Temps residents to the ‘Vampire Rights Amendment’.

Alternative sexual practices are also portrayed in True Blood, particularly those of the ‘fangbangers’ (humans who like to have sex with vampires and be bitten). These relationships are frowned upon by most of the humans who believe that relationships between humans and vampires are immoral (again echoing the cultural and religious values often associated with attitudes to interracial relationships in the Deep South).It is claimed that media texts (and the horror genre in particular) tap into and exploit cultural fears and anxieties within society, some of which have been addressed above. However, it is also interesting to note that Buffy, a series in which the vampire remained otherworldly and exotic (neither Angel nor Spike could have considered ‘mainstreaming’), began in the ‘boom’ years of the 90s.

True Blood, on the other hand, with its ‘humanised’ and ‘normalised’ vampires (feeding on synthetic blood and gaining citizenship) has arrived on our screens during an economic downturn. When a society is in economic recession it often looks for scapegoats. In contemporary society immigrants, economic migrants and asylum seekers are often singled out for attention. Allegations of ‘job-stealing’ and being a drain upon already limited resources are commonplace. Society feels threatened, but the threat is not an external one, instead, it is perceived as coming from those who (like the vampires in True Blood) live and work amongst us, those who have been given the same rights as us, but who are never truly accepted (by some at least) as being equal to us.

Critical Investigation

How are contemparary media texts featuring Vampires constructed to appeal to the young female audience and why might this be?