How are contemporary media texts featuring Vampires constructed to appeal to the young female audience and why might this be?
Introduction - Vampires are the story of many folklore and fantasy novels, dating all the way back to the first cult classic 1897 Dracula. It is the traits and characteristics of the vampire that makes them so enthralling, and life envious. Our fascination stems from more of an "if only it could be real" sort of fantasy rather than an actual belief in vampires which raises the theories on escapism and sexual gratifications. In today’s culture Vampires have been constructed in a way to attract the young female audience and allowing the target audience conform to the characters.
Monday, 3 January 2011
Task 5
Introduction - Introduce question – Talk about Target Audience - History of Vampires – How they’ve changed over time.
Point 1 - Development of the genre
The “Craze” – Perpetuated by the Media
Point 2 - Girl Fans – Admire male characters – Uses and gratifications
Point 3 - How young girls identify themselves with female characters and why ?
Romance
Fashion
Sex
Point 4 - Target audience conforms to stereotypes
Conclusion - Conclude how contemporary media texts featuring Vampires are constructed to appeal to the young female audience and why this is so.
Point 1 - Development of the genre
The “Craze” – Perpetuated by the Media
Point 2 - Girl Fans – Admire male characters – Uses and gratifications
Point 3 - How young girls identify themselves with female characters and why ?
Romance
Fashion
Sex
Point 4 - Target audience conforms to stereotypes
Conclusion - Conclude how contemporary media texts featuring Vampires are constructed to appeal to the young female audience and why this is so.
Task 4
“Another possible reason why vampires have become more popular in recent years is the artistic creativity that writers are taking with this character.” – Ethan Thomas
“The fact that almost every culture has a version of the vampire myth suggests that the archetype addresses some deeply rooted fears and/or yearnings. There are many factors operating here: the attraction to the dark side of our natures; the fascination with what is forbidden; the desire for eternal youth and immortality; the centrality of blood in a religious sense. Add to these the sexual seductiveness and power that have come to be a part of the vampire image and you have a potent combination! I think this latter factor explains much of the popularity of the vampire today, as well as the desire of many young people in particular to live this alternative lifestyle. Being a "vampire" (or a Goth, for that matter) is for today's youth what being a "hippie" was for the youth of the 60s. The vampire figure has survived in literature and popular culture for another reason. It is a versatile archetype, and can be shaped and re-shaped to fit any individual artist's own vision. So while we still encounter fictional vampires who are spawns of Satan (as Stoker presented Dracula), we also have vampires who are more ambivalent or even basically good. Vampires have invaded every walk of life: they are detectives, policemen, doctors, professors, etc. If Bram Stoker could come back today, he would be absolutely amazed” - Elizabeth Miller
“The movie which came out in 1913 titled The Vampire showed a different side of vampires for the world to see being females as the lead roles” - Franck Benedittini
With all the recent interest in vampires (the Twilight saga, HBO's True Blood, CW's Vampire Diaries), it seems essential to note that the vampire character is one of the most ubiquitous in the history of cinema, extending from the earliest days of cinema to present-day manifestations. Dark, primitive, and revolting characters that simultaneously attract and repel us form the irresistible heart of big-screen vampire tales.
Vampire Source MaterialVampires began to emerge in popular fiction in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, during which time Irish writer Bram Stoker's 1897 vampire novel, Dracula, was written. It has become the most popular, influential, and preeminent source material for many vampire films. Stoker's seminal book hatched all the elements of future vampire films: predatory female vampires kissing the necks of male victims for their human blood, in order to remain immortal; an elderly count dwelling in a sinister Transylvanian castle; and a vampire hunter armed with a wooden stake and garlic to ward off the Prince of Darkness. Sheridan Le Fanu's 1872 Carmilla was a close second to Stoker's writings, becoming the source of numerous lesbian-vampire tales.
Earliest Variations on the VampireThe first horror movie was a silent film of 1896 made by imaginative French filmmaker Georges Méliès, titled Le manoir du diable (a.k.a. The House of the Devil), containing familiar elements of later horror and vampire films: a flying bat, a medieval castle, a cauldron, a demon figure (Mephistopheles), and a crucifix to dispatch with evil. Female vampires made an appearance in Robert Vignola's melodramatic Vampire: they were femmes fatales who seductively sucked the lifeblood from foolish men. (See also the popular vampire actress Theda Bara in A Fool There Was.) The earliest significant vampire film was director Arthur Robison's 1916 German silent film, Nächte des Grauens (a.k.a. A Night of Horror), which featured strange, vampirelike people. Until recently, the lost 1921 Hungarian film Drakula halála (a.k.a. Dracula's Death) was widely assumed to be the first adaptation of Stoker's vampire novel, and it featured cinema's first Dracula.
Nosferatu (1922)The first genuine vampire picture was produced by German director F.W. Murnau -- 1922's feature-length Nosferatu. Shot on location, it was an unauthorized film adaptation of Stoker's novel, with Max Schreck in the title role as the screen's first vampire -- a mysterious aristocrat named Count Orlok, who lived in the late 1830s in the town of Bremen. Because of copyright problems, the vampire was named Nosferatu, rather than Dracula, and the action was moved from Transylvania to Bremen. The emaciated, balding, undead vampire's image was unforgettable, with a devil-rat face, pointy ears, elongated fingers, sunken cheeks, and long fangs, with plague rats following him wherever he went. There were many attempts to copy or remake the film: German director Werner Herzog's faithful shot-by-shot color remake, Nosferatu the Vampyre, starred Klaus Kinski as a nauseating Count Dracula and beautiful Isabelle Adjani as Lucy Harker. The fanciful Shadow of the Vampire retold the making of the 1922 classic, with John Malkovich as obsessive director F.W. Murnau and Willem Dafoe as vampirish actor Schreck.
Dracula (1931)With Tod Browning's direction, Universal Studios produced a film version of Bela Lugosi's 1927 Broadway stage success about a bloodsucking 500-year-old menacing-yet-suave vampire named Dracula. His opening line of dialogue -- "I...am...Dracula. I bid you...welcome" -- was one of the most memorable entrances in horror-film history. The atmospheric, commercially successful film adaptation of Stoker's novel played upon fears of sexuality, blood, and the nebulous period between life and death. The heavily accented voice and acting of Hungarian actor Lugosi was frightening to early audiences: the undead villain hypnotically charmed his victims with a predatory gaze. To capitalize on its earlier successes, Universal slowly churned out other Dracula sagas, including their first official Dracula sequel -- the lesbian-tinged Dracula's Daughter, starring Gloria Holden as Countess Marya Zaleska.
Hammer's Cycle of Dracula FilmsThe U.K.'s Hammer Studios reinvigorated and sexually liberated the Stoker novel in a vast collection of provocative low-budget films, by employing garishly sensual colors, bloody reds, and more overtly gory violence. The British production company remained faithful to the genre's material (the classics from Universal) in tightly produced, spectacular Technicolor sequels featuring a seductive, alluring, and virile vampire. Talented director Terence Fisher (with Christopher Lee -- in one of his best appearances -- as the reclusive Count Dracula and Peter Cushing as arch-nemesis vampire hunter Dr. Van Helsing) created the classic 1958 flick Horror of Dracula. A flood of other romantic-gothic horror films followed.
Revisionist Interpretations or Portrayals of VampiresAs with all successful franchises, the key to Dracula's longevity was imagination and creativity. Although the basic elements of Stoker's novel remain in most vampire films, the revisionist variations have been striking and dramatic. A wide variety of vampire tales were put on celluloid in the eighties and afterward, usually with more overtly sexual overtones and bloody violence. There have been blaxploitation vampires (Blacula), lesbian vampires (The Vampire Lovers, Vampyres: Daughters of Darkness, and The Hunger), comic vampires (Once Bitten), a sickly junkie count (Andy Warhol's Dracula), a dog vampire (Dracula's Dog), teenage-punk vampires (The Lost Boys), Western-outlaw vampires (Near Dark), a cursed virginal rock-star vampire (Rockula), a Valley Girl vampire-hunter (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), a homoerotic vampire bromance (Interview With the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles), a trio of postmodern heroin-chic vampire films (Nadja, The Addiction, and Habit), Mexican strip-joint vampires (From Dusk Till Dawn), comic-book-adapted vampires (Blade), a goth-rock vampire (Queen of the Damned), an anti-lycanthropic vampire warrior (Underworld), viral mutant vampires (I Am Legend), Alaskan subzero vampires (30 Days of Night), and (yes) romantic teen vampires in the throes of forbidden love (Twilight). – Tom Dirks
“The fact that almost every culture has a version of the vampire myth suggests that the archetype addresses some deeply rooted fears and/or yearnings. There are many factors operating here: the attraction to the dark side of our natures; the fascination with what is forbidden; the desire for eternal youth and immortality; the centrality of blood in a religious sense. Add to these the sexual seductiveness and power that have come to be a part of the vampire image and you have a potent combination! I think this latter factor explains much of the popularity of the vampire today, as well as the desire of many young people in particular to live this alternative lifestyle. Being a "vampire" (or a Goth, for that matter) is for today's youth what being a "hippie" was for the youth of the 60s. The vampire figure has survived in literature and popular culture for another reason. It is a versatile archetype, and can be shaped and re-shaped to fit any individual artist's own vision. So while we still encounter fictional vampires who are spawns of Satan (as Stoker presented Dracula), we also have vampires who are more ambivalent or even basically good. Vampires have invaded every walk of life: they are detectives, policemen, doctors, professors, etc. If Bram Stoker could come back today, he would be absolutely amazed” - Elizabeth Miller
“The movie which came out in 1913 titled The Vampire showed a different side of vampires for the world to see being females as the lead roles” - Franck Benedittini
With all the recent interest in vampires (the Twilight saga, HBO's True Blood, CW's Vampire Diaries), it seems essential to note that the vampire character is one of the most ubiquitous in the history of cinema, extending from the earliest days of cinema to present-day manifestations. Dark, primitive, and revolting characters that simultaneously attract and repel us form the irresistible heart of big-screen vampire tales.
Vampire Source MaterialVampires began to emerge in popular fiction in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, during which time Irish writer Bram Stoker's 1897 vampire novel, Dracula, was written. It has become the most popular, influential, and preeminent source material for many vampire films. Stoker's seminal book hatched all the elements of future vampire films: predatory female vampires kissing the necks of male victims for their human blood, in order to remain immortal; an elderly count dwelling in a sinister Transylvanian castle; and a vampire hunter armed with a wooden stake and garlic to ward off the Prince of Darkness. Sheridan Le Fanu's 1872 Carmilla was a close second to Stoker's writings, becoming the source of numerous lesbian-vampire tales.
Earliest Variations on the VampireThe first horror movie was a silent film of 1896 made by imaginative French filmmaker Georges Méliès, titled Le manoir du diable (a.k.a. The House of the Devil), containing familiar elements of later horror and vampire films: a flying bat, a medieval castle, a cauldron, a demon figure (Mephistopheles), and a crucifix to dispatch with evil. Female vampires made an appearance in Robert Vignola's melodramatic Vampire: they were femmes fatales who seductively sucked the lifeblood from foolish men. (See also the popular vampire actress Theda Bara in A Fool There Was.) The earliest significant vampire film was director Arthur Robison's 1916 German silent film, Nächte des Grauens (a.k.a. A Night of Horror), which featured strange, vampirelike people. Until recently, the lost 1921 Hungarian film Drakula halála (a.k.a. Dracula's Death) was widely assumed to be the first adaptation of Stoker's vampire novel, and it featured cinema's first Dracula.
Nosferatu (1922)The first genuine vampire picture was produced by German director F.W. Murnau -- 1922's feature-length Nosferatu. Shot on location, it was an unauthorized film adaptation of Stoker's novel, with Max Schreck in the title role as the screen's first vampire -- a mysterious aristocrat named Count Orlok, who lived in the late 1830s in the town of Bremen. Because of copyright problems, the vampire was named Nosferatu, rather than Dracula, and the action was moved from Transylvania to Bremen. The emaciated, balding, undead vampire's image was unforgettable, with a devil-rat face, pointy ears, elongated fingers, sunken cheeks, and long fangs, with plague rats following him wherever he went. There were many attempts to copy or remake the film: German director Werner Herzog's faithful shot-by-shot color remake, Nosferatu the Vampyre, starred Klaus Kinski as a nauseating Count Dracula and beautiful Isabelle Adjani as Lucy Harker. The fanciful Shadow of the Vampire retold the making of the 1922 classic, with John Malkovich as obsessive director F.W. Murnau and Willem Dafoe as vampirish actor Schreck.
Dracula (1931)With Tod Browning's direction, Universal Studios produced a film version of Bela Lugosi's 1927 Broadway stage success about a bloodsucking 500-year-old menacing-yet-suave vampire named Dracula. His opening line of dialogue -- "I...am...Dracula. I bid you...welcome" -- was one of the most memorable entrances in horror-film history. The atmospheric, commercially successful film adaptation of Stoker's novel played upon fears of sexuality, blood, and the nebulous period between life and death. The heavily accented voice and acting of Hungarian actor Lugosi was frightening to early audiences: the undead villain hypnotically charmed his victims with a predatory gaze. To capitalize on its earlier successes, Universal slowly churned out other Dracula sagas, including their first official Dracula sequel -- the lesbian-tinged Dracula's Daughter, starring Gloria Holden as Countess Marya Zaleska.
Hammer's Cycle of Dracula FilmsThe U.K.'s Hammer Studios reinvigorated and sexually liberated the Stoker novel in a vast collection of provocative low-budget films, by employing garishly sensual colors, bloody reds, and more overtly gory violence. The British production company remained faithful to the genre's material (the classics from Universal) in tightly produced, spectacular Technicolor sequels featuring a seductive, alluring, and virile vampire. Talented director Terence Fisher (with Christopher Lee -- in one of his best appearances -- as the reclusive Count Dracula and Peter Cushing as arch-nemesis vampire hunter Dr. Van Helsing) created the classic 1958 flick Horror of Dracula. A flood of other romantic-gothic horror films followed.
Revisionist Interpretations or Portrayals of VampiresAs with all successful franchises, the key to Dracula's longevity was imagination and creativity. Although the basic elements of Stoker's novel remain in most vampire films, the revisionist variations have been striking and dramatic. A wide variety of vampire tales were put on celluloid in the eighties and afterward, usually with more overtly sexual overtones and bloody violence. There have been blaxploitation vampires (Blacula), lesbian vampires (The Vampire Lovers, Vampyres: Daughters of Darkness, and The Hunger), comic vampires (Once Bitten), a sickly junkie count (Andy Warhol's Dracula), a dog vampire (Dracula's Dog), teenage-punk vampires (The Lost Boys), Western-outlaw vampires (Near Dark), a cursed virginal rock-star vampire (Rockula), a Valley Girl vampire-hunter (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), a homoerotic vampire bromance (Interview With the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles), a trio of postmodern heroin-chic vampire films (Nadja, The Addiction, and Habit), Mexican strip-joint vampires (From Dusk Till Dawn), comic-book-adapted vampires (Blade), a goth-rock vampire (Queen of the Damned), an anti-lycanthropic vampire warrior (Underworld), viral mutant vampires (I Am Legend), Alaskan subzero vampires (30 Days of Night), and (yes) romantic teen vampires in the throes of forbidden love (Twilight). – Tom Dirks
Task 3
Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979)
In the past, most vampire films were based on the novel Dracula. In modern film, more and more changes have been made to the traditional vampire legend until in many films the vampires no longer play by the old rules. In the filmTwilight the vampires break from traditional lore in almost every way possible. Though a romantic movie, these vampires do not play by any of the traditional Dracula-type movie rules. They come out in the daytime, don’t sleep in coffins, have reflections in mirrors, and don’t drink human blood. In the past few decades vampire movies have become more creative, but they have also lost part of the tradition that made them unique.
In the past, most vampire films were based on the novel Dracula. In modern film, more and more changes have been made to the traditional vampire legend until in many films the vampires no longer play by the old rules. In the filmTwilight the vampires break from traditional lore in almost every way possible. Though a romantic movie, these vampires do not play by any of the traditional Dracula-type movie rules. They come out in the daytime, don’t sleep in coffins, have reflections in mirrors, and don’t drink human blood. In the past few decades vampire movies have become more creative, but they have also lost part of the tradition that made them unique.
Task 1
Close Textual Analysis
In this particular scene, there is a common ideology of the typical Vampires we find now a day.
They drink blood - This can be written as horrible and violent, but it can also be written as erotic and intimate: vampires are connected with a primal life force. The “siring” relationship - when one vampire creates another—also strikes a chord. Two people share a sexualized ritual, and then are forever connected, whether they want to be or not.
They’re frightening, yet vulnerable. Blood is difficult to get, especially for a reformed vampire. When they don’t get it, they need help—and at the same time, they can become more dangerous and primal, like a caged animal. They generally have various other weaknesses, notably sunlight. Though strong and scary at night, they need to be protected during the day.
They’re overpowering, yet overpowered. Often they have physical and/or mental powers beyond ordinary mortals. They can cause humans to act against their own wishes, and yet they are driven by natural impulses to act against their own.
They’re (usually) immortal. Forever young and pretty. They’re often hundreds of years old (yet still pretty!), making them worldly and cynical. Ah, cynicism: a bad boy attitude with intelligence and experience to back it up.
They can (usually) be reformed. An unlimited lifetime is enough time to try anything—even a supposedly evil creature can find virtue or love eventually. The potential invites the right mate to try and draw it out. On the other hand, an unlimited lifetime is enough time to try anything—even going good for awhile and then going bad again. So the danger is always there. A reformed vampire still needs to kill (or at least maim) for survival. This leads to delicious angst. (Why angst and guilt are sexy is a topic for another time…) such as the cast being beautiful, and that good looking guys or girls should go out with other good looking people, as well as constructing the ideology that sex is not a taboo.
This scene allows the audience to gain sexual gratification from the characters and also admire to the female characters that remain strong and powerful throughout the film. Through the long shots used the character's perfect bodies are shown that are in clothing Vampires would wear and make the audience attracted to them. Each Vampire has its own uniqueness and catches the audience’s attention. There is some sort of "male gaze" towards the female characters as they are very beautiful, this could also been seen for the male characters.
There is defiantly a sense of escapism as the audience feel they are in another world while watching Twilight.
In this particular scene, there is a common ideology of the typical Vampires we find now a day.
They drink blood - This can be written as horrible and violent, but it can also be written as erotic and intimate: vampires are connected with a primal life force. The “siring” relationship - when one vampire creates another—also strikes a chord. Two people share a sexualized ritual, and then are forever connected, whether they want to be or not.
They’re frightening, yet vulnerable. Blood is difficult to get, especially for a reformed vampire. When they don’t get it, they need help—and at the same time, they can become more dangerous and primal, like a caged animal. They generally have various other weaknesses, notably sunlight. Though strong and scary at night, they need to be protected during the day.
They’re overpowering, yet overpowered. Often they have physical and/or mental powers beyond ordinary mortals. They can cause humans to act against their own wishes, and yet they are driven by natural impulses to act against their own.
They’re (usually) immortal. Forever young and pretty. They’re often hundreds of years old (yet still pretty!), making them worldly and cynical. Ah, cynicism: a bad boy attitude with intelligence and experience to back it up.
They can (usually) be reformed. An unlimited lifetime is enough time to try anything—even a supposedly evil creature can find virtue or love eventually. The potential invites the right mate to try and draw it out. On the other hand, an unlimited lifetime is enough time to try anything—even going good for awhile and then going bad again. So the danger is always there. A reformed vampire still needs to kill (or at least maim) for survival. This leads to delicious angst. (Why angst and guilt are sexy is a topic for another time…) such as the cast being beautiful, and that good looking guys or girls should go out with other good looking people, as well as constructing the ideology that sex is not a taboo.
This scene allows the audience to gain sexual gratification from the characters and also admire to the female characters that remain strong and powerful throughout the film. Through the long shots used the character's perfect bodies are shown that are in clothing Vampires would wear and make the audience attracted to them. Each Vampire has its own uniqueness and catches the audience’s attention. There is some sort of "male gaze" towards the female characters as they are very beautiful, this could also been seen for the male characters.
There is defiantly a sense of escapism as the audience feel they are in another world while watching Twilight.
Sunday, 14 November 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)