By TRENTON JUDD
Online Writer
From the earliest vampire films to the most recent we have seen a very interesting evolution of the vampire. The first known vampire film was F.W. Murnau’s “Nosferatu.” “Nosferatu” was a German silent film made in 1922 and it was the first film adaptation of the book “Dracula,” which was written by Bram Stoker. Instead of Count Dracula we were introduced to Count Orlok, played by Max Schreck, who was more of a deformed looking human than one of today’s perfectly sculpted vampires.
The second vampire adaptation was Tod Browning’s “Dracula,” which was a black and white film made in 1931. This film set the standard for the generic vampire because Bela Lugosi’s portrayal of Count Dracula was so well done that it became the standard for the vampire. The way Lugosi portrayed Dracula was with a suave sense of style and sophistication that blurred the line between man and monster. I would say that Lugosi started us on the trend of the attractive vampire, but unlike today’s vampires Lugosi’s Dracula was attractive because of his sophistication instead of his physique.
The next adaptation I will touch on is “Van Helsing” by Stephen Sommers. This film was released in 2004 and the primary vampire in it is Dracula played by Richard Roxburgh. Roxburgh has almost the same style and sophistication as Lugosi, but his portrayal has a sort of monstrous rage. In the film this version of the character goes between two forms and the primary form is human, but the other form, which is referred to as his true form, is a humanoid bat creature. This incarnation is my personal favorite because it incorporates the classic sophistication of Lugosi, but it also adds a sort of dark primal side to the character making him more of a monster than a human. Another thing I really like about this Dracula is that he is a really great villain because he wants to take over the world and he also has a few monologues set to classical music, which is my favorite trait to see out of a movie villain.
The final adaptation that I will talk about shows a huge change in how vampires have ultimately strayed away from their roots. The adaptation in question is Catherine Hardwicke’s “Twilight.” I am aware that the series gets a lot of crap, but I’m not here to criticize the story I am just going to criticize how they chose to present a vampire. Unlike Lugosi and Roxburgh, this rendition of the vampire doesn’t act on sophistication, but instead uses his body and looks to sway victims. That is also something very wrong with the twilight vampires and that is none of them seem to crave any victims as food, but instead want to date girls they are attracted to.
I hate to burst every teenage girl’s heart, but vampires do not want to date you because they would much rather be drinking your blood. Vampires don’t get attracted to people, but instead people are attracted to vampires and I don’t think any vampire would give up blood just so they wouldn’t have to kill. Vampires need to be ruthless monsters that fill us with fear instead of these models that will magically marry us and take all our problems away. The best reason for this is that the story of the vampire is there to scare us into being cautious of every one especially the sophisticated types, but what ”Twilight” has done has caused us to just run into the arms of the nearest attractive person and completely forget the danger that goes with being with a stranger.
I hope that society gets out of this sexy vampire craziness and goes back to the days of the sophisticated yet monstrous vampire because to be honest I am ready to be scared of vampires again instead of laughing at them