"There is no getting even."--Kathryn Erbe, the invisible ink
The last time I held Stoker in canonical esteem, I held a sturdy yellowed fine print paperback of Dracula under the table in university cafeteria, surreptitiously eyeing the classic as a preference over and above my French language homework.
Bram is more of a fortunate opportunist than might be supposed. Vampire lore extends back to India. Stoker sanitizes it for a late corrupted Victorian culture, and it has been a spicy popcorn snack ever since. Not positive I ever completed the novel in print, as I'm a victim of vapirism glut. Stoker's diction grates the nerves, but not to be defeated, I pulled the text from archive due to NBC's reprisal (long gasping sigh). Now I simmer like a shill, but the show seems produced with care for decor and continuity, and it has its own dialogical exchange with the Original text, subtly choreographed, its subtext being the decline of old empire and the rise of new power. Telsa is an interesting historical figure, often exploited with high cinematic Gothic ambiguity, but I can only do so much at one time.
To the extent the conceits still hold my interest, atavistic vampires, the Nosferatu versions, are more compelling than Stoker's count. Predation is difficult and brutal, and that is how life and death battles with our primal memory should be; I am not ready to rate Rhys-Meyers yet, but he could gain if he studied Anthony Hopkins' Hannibal.
I am guilty of the same sin as any in theory development. Even if I manage to publish a paper of respectable hostility, not all parents will abort monstrous issue. Am I a futurist?
No comments:
Post a Comment