Thursday night during Cheese, Crackers, and Checkers, Tina told a dicey joke that I thought was in really poor taste. Now, I can never remember jokes correctly (Tina loves to pick on me for this), so I don’t recall exactly how this one went, but the punch line might as well have been: “Isn’t it funny that vampires are a weird inferior race with gross alternative lifestyles and special needs that are fun to ignore!” Luckily, not a single one of my confirmed guests showed up that night, making me the sole witness to her disgusting outburst. I first tried explaining to Tina that I didn’t think the joke was funny and that she should think twice before passing that kind of toilet material around, but without a thought, she abruptly disagreed. Thus began an epic conversation turned probably-breakup argument which revealed a heart sick with hate, as black as a Sharpie marker, and, I fear, just as reliably permanent.

The mask really came off when I asked Tina to elaborate on her idea of a typical vampire. I’m not kidding, verbatim, this is what she said (her words not mine): “They all wear black capes and slick their hair back. They live in castles, and they kill people.” WTH! I sleep next to this maniac?! Hearing how casually the hate-spew flowed from her foul mouth made me wonder if I had somehow fallen through a time warp and been sucked all the way back to 2002–when vampires were “monsters” and the world was still an idiot.

It is astounding to me that after four or five whole years of progressive work towards vampire civil rights across all mediums of entertainment, despicable attitudes like Tina’s are still around. She went so far as to say that she “would not want vampires living in her neighborhood!” and her most pathetic line of defense was to continually scream, “Vampires are not real you dipsh*t!” I feel like that excuse has worn quite thin, as we all know now that minorities, vampires, aliens, homosexuals, mermaids, robots, werewolves, and pirates are all like the rest of us–just a little “different”. Well, real or unreal, natural or supernatural, on a great HBO show or living just down the hall, it doesn’t matter to me, there is no gray area, intolerance and bigotry are 100% unacceptable. I’ll bet that every crooked notion that Tina has about vampires is based on old movies she saw or weird books she read from a least six years ago! How was I supposed to react to this?

(Incidentally last fall, in a similar situation, I was forced to part ways with a very close friend. In a crowded cafe he kept loudly describing the refugee characters from the film District 9 as “big creepy insects.” I was severely embarrassed by his insensitivity concerning Apartheid in South Africa. I haven’t seen him since.)

Tina even refused to understand how not being able to go out in daylight constituted a physical handicap for vampires. She didn’t care that they couldn’t mail a package or open a checking account. Tina might have great hair and a full-time job, but her appalling attitude towards the disabled was the last straw. I left the house that night to clear my head, and I’ve been sleeping on the streets since. I assumed that I’d just crash on my yoga coach’s couch, but his secretary told me that he had actually died in a car fire literally just minutes before I called! A real shame because I felt like he really listened when I talked to him about this stuff.

Photo: mediamemo.com

◄ Back

Next ►

Picture 1 of 16

Mae & Caleb, "Near Dark" (1987)

]]> http://thefastertimes.com/vampires/2010/02/14/lovers-and-biters-the-most-interesting-vampire-couples/feed/ http://thefastertimes.com/vampires/2010/01/16/staking-vampire-movies-in-2010/ http://thefastertimes.com/vampires/2010/01/16/staking-vampire-movies-in-2010/#comments Sat, 16 Jan 2010 21:40:26 +0000 Rebecca Taylor http://thefastertimes.com/vampires/?p=441 I recently diagnosed myself with Vampire Movie Exhaustion (VME), a mild form of imagined depression, which, if it isn’t already, could very well be on its way to becoming a legitimate medical condition.  I’ve become despondent, slipping listlessly into a new year, a new lineup of vampire films promising a fresh take on a genre mainstay that will probably, for the most part, deliver nothing more than tired, regurgitated formulas.  I’ve had a hard time dragging myself to the theater to see the latest vampire movie installments.  I still haven’t seen “The Twilight Saga: New Moon” (I know–OMG, right?).  I’ve had two Netflix movies of the vampire variety sitting on top of my DVD player for over a month now, but I can’t muster the strength to sit down on the couch and watch them.  I did make it to “Daybreakers“, but (sorry, Ethan)–despite its mildly intriguing futuristic concept, brief coughs of cleverness (vampire politicians combating the oil blood shortage, vampyric wildlife causing forest fires), and solid f/x makeup–I gave up on it about thirty minutes in, right around the same time the movie gave up on itself.

Maybe it’s all in my head, but lately I’ve been feeling like the vampire genre has been sitting too long in its own bath water.  Combing through the 60+ vampire movies that are, according to IMDB, threatening a 2010 release, is a task in itself.  Sure, I am very excited about the March release of the comic book series “American Vampire,” and I suppose the new season of “True Blood” will also be fun, but when it comes to the vampires of the big screen, what I’m feeling right now is nothing short of ambivalence.  It seems like the grossly enormous success of the “Twilight” franchise has convinced studios far and wide to pump out as many blood sucking sucky movies in a mad dash to cash in.  But as L.A. Times movie blogger Steven Zeitchik points out, when it comes down to it, “Twilight’s” box office triumph can really only be seen as an isolated phenomenon:

Since the supposed vampire revival began several years ago, no non-Twilight film (and there have been plenty) has come close to breaking out. “Cirque du Freak: The Vampire’s Assistant” was an unabashed failure. “30 Days of Night” had one decent weekend and faded faster than a bloodsucker at sunrise. A more auteur-driven attempt, “Thirst,” couldn’t even muster $500,000 at the domestic box office this summer.

Truth is, most vampire movies lately have all been huge underperformers.  Which is not to say that they have all been spectacular disappointments.  To be fair, Park Chan-wook’s “Thirst“–with its disturbingly weird imagery (sipping blood through IV drips=majorly creepy), its squirm-inducing blood slurping sound effects, and its imaginative and perversely sexual take on vampire mythology–was both deliciously campy and stylistically complex.  But none of these qualities draw a crowd.  Teenage girls just don’t flock to the theater these days to see a homely vampire priest drinking blood in order to suppress a deadly virus that covers his body with oozing boils.  Sure, “Thirst” is very much a love story, but with all its sado-masochistic, lusty toe-sucking, armpit-licking sex, it’s definitely not that of the Edward and Bella variety.

Of course there are many factors that bring a movie monetary success, but as much as I’d like to, I can’t ignore the fact that to a large extent audiences have a hand in determining which movies flop.  Which is exactly why I have a hard time believing it’s vampires that sell tickets to the “Twilight” movies and not Taylor Lautner and Robert Pattinson.  When it comes down to it, true vampire horror films like “Thirst” just haven’t had the power lately to reach a wider audience.  Which depresses me to no end because this is the kind of movie I’d like to see more of this year.  I’m sick and tired of feeling dissatisfied by so much of what I see in theaters (and this goes beyond the vampire genre).  2009 really f-ing sucked for a whole lot of people, and if anything, the last thing anyone needs in the New Year is more dissatisfying vampire movies.

Dear Hollywood, here’s my 12 dollars.  Now make me really feel something.  Terrify me.  Seduce me.  Disgust me.  Confront me.  Break my heart.  I don’t care.  I’m just ready for something new.  Give me a vampire movie this year that will not only breathe new life into the genre and sell tickets, but transcend the genre altogether.

(Grand expectations, I know.  But I’ll keep you posted.)

Photos: movieroar.com, rottentomatoes.com

Get in the holiday spirit with Tim Burton’s creepy fantastic “The Nightmare Before Christmas“–the closest thing to “A Christmas Story” for vampires. (And speaking of Tim Burton and vampires, stay tuned for his big screen adaptation of “Dark Shadows” with Johnny Depp in 2011.)

Searching for the perfect vampire present? Apparently, vampires have feelings too. A handmade, leather-bound vampire diary is a fitting gift for sensitive, soulful vampires.

And while real vampires don’t sparkle in the sun, with all the residual “Twilight: New Moon” mania, your vampire may be feeling a little, well, inadequate. Make your undead honey feel extra sexy this holiday season–glitter body spray is an excellent stocking stuffer.

Vampires love gag-gifts! Give the gift of glow-in-the-dark Blacula soap or Buffy’s Mr. Pointy (your vampire will thank you for preventing one less slayer wannabe from acquiring a $100 sharpened piece of wood). Then ring in the New Year with Angel and Spike. “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” will return to the small screen for an 18-hour marathon on New Year’s Day.

“The Bunnicula Collection” will have little vampires sucking their veggies in no time. Or, for a holiday treat, bake up some extra special cookies for Vampire Santa.

Béla Lugosi’s Dracula once proclaimed, “I never drink wine”. But he also–in a bizarre display of Depression era Hollywood anti-Semitism–wore a Star-of-David necklace. Fortunately, a lot has changed since 1931. (And chances are, with all the vampire holiday hysteria, you’ll be needing a stiff drink.) Booze it up with the vampire in your life with a bottle or two of Vampire Vineyard’s Dracula Syrah and/or Vampyre Vodka.

Or, for more low-key vampires, curl up by the fireplace with a warm mug of o-positive. Vegetarian vampires will appreciate a 4-pack of Tru Blood, and your local butcher shop can supply you with a fresh vat of animal blood. And of course nothing says “I love you” like neck-biting with your special someone.

Happy Holidays, and remember to drink responsibly.

Photos: cafepress.com, ebay.com, amazon.com, gearcrave.com, scifiscoop.com, etsy.com, starpulse.com, giftguide.com, amazon.com, etsy.com, amazon.com, llwyd.tripod.com, amazon.com, buzzmagazine.com, coppergifts.com, vampirevineyards.com, filmsquish.com, trubeverage.com, zazzle.com

It’s official: Keep your daughters close.  A new evil has been unleashed.

“New Moon,” the latest installment of “The Twilight Saga” based on the Stephen King panned, best-selling books by Stephenie Meyer, has arrived on the big screen.  According to Forbes.com, the highly anticipated, hugely publicized movie has already become “the top advance ticket-seller in the 10-year history of Fandango” and is expected to gross more than 100 million dollars this opening weekend. Which means that if you were hoping to catch a matinee of “Fantastic Mr. Fox” this Sunday, be prepared–all across America millions of teenage girls and, forgive me, Twi-hards will be mobbing the multiplexes in droves.

In all seriousness, though, I must confess that despite my disinterest in Meyer’s books–and the fact that I was not disappointed when my Netflix DVD of the abominable “Twilight” froze up and refused to play the last twenty minutes of the movie–the trailer for “New Moon” does look, well, sort of fun. I’m vaguely interested to see Dakota Fanning and Michael Sheen (aka David Frost) as vampires. And there’s also the intriguing fact that the Monsignor Franco Perazzolo of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Culture has declared the film a “deviant moral vacuum.”

But none of this means you’ll find me anywhere near a movie theater this weekend.  I’ll wait for the hormones of the Edward/Jacob groupies to calm before I even think about a public screening.  But when, and if, they finally do, there’s a slight chance I might catch this one in theaters.

Part of the draw for me is that from what I’ve heard Robert Pattinson/Edward doesn’t have much screen time in this one.  Apparently, in this installment of the “Twilight” series, the focus is on–gasp–the werewolves more than the vampires.  Which is why we’ve been hearing so much about this new kid, Taylor “Amazing Abs” Lautner (Taylor Swift’s “Tay Tay”) who plays Jacob, Bella’s new werewolf bf.

Sure, I’ve always been–surprise, surprise–more of a vampire than a werewolf-type girl.  And I’m sure Hollywood agrees when I say that vampires are, hands down, much sexier. But for me those vampires aren’t of the Robert Pattinson variety.  I’d much rather see a pack of CG werewolves running around than a scrawny, constipated, teenage vampire any day.

There’s also something to be said for the kind of sexuality that werewolves represent. Unlike vampires, they maintain their humanity; they are humans with an affliction. When the full moon rises, they turn from ordinary men, and sometimes women, into ravenous animals.  They shed their sexually repressed human skin–nudity is a necessary step in their transformation–and give into their animal urges.  Even Mormon Stephenie Meyer is with me on this–she had werewolf full frontal nudity in her books.

Which doesn’t mean we’ll be seeing anything more than a few shirtless teenage boys in “New Moon.”  Apparently, that PG-13 rating is much more important than seeing Tay Tay’s Tay Tay…

Photos: deviantart.net, evilbeetgossip.film.com

]]> http://thefastertimes.com/vampires/2009/11/20/new-moon-rises-werewolves-attack-the-twilight-saga-returns/feed/ http://thefastertimes.com/vampires/2009/10/30/night-visitors-and-the-science-of-sleep-paralysis/ http://thefastertimes.com/vampires/2009/10/30/night-visitors-and-the-science-of-sleep-paralysis/#comments Fri, 30 Oct 2009 22:27:37 +0000 Rebecca Taylor http://thefastertimes.com/vampires/?p=291 I open my eyes, and I’m afraid. There’s a shadow hovering over me, a weight pressing down on my body, my chest–can’t move, can’t breathe. I try to scream, but the noise stops in the back of my throat.

Wake up.

But I’m awake. M. is asleep beside me, the trash trucks are growling outside again, and the woman in 6D is smoking again (it seeps through the floorboards).

The shadow moves in, closer, closer. And there’s a face now, strangely familiar like something from childhood I can’t place–a slanted smile, a wink of teeth, something cold on my neck, something warm from neck, something metallic in my mouth.

I tell myself that I’m dreaming. In the morning, I won’t remember this, only a dull afterglow. I will wake up later than usual, and I’ll blame the rain. M. will be gone, a coffee stain left on the counter. I’m dreaming. My eyes are open, but I’m dreaming.

According to the American Academy of Sleep Medicine’s International Classification of Sleep Disorders, “isolated sleep paralysis occurs at least once in a lifetime in 40% to 50% of normal subjects.” If you haven’t experienced this phenomenon already, chances are you will at some point in your life:

Sleep paralysis provides an explanation for a variety of supernatural occurrences. Dr. David J. Hufford, a professor at Penn State College of Medicine, has devoted much of his career to the study of “the experiential grounds for spiritual beliefs.” His book, “The Terror That Comes in the Night: An Experience Centered Study of Supernatural Assault Traditions,” focuses on real life accounts of “old hag attacks”–sleep paralysis accompanied by the terrifying hallucination that a demon, or “old hag,” is sitting upon the sleeper’s chest.

Alien abductions, ghostly hauntings, vampire visitations–the science of sleep paralysis explains them away. It has even been linked to cases of Sudden Unexpected Nocturnal Death Syndrome–the nighttime affliction said to have inspired Wes Craven to write A Nightmare on Elm Street (whatever you do, don’t fall asleep)…

Years ago, when I was a child, before vampires turned sparkly and sensitive–when they were still scary–I experienced sleep paralysis on a number of occasions. I would wake up in the night in a state of intense fear, unable to move or cry out, and I would see–clear as day–a vampire hovering among the tangible contents of my room. Like other childhood visions (I also saw the Easter bunny), these nighttime visitors were dismissed by my parents as the product of my overactive imagination.

But I’m not a child anymore, and the visitors have come back.

And while sleep paralysis may explain why I can’t move or scream or fight, it doesn’t explain these two strange puncture wounds on my neck. It doesn’t explain why I’m so incredibly hungry…

Tonight, while you slumber sweetly in your bed, your brain will secrete a chemical that will paralyze your body.

What a perfect time for a vampire to attack.

.

.

.

.

Photos of the author by James Kusher.

Other images: circo de invierno ⑲ ~, fineartregistry.com, amoeba.com

According to Vertigo, “The new ongoing series, AMERICAN VAMPIRE, will introduce readers to a new breed of vampire–a more muscular and vicious species of vampire with distinctly American characteristics.” From the Vertigo blog:

Snyder’s storyline is one of decadence and deception and Jazz Age glamour. Pearl is an ambitious modern woman with starlet dreams. She frequents Hollywood’s speakeasies and dance-halls searching for her first big break, only to find something far more sinister waiting for her.

King’s story provides the origin of the very first American vampire: Skinner Sweet, a bank robbing, murdering cowboy of the 1880s. Skinner is stronger and faster than previous vampires; he has rattlesnake fangs and is powered by…. the sun?

Following the conclusion of the first story arc, Snyder and Albuquerque will trace Skinner’s bloodline through various decades of American history.

Vampire cowboys?! Jazz Age decadence?! The imaginative super powers of Snyder, King, and Albuquerque?!

Oh my goodness gracious, I’m excited.

.

Artwork: newsarama.com, rafaelalbuquerque.com

All Hallows’ Eve is fast approaching, and if the miraculous appearance of tacky costume stores in previously vacant retail locations hasn’t already reminded you what time of year it is, allow me: It’s time to start planning your costume!

According to a recent report by the National Retail Federation, thanks to the state of the economy, shoppers are expected to spend an average of $56.31 on Halloween this year, down from $66.54 in 2008. While I know for some this may not be cause for celebration, I can’t help it–I’m so excited! Less money means more creative, homemade Halloween costumes!

Before you start scavenging your closet, dusting off the old sewing machine, and mixing fake blood out of food coloring and maple syrup, let’s take a glance at the NRT’s Top Ten Adult Costumes (of the boring store-bought variety):

1. Witch
2. Vampire
3. Pirate
4. Clown
5. Wench/Tart/Vixon
6. Cat
7. Devil
8. Scary Costume/Mask
9. Athlete
10. Police Officer

Anything surprise you? I, for one, am a bit baffled that witches take the number one spot. I mean, witches aren’t exactly invading pop culture the way vampires are right now–there’s been some buzz about zombies being the new vampires, but witches? No. But apparently witches have been casting their spell for a while: The witch has been number one for three years now, according to the NRT lists from 2007 and 2008. So are witches the new vampires? Only time will tell.

I provide this list not to demonstrate mysterious witch trends or the alarming absence of Michael Jackson from the list. Instead, I want to call your attention to the relative simplicity of popular Halloween costumes. Most everything from this list can be easily thrown together from your own closet. What self-respecting girl can’t come up with a “tart” costume on the spot? All black=witch. Your sweaty gym clothes=athlete. And pretty much anyone with a pale face these days can pass for a vampire (fangs aside).

Not that I’m suggesting you wear three shades of red and call yourself the devil. Have fun, be inventive, combine unexpected elements:

And when it comes to vampires, no one wants to see a vampire with a black cape anymore anyway, but a vampire in that wedding gown you’re never going to wear again–that’s newsworthy.

So tell me… who–or what–will you be this year?

.

.

.

Photos: Ateo Fiel, kera.org, triplem.com, stevechasmar

But what does Tucker Max have to do with vampires? Thanks to the Washington Post my mother read this weekend–a lot.

Jaclyn Friedman’s article in the Sunday Washington Post, “He Trashes the Ladies. They Love Him For It,” poses a really good question: “Why does Tucker Max have so many female fans?” Friedman edited the book “Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and a World Without Rape” and therefore has many complex, serious answers to this question. But she also brings up another, more-serious-than-it-sounds point:

“In retrospect, we really should have seen Tucker Max coming. We’ve already, after all, replaced the fiercely independent vampire slayer Buffy with the helpless vampire lover Bella. The cult of Tucker Max is just a photo negative of the “Twilight” phenomenon: Both cultures view women as irresistible objects that tempt men into doing dangerous, uncontrollable things. If Edward Cullen were less stoic and less monogamous, he’d be Tucker Max.”

Thank you, Ms. Friedman! All this time I was trying to figure out why Twilight bored me so, and you hit the stake in the heart–Edward Cullen reminds me of Tucker Max! Seriously, though, she makes an excellent point. What’s with the regression to old-fashioned gender roles in teenage vampire stories? And why oh why are teenage girls nowadays eating it up? When I was that age, Buffy(the show) was AWESOME because she could take care of herself (a.k.a. slay vampires and other forces of evil) AND have passionate love affairs AND save the world. In comparison, Twilight’s Edward Cullen comes across like an annoying stalker. Buffy would have staked him in a second. Instead, the object of Edward’s infatuation–virginal teenage Bella–falls helplessly in love.

Which brings me to this. You may have heard about this new television show, “The Vampire Diaries,” which premiered two weeks ago on the CW. Well I’ve been watching researching it, and so far, I’m not impressed. Here’s just one reason why (spoiler alert): In episode one, the very first character to fall victim to a vampire is the most promiscuous girl on the show–Vicki Donovan. Prior to being bitten, we learn that Vicki is using drugs and–gasp–sleeping with two different guys! I am so bored of the “naughty girls deserve to be victims” formula. Friedman might equate it to the “she asked for it” rape defense. In Bram Stoker’s Dracula, the first victim is the flirtatious Lucy Westenra with three male suitors. I’m okay with that. “Dracula” was published in 1897. But why in 2009 are we being fed the same old story?

One of Friedman’s explanations for the prevalence of female Tucker Max fans is that college age women today are of a generation that was raised on “abstinence-only education in schools and unlimited free porn online.” Young women have been given two options: either be a virgin or be a slut. And that sucks. It doesn’t help that film, television, and literature insists on repackaging this idea over and over again.

If Oscar Wilde was right and “Life imitates art far more than art imitates life,” perhaps we need to be a little more critical of the narratives “Twilight” and “The Vampire Diaries” are selling. Perhaps what we need is a little more Buffy…

.

.

.

Photos: timeinc, time-travel-dvds

Klinger’s article reminded me of something that I confess to consciously ignoring about Bram Stoker’s infamous vampire villain: Dracula is not a sexy guy. I too, like the other “first time readers of Dracula” that Klinger refers to, was surprised and admittedly disappointed when I first read Bram Stoker’s description of the Count:

“His face was a strong - a very strong - aquiline, with high bridge of the thin nose and peculiarly arched nostrils; with lofty domed forehead, and hair growing scantily round the temples, but profusely everywhere. His eyebrows were very massive; almost meeting over the nose, and with bushy hair that seemed to curl in its own profusion. The mouth, so far as I could see it under the heavy moustache, was fixed and rather cruel-looking, with peculiarly sharp white teeth; these protruded over the lips, whose remarkable ruddiness showed astonishing vitality in a man of his years. For the rest, his ears were pale and at the tops extremely pointed; the chin was broad and strong, and the cheeks firm though thin. The general effect was one of extraordinary pallor.”

Needless to say, Bram Stoker’s “profusely” hairy, uni-browed, pointy-eared monster was not what I had in mind when I thought about vampires. Like most victims of Hollywood vampires, I expected literary Dracula to be just another incredibly gorgeous, undead sexual being. In other words, I expected him to look something like this.

Turns out, the original vampires–the vampires of folklore–weren’t so hot themselves. In “Vampires, Burial, and Death,” Paul Barber describes the early Eastern European vampire as “a plump Slavic fellow with long fingernails and a stubbly beard, his mouth and left eye open, his face ruddy and swollen… [dressed] like a disheveled peasant” with extremely bad breath. Not exactly the stuff of Sookie’s latest sex dreams.

As both Barber and Klinger point out, vampire folklore is widely believed to be the product of 16th century imaginations grasping for a way to make sense of body decomposition and the spread of disease. It is only within the last century (10 years in vampire years?) that vampires have transformed from rotting, pudge-bellied monsters into the sexiest men and women alive. The October issue of Playboy may be, for some, the climactic moment of this transformation.

As for me, I’ll take Gary Oldman’s Dracula over Playboy any day.

.

.

.

Photos: thefrisky, billiedoux

]]> http://thefastertimes.com/vampires/2009/09/13/playboy-playmates-and-the-sexualization-of-vampires/feed/