MTV recently interviewed Alex Proyas about his upcoming vampire film Dracula: Year Zero. Mr. Proyas plans to spin a more “realistic” take on the character and MTV was nice enough to press the issue for us. The following is an excerpt from the interview:
Draculas, and vampires in general, are known, of course, for some pretty unrealistic things: being able to transform into bats, for instance, or aversion to garlic, or a lack of a reflection in mirrors, or giant fangs.
“Oh, you’ve got to have teeth,” Proyas exclaimed. “I mean, the teeth are really important. I think Frank Langella in the ‘Dracula’ movie that was made in the 70s, I think he didn’t want to have teeth in the movie. But, no, I like the teeth. I want to see girls with a lot of teeth.”
Ok, so teeth are in. Garlic? “I think the garlic thing is kind of weird,” Proyas laughed.
And the transformation into a bat? Well…Proyas wouldn’t say. So what parts of mythology DO make it into his version? “Stakes and teeth,” the director smiled. “And we’re lots and lots of blood!”
I see where Proyas is going with this and I think I’m on board. Turning into a bat or a wolf is cool, but what really makes vampires interesting to me is their hypnotic sensuality. They woo the willing into giving up their necks in exchange for their last lusty rendezvous. Those that are fancied by the Vampires are spared and eventually turned into beasts themselves. Forever dammed for giving themselves up in exchange for carnality, they must now feed the hunger that first brought the curse upon them.
Some victims have no choice in the matter and are drained like pigs at the slaughter; but the drinking of the willing is far more interesting to me.
Garlic, Crosses, and bats I can do without. Steaks through the heart are essential, as are fangs and blood. If you are going to strip a vampire story down to the bare essentials, I think Proyas has the right idea.
What do you guys think? Will removing some of the more supernatural powers of Dracula upset you, or will you be fine with a stripped down villain so long as it works?
“Steaks through the heart are essential”
Really? I didn’t know you could kill a vampire with a thick hunk of tasty meat…
Aside from this, what has anyone heard regarding the actual sequel to the original Bram Stoker novel that producer Jon de Bont was supposedly going to do? John Heard I believe was attached to it as Van Helsing…..taking pl;ace 20 years after the original book…????
I see Vampire movies on principle. I love them even when they suck (no pun intended). The best and most interesting vampire projects for me are the ones that fuck with the traditional myths. As much fun as some of the traditional mythology can be, I do always enjoy the stories that approach the mythology with less hokum, and more character driven stories like the Anne Rice stories, or “the Hunger”, or even CBS’ “Moonlight”. The idea of vampires among us as an alternate immortal version of ourselves, a reflection of our dark sides, an expression of our anxieties about sex, death, disease.
A dangerous threat to us, but also dependent and inherently linked to us too. And yes throw in some sensuality and sexuality (I think it’s intrinsic to the whole idea of vampirism anyway) and you’ve got entertainment.
I am all for it, although I would prefer it to be more about being dramatic than horror. Sort of like what they did with Interview with a Vampire. Focus on the immortality and sensuality. This being destined to live forever with a lust for blood, a creature that uses seduction as a means to fulfill this hunger, all the while trying to maintain the “masquerade”. In the midst, perhaps, finding a piece of humanity through love causing a colliding of two worlds to take place. Immortality and blood lust is all that is all the supernatural needed to make a good vampire movie. There is no need for shape shifting, crucifix, and so on and so forth.
I used to be a big fan of vampires… I love what Anne Rice has done with them (except in some of her later books). But, lately, all you see of vampires are young teens with their face changing in some king of monsters (as seen in Angel and Buffy) and I’m kinda tired of that kind of vampires. Proyas might have something here!! Hopefully, he’ll bring back what made vampires scary and interesting. Having a face with an angry look is not what is scary to me… The mystery… the sounds… The teeth… The blood… That’s what makes Vampires, and Dracula, scary…
Whatever
I agree with Gavin’s above suggestion that they make a Vlad the Impaler movie if they really want to try a realistic take on Dracula.
And I don’t see why wooden stakes would make it in anyway, since the symbolism of stakes has supernatural implications too. Why can’t you just stab them with anything?
A correction to my statement about mosquitoes: They don’t avoid the scent of garlic so much as it blocks their ability to smell your blood.
Actually the garlic thing makes absolute sense. Garlic thins the blood. Even mosquitoes avoid the scent of garlic.
Go Alex Proyas! I love vampire films.
I hope so. I just hope we don’t see a repeat of “Dracula: 2000”. I want to see something modern, but dark, violent, & interesting. I just don’t want to see anything similar to the old Bram Stoker movie. I just want to see a great modern Dracula movie. As long as it delivers, I will see it. Horror movies have been going deeper and deeper down the septic tank for quite a while now. Deliver us some good horror!
i think the garlic and crucifixes and bats are very cool because they reflect the idea of bizarre superstitions having merit.
Isn’t it a bit much that we have to endure yet another Dracula film. If we really had to go there, then why not a proper Vlad the Impaler film where the whole thing was about Vlad and ended with some kind of “deal with the devil”.
Then you could have the next film about his rediscovery of himself and the becoming of his powers. Transylvania would be well populated for that era and the peasants wouldn’t know what hit them. Also Vlad would need to decide to adopt a new name, determine how to stay functional, rebel against his bloodlust, discover love issues etc.
It would be up to the third film to cover the Bram Stoker parts of the Dracula story then, by which time we’d sympathise more with Vlad than with Jonathan Harker.
I don’t think I’d care too much. I mean…let’s be honest. Where did those come into the Dracula/Vampire myth to begin with?