The Issue with Colored and Foreign Characters

We have seen many examples in True Blood where colored people are ridiculed, stereotyped, or even humiliated. It seems to be a common thing in vampire shows and movies like True Blood and Dracula to make foreigners and people of color into laughable or ridiculed characters. Perhaps this can translate into society’s feeling about foreign invasion and the still existing racial issues in our country.

To start off, a plethora of examples can be found in True Blood. Lafayette? Let’s make him flamboyant, drag-queen-like, sassy, a drug dealer, and openly gay.





http://25.media.tumblr.com/5898d420d5cf74300c5d22652370be9f/tumblr_mgzzqfM3nK1rzhkiyo1_500.gif

Tara? She is your typical angry black woman with an attitude who tells it like it is. She puts her hand on her hip almost constantly and is very bossy. Rene is another foreign character who isn’t as easily considered as an outsider, but by all means, he definitely is. His Cajun accent is very prominent when he speaks and he’s pretty tan even for a Louisiana native. How is he degraded? For one, he’s the main villain and a serial killer. That can be a quick way to demoralize your character. The last character I want to mention is Amy Burley, Jason’s hippie love interest. Yes, she isn’t a person of color, but she is an outsider by the show’s standards due to her educational background. No one in the show has been portrayed as having any education  and sadly, most characters aren’t too civilized to begin with. Throughout the show, Amy is constantly ridiculed by the things she says, which ironically come from her educational background. To make matters worse, it is eventually revealed that she is completely psycho and bloodthirsty (pun intended) for “V”.

In Dracula, it is apparent that the comedic relief is Quincy Morris, the Texan. What a surprise. He isn’t portrayed as the brightest character in the cast and that can easily be seen by the completely stereotyped remarks he makes with his very thick attempt at a Texan accent. He’s exactly what outsiders would think of when they think “Texas.” He’s a gun-slinging, mustache-wearing, rough Texan who isn’t very smart and offers violence as the main source for solutions. It is not a coincidence that he happens to die at the end of the movie. Is this an elimination of foreign invasion? Probably.

To conclude, I feel that it is very apparent that foreigners are not the main focus in Vampire shows and movies. I believe that part of the reason for writers and directors doing this is that they want to comply with society’s views on race and foreign invasion. Otherwise, they wouldn’t specifically target this demographic.

The Overprotective/Possessive Vampire

The vampires that we’ve been reading about, quite frankly, remind me a little bit of my dad. He’s insanely overprotective of me and “joked” relentlessly for years that I would never be allowed to date until I was 30—thankfully, that rule has been dismissed, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t constantly want to know where I am and whether or not I’m okay. Since entering college, he’s let up a bit, but I don’t even want to think about horror stories from high school when he made sure I was home by insanely early times.

Of course, my dad and I don’t have the same relationships as the vampires and humans do in these books, but the relationships are still overbearing on one end of the relationship. For example, Jonathan Harker, dazzled by the three sexy vampiresses, almost allows them to feed on him until Dracula saves the day by coming in and declaring “‘This man belongs to me!’” (Stoker 43). Dracula lays a claim on Jonathan, as if Dracula actually possesses him—a bit rude, considering he didn’t ask Jonathan first.

Carmilla, meanwhile, freaks out Laura during one of her emotional, lesbian fits when she tells our traditional, Victorian narrator, “‘You are mine, you shall be mine, you and I are one forever’” (Le Fanu 18). Carmilla, while draining the rest of her victims and causing their deaths within days, draws out her feeding on Laura because of her personal and romantic feelings. She wants Laura to be her own human forever, but Laura simply isn’t having it.

Bill Compton seems even more possessive of Sookie than the previous vampires were of their favorite humans, if that’s possible. His first instance of claiming rights on her came during the first scene with Malcolm, Liam, and Diane. They’re about to sink their fangs into her when he suddenly says, “‘Sookie is mine’” (Harris 71). When Sookie questions him about this later, the only human we see to challenge their overprotective vampire, he says bluntly, “‘It means you are my human’” (102). When they talk to Eric in Fangtasia, Bill repeats his ownership of her yet another time—talk about a possessive relationship.

In the television series True Blood, we see another instance of ownership, though this one is between a vampire and vampire-to-be. After the Civil War has ended, Bill wakes up drained of most of his blood, with Lorena, his maker, telling him that the only way to return to his family is to drink from her blood. At first he’s apprehensive, but he also really wants to see his family, so he gives in. Lorena immediately begins talking about how they’re going to be together forever, and she says while he drinks her blood, “You . . . are mine!”

This final scene shows the full extent of why vampires are so possessive over certain humans—once they find one they really like, they decide they want to be with that human forever. Perhaps all the other vampires we’ve seen intended to change their humans to vampires at some point down the line and monopolize their love, especially so no one else could have them.

Victorian Foreigners = Today's Minorities

In Bram Stoker’s Dracula, foreign invasion proves to be a driving theme throughout the novel. The vampire Dracula is characterized as haunting, pale, and exoctic. His personality and overall demeanor emphasizes a sort of gender conflation and mixed sexuality. His desire for Lucy, Mina, and even his vampiresses prove his sexuality as hetero, but he also conflates that role when he declares to the Van Helsing group that he will get to them through their women. During the Victorian era, British imperialism and industrialization was on a rise and faced a collapse due to foreign invasion. The British at the time were focused on making their country thrive and keep British ties within the homeland, so foreigners were branded as unwanted entities.

The concern of the “Other” creates an allegory between Bram Stoker’s Dracula and Britain of the 19th century. This allegory can be represented by not only Dracula, but by also the Crew of Light group, which included Van Helsing, Jonathan Harker, Quincy Morris, Arthur Holmwood, and John Steward. If you look at the Crew of Light group, you can see an alliance between British, American, and Western Europe. This alliance must then works together to defeat the threat from Eastern Europe, Dracula. Dracula’s foreign invasion is then parallel to his smaller “invasion” of Lucy’s English home. Lucy represents a kind a light in the west and Dracula is able to victimize Lucy giving an alarm to his potentiality to victimizing an entire nation. But, to compare to present day issues, Dracula’s foreignness could symbolize the personae of minorities, in the sense that they are the “Others”.

If you look at other supernatural movies, television shows, or books, each creature or character has its own characteristic that makes it similar to its species. For example, take a look the Twilight Saga. Vampires are perceived as the eccentric and exotic figures that take the lead in many societal aspects. Since the vampires represent superiority, they are a parallel to white people in America. The Twilight vampires are powerful, graceful, desired beings and you can see this power and desire in a subtle racial hierarchy, which is still present to our current society. Now, take this parallel and focus on the other main characters of the saga, the werewolves. In the novels, these wolves descend from a mystical line of Native American tribe culture. The Quileute pack are goofy, energetic, impulsive, and base their personalities on a more brute/ animalistic side. This is the representation of minorities and how they are the more savage side of people. Relating back to Dracula, the foreignness or sense of other was feared because the British believed these cultures were more primitive and would destroy their nation. In a way, the minorities in Twilight represent that same primitive culture, but make them non-white characters and the supernatural being of an actual animal.   

Homo You Didn't: a Criticism of Coppola's "Dracula"

Hollywood, the city where stories either become world renowned or go to die. We have all seen movies that cross that fine line between good and bad, balance on that precarious edge of quality material versus fan-service. It’s a common tale that all of us are familiar with a consumers of media. So why is it that Hollywood willingly takes a well-written story that stands on its own and tampers with it, occasionally running it into the ground? This was the recurrent thought that popped into my head while watching Francis Ford Coppola’s “Dracula”.

It’s not that the movie as a whole was terrible, the makeup was well done and the costumes proved to be interesting, but I didn’t understand the need for manipulating Mina and Dracula into a romantic relationship. The movie opens in a scene of war where Elizabeta, who turns out to be Mina reincarnate, kills herself because she thinks her lover Dracula has been killed. In a very Romeo and Juliet-esque manner, Dracula turns out to still be alive and stabs a cross out of anger at Elizabeta’s death. This turns Dracula into a vampire. A couple hundred years down the road, we see the two reunited again as Mina and Dracula, two people drawn together for some reason they don’t quite know. Perhaps this choice was artistic license, but at the end of the day, I believe that it doesn’t make the movie one of better quality. 

Perhaps things would have been more solid if they kept to Bram Stoker’s version of Dracula and just kept all the sexual undertones within the movie. Around half if not more of the characters in the book were preyed upon in a sexual manner, so if the movie was trying to provide sexual fan-service, why didn’t they take that route instead? I believe this is because the director wasn’t comfortable with producing an adaptation that was homoerotic.

For those of us who have read Dracula, we know that Dracula preyed upon both Jonathan and Mina Harker in a sexual manner. Dracula even makes the statement that he will attain all the men of the country through their women, a declaration that pretty blatantly exposes him as a queer character (Stoker). It doesn’t stop there either, Dracula lays claim to Jonathan, shouting “he is mine” when fending of the female vampiresses (Stoker). But instead of sticking to this version of the story, Coppola attempted to pack all the sexual action of the book into only the heterosexual encounters of Jonathan encountering the three vampiresses, Lucy trying to seduce all of the men, and Dracula romancing Mina. Each of these encounters are obviously heteronormative and reject what the book Dracula was attempting to portray, namely the recognition of the homosexual in society (a term that had just been coined) and the fear of said homosexual.

By glossing over the significance of the homoerotic undertones throughout Dracula, Coppola tampered with a well constructed story and erased a significant chunk of its meaning. If he had maintained the story line instead of reverting to the typical long-lost heterosexual lovers trope, the movie would have been substantially more meaningful.

Gender Roles

In Aliens, there seems to be multiple outlines found in society. One of the main ones being gender stereotype, which includes some competitiveness and motherly instincts. There also seems to be the whole “women should leave the big tasks to guys”.  I feel like the use of the military was a small-scale version of our society. Each character played a role found in our society today. We eventually witness some characters gradually fall and break into pieces, then distinguish what is truly there. The film overall illustrates to us that women do not need to be seen or made out as inferior, instead of being depicted below, we should view them as they grow in character and individuals.

Initially it is clear in the film that there is some sort of male superiority and arrogance displayed. Ripley is not taken seriously on her thoughts and opinions. Although she seems to be pretty clear-headed and unemotional. Both Ripley and Lambert go by their last name instead of first. Ripley is the more rational one, in my opinion, who follows rules and procedures. Meanwhile Lambert seems more irrational and tends to be emotional. Hudson seems to be the most egotistical person who also winds up being one of the ones that fall and break into pieces, like I had mentioned earlier.  It seems that the characters may have some sort of representation of the limitations we battle daily in our world.

Even in Dracula, set in a time period where females had small gender roles. The Victorian culture seemed to subdue women and their value. They seemed to be thought of to be “pure” and “virginal”. However, I feel like Stoker illustrated a different side of women which wasn’t the norm back then. Qualities that were more empowering and better.

I feel like there are a few main characters who are actually shown in ways where the whole gender role thing is flipped/reversed. Mina seems to be a modern woman with some traditional characteristics. I feel a good part is when, at certain times, she is considered to be like one of the regular guys in the group; helping plan out scenarios and ideas to counter the chaos. She seems to be stable and independent. Harker seems to be a target in pretty pathetic and sometimes feminine situations, including the time he is captured by Dracula’s brides, and his way of handling the situation. I feel the Count pushes the lines of sexuality with the way he carries himself especially attitude wise. One part that sticks out to me is when he serves dinner to Harker, instead of the brides. He also seems to use deception and certain techniques to seduce people. It seems back then in Victorian culture, women were the ones who would use deception/seduction and clever plans while the men would typically use their strength and knowledge to get what they want.

OMG HARKULA OTP 5EVAAHHH CAN'T EVEN DIES

As has been stated in class multiple times, we are pretty much certain that Dracula has more than platonic feelings for one Jonathan Harker. I mean, he essentially threw a temper tantrum and said “I called dibs” when his vampiress bros tried to chow down. And throughout the novel, although I knew it never could happen, I was still a bit upset that Dracula never “got the girl” so to speak. Despite his precautions to keep Jonathan Harker (the object of his affection) safe from where he knew his plot would be unfurling and danger would be occurring. It is just like in the classic movies when the man says ”stay here,  It is too dangerous” and then goes off to defeat whatever danger is darkening the horizon. Dracula is simply trying to keep bae somewhere away from where all hell is going to break loose. Although Dracula is a brute, he obviously has some variety of feelings for Harker, otherwise he would have “tied up loose ends” like he did with Renfield (come on, do we really think renfield reached that level of insanity naturally?) before he departed for England. However, these actions are mostly left up to the interpretation of the reader, and buried under a fair amount of subtext. This is understandable considering the outrageous homophobia that was going down in England right around then and would still go down well into the twentieth century.

Now there are modern works about vampires other than twilight that can be dragged into this. One very good one being Carry On by Rainbow Rowell.

In Carry on, the two main protagonists are gay wizards Simon Snow and Tyrannus Basilton Grimm-Pitch (who shall henceforth be called Baz). These lil cuties right here!

Simon Snow, Mage's Heir is on the left and Baz is on the right.

 Baz is also a vampire. Now, although snow is an orphan and as of the book, relatively unacquainted with his sexual orientation, Baz has been aware of it for quite some time and has noticed the distinct homophobia within the old families and especially from his father (even being explicitly stated by Baz himself that “my father would be happier if I were disrobing the maid” and that “I’m disturbed. Ask anyone.” This is incidentally my phone background at the moment). Simon and Baz could have ended up like jo hark eye and Drac von brooding and circled each other but never been able to have the relationship that would benefit them both. Now the only reason Baz and Simon are able to have a romantic relationship published in a book now is due to massive leaps and bounds made in accepting the LGBTQ community, but we still have a ways to go! So people accept your neighbor, if they are a vampire, a seelie, a velociraptor, a Quetzalcoatl, a basilisk or god forbid a human just like you. Because that would be the end of the world. I will step off my soap box now.

Elementary, My Dear Sherlock.

Before Van Helsing’s boiz were trying to outsmart Dracula, an iconic detective was already outsmarting criminals.

I am of coarse talking about the famous Sherlock Holmes.  

You might be asking yourself, why bring up Sherlock Holmes? He has NOTHING to do with Dracula at all, does he?

These excellent questions my readers.   

I bring up the Consulting Detective and Dr. Watson to for a very specific purpose.

They are the same characters as John Seward and Abraham Van Helsing.

I know you must think I’m BS-ing here, but stay with me.

Time for some character background:

Sherlock Holmes is a character driven by logic and reason. He is a man of science, who often scoffs at people who believe in the supernatural. When a case appears to be based in myths and legends, and Dr. Watson actually begins to believe it, Sherlock scolds him for believing superstition could solve anything. Even when all the clues point to the supernatural, Sherlock was always confident there was a rational explanation.

Science and Reason vs. Superstition and Myth is one of the overarching themes in Dracula. England represents the modern world where the dark superstations of the past are replaced by the light of scientific discovery. In contrast, Romania represents the unexplained that science can’t prove or disprove. These two perspectives of superstition vs. science, just so happen to be the same as Van Helsing and John Seward's mindsets. In the novel, Van Helsing is quick to believe in the supernatural while Seward is less inclined to believe. Seward notices the mysterious red marks on Lucy’s throat, but much akin Sherlock, he is so set in his logic and reason, he is unwilling to admit they could have been caused by a supernatural being.

So. 

Based on this evidence, is Van Helsing John Watson? I mean, he does rush into things like John Watson. Where Sherlock would have outsmarted the Count, and Dracula would have never seen him coming, Van Helsing and his boiz are just like:

(Essentially the ending of the book) 

In addition to this, Van Helsing does jump to the supernatural conclusion rather quickly. Almost the second after he sees Lucy, Van Helsing already has the house decked out with garlic, crucifixes, and other vampire fighting stuff. But unlike John Watson, whenever Van Helsing claims the culprit is a supernatural being, he is absolutely right. If it wasn't for Van Helsing, the other characters wouldn't have reached the conclusion they had a vampire in their midst so quickly. So if Seward is supposed to be Sherlock in this situation, then why does his ‘John Watson’ (Van Helsing) figure out the ‘case’ before he does?

Sherlock is characterized by the fact he is always 10 steps ahead of every other person in the room. Isn’t this Van Helsing in the book? Not Seward. Just as Sherlock wields his knowledge of science and reason, Van Helsing proves himself to be the expert on myth and the supernatural.

So could it be John Seward is John Watson with a 'Sherlock' mindset and Van Helsing is Sherlock with a 'John Watson' mindset?

Is it the other way around?

Who knows.

All in all, I think it is an interesting concept to think about, considering Dracula came out only 10 years after Sherlock made his debut in A Study in Scarlet. Maybe I could be reading too much into it and these connections could all just be coincidences. But, you know what they say about coincidences:

Dracula as a Metaphor for Addiction

Dracula can be seen as analogous to drug addiction, well after all he is “addicted” to blood. 

Addiction had only been recently diagnosed as a physical condition during the 19^th century in Great Britain. In the early and mid-Victorian period it was possible for anyone to just walk in and get laudanum, opium, and even cocaine without any kind of prescription. The most popular opium derivative was laudanum, which is opium mixed with alcohol. Laudanum was called the “aspirin of the nineteenth century” due to it widely being used as painkiller, and it was recommended for a broad range of ailments such as cough, diarrhea, and was frequently used among the women population for “women’s troubles”. It is no surprise that the people during this time period were getting addicted to a drug that they used on the daily, like how nowadays Tylenol and aspirin is used.

                           

So relating back to vampires, they may not want to feed on human blood but they are compelled to do so, similar to how drug addiction works. Most people do not need to shoot up various drugs, but they feel like they have to do since they become addicted to these hard drugs. Considering Stoker’s interest in keeping everything about Dracula very up-to-date, it seems pretty plausible that Stoker is trying to make vampirism be symbolic for addiction.

As it has been demonstrated many times over, drug addiction can be seen as a force that can take control of the lives of users, and completely turn your world upside down. Dracula’s powers can be witnessed in a number of different ways. He is a shape-shifter who has the ability to command the loyalty of those under his spell, and who can control anyone who he encounters. Once Dracula marks his prey, he promises to change the life of all he consumes, leaving the victim thinking about nothing but Dracula himself. Hmmm…. Sounds like drug addiction doesn’t it?

                                               

 Drug addicts can be so drawn to their need for a drug that it can be all consuming and take over their life, similar as to how Dracula has a hold on his victims. A specific example from Dracula is when Mina experiences Dracula’s allure, unable to withstand or ignore his power. This same power already has been seen to have drawn Miss Lucy (Mina’s closest friend) to the dark side. In the move interpretation of Dracula, Mina is aware that the count represents a threat, but she still wishes to be with him always and ignores her friends who warn her to beware. Mina is so enamored of his charms that she cannot resists Dracula’s seduction and sensuous personality. This can be compared to how drug addiction can draw people towards a drug making them weak and making resistance harder and harder. Another example is Dracula’s lack of reflection in the mirror, which is similar to how drug addiction can lead to an empty promise of seeing the true self while others who witness Dracula in front of a mirror see nothing. There are many parallels seen showing how Dracula can be seen as a metaphor for addiction. It is even somewhat pitiful how vampires are forced into having extreme addiction that they cannot escape from, besides by death.