I have to give a lot of credit to my readers, who are an uber-thoughtful bunch and inclined to mull over the deeper issues at some length. In my initial post on zombies versus vampires, I was persuaded towards vampires simply because of personal hygiene issues...superficialities in other words. Embarrassingly, I became fixated on how male vampires get to wear shirts with puffy sleeves, have long yet clean super-black hair, a preference for tight britches, and they rarely climb out of the coffin in saggy underpants and a lot of stubble. Female vampires get to sex it up with tight bodices, beaucoup cleavage, big black hair and, in more modern times, a nod towards S&M leather.
Yet a reader says in a well-reasoned Comment:
"Tough call, but I have to vote for zombies.
Don't get me wrong. Vampires are interesting. But I think there've been too many changes to the vampire concept in the last 20-30 years. It seems like the core vampire rules have been abandoned. One of the best-selling vampire books in recent memory features vampires who sparkle in the sunlight? Puh-leeze.
But zombies are (mostly) still mindless killing machines. The details have altered somewhat, but at heart they're still similar to the zombies of yesteryear."
And I have to say, on further reflection, he's right. The classical vampire of the snaggly Nosferatu type is no more. Overlooking the standard '50's I Was A Teenage Vampire (Wolfman, Werewolf, Blob etc.), probably the first important historical break with the accepted vampire-genre came with the movie, Near Dark, made in 1986, which postulated a bunch of white-trash vampire no goodniks, who rolled around the country in a dented Bondo-body van. At the time, a reviewer billed it as the first "...vampire hill-billy film", which brings to mind MA and Pa Kettle vampires and misses the point. It's really the legacy of Near Dark that informs the HBO series True Blood, although the True Blood vampires look like the League of Women Voters in comparison to the Near Dark skanks.
Zombies, on the other hand, are remarkably and classically unchanged. In fact, a very partial list of zombie movies gives you a quick sense of the remorseless unchangeablity of zombies and their goals.
Zombie 4: After Death, 1988
Zombie 90: Extreme Pestilence, 1991
The Zombie Army, 1991
Zombie Creeping Flesh, 1981
Zombie Cop, 1991
Zombie Holocaust, 1979
Zombie Island Massacre, 1984
Zombie Lake, 1984
Zombie Nightmare, 1986
Zombies of Mora Tau, 1957
Zombies of the Stratosphere, 1952
Zombies on Broadway, 1945
Zombie Rampage, 1992
Zombiethon, 1986
Zombies, in a real sense, are democracy in action. By the end of the film, they're all still together as a group (those who haven't had charcoal-starter squirted on them and set afire), gnawing on someone's leg, with no higher aspirations. Although they seem to get around a lot (to lakes, Mora Tau, Broadway, islands, nightmares, army posts etc.), travel doesn't appear to broaden them. Once there, whatever their destination, it's the same damned program: grab a human, tear his head off and gobble up his brains.
The whole business of zombie vs. vampire is, I see, a replay of that aesthetic argument between the post-modern and classical virtues.
But which is better?
Are you going for results or looks?
Yet a reader says in a well-reasoned Comment:
"Tough call, but I have to vote for zombies.
Don't get me wrong. Vampires are interesting. But I think there've been too many changes to the vampire concept in the last 20-30 years. It seems like the core vampire rules have been abandoned. One of the best-selling vampire books in recent memory features vampires who sparkle in the sunlight? Puh-leeze.
But zombies are (mostly) still mindless killing machines. The details have altered somewhat, but at heart they're still similar to the zombies of yesteryear."
And I have to say, on further reflection, he's right. The classical vampire of the snaggly Nosferatu type is no more. Overlooking the standard '50's I Was A Teenage Vampire (Wolfman, Werewolf, Blob etc.), probably the first important historical break with the accepted vampire-genre came with the movie, Near Dark, made in 1986, which postulated a bunch of white-trash vampire no goodniks, who rolled around the country in a dented Bondo-body van. At the time, a reviewer billed it as the first "...vampire hill-billy film", which brings to mind MA and Pa Kettle vampires and misses the point. It's really the legacy of Near Dark that informs the HBO series True Blood, although the True Blood vampires look like the League of Women Voters in comparison to the Near Dark skanks.
Zombies, on the other hand, are remarkably and classically unchanged. In fact, a very partial list of zombie movies gives you a quick sense of the remorseless unchangeablity of zombies and their goals.
Zombie 4: After Death, 1988
Zombie 90: Extreme Pestilence, 1991
The Zombie Army, 1991
Zombie Creeping Flesh, 1981
Zombie Cop, 1991
Zombie Holocaust, 1979
Zombie Island Massacre, 1984
Zombie Lake, 1984
Zombie Nightmare, 1986
Zombies of Mora Tau, 1957
Zombies of the Stratosphere, 1952
Zombies on Broadway, 1945
Zombie Rampage, 1992
Zombiethon, 1986
Zombies, in a real sense, are democracy in action. By the end of the film, they're all still together as a group (those who haven't had charcoal-starter squirted on them and set afire), gnawing on someone's leg, with no higher aspirations. Although they seem to get around a lot (to lakes, Mora Tau, Broadway, islands, nightmares, army posts etc.), travel doesn't appear to broaden them. Once there, whatever their destination, it's the same damned program: grab a human, tear his head off and gobble up his brains.
The whole business of zombie vs. vampire is, I see, a replay of that aesthetic argument between the post-modern and classical virtues.
But which is better?
Are you going for results or looks?
No comments:
Post a Comment