The Physical Evolution of the Vampire

For a good portion of the years that movies dominated the entertainment business, vampires were always seen as people wearing fake vampire press-on teeth and maybe some white makeup to show they are dead. This sort of design started off in the early years of film during the 30’s, 40’s and 50’s. It wouldn’t be until the 60’s and 70’s that the vampire got a drastic face-life. They ditched the white makeup but still kept everything else, so there wasn’t much improvement from the earlier vampire films. Hammer movies and Blaxploitation flicks showed the vampire with human qualities, but the only difference is that these vampires were more brutal and the movies had an opportunity to really accent the romance associated with vampire legends. When the 80’s rolled around, the vampire got a complete facial and physical makeover and for the first time vampires were shown as monsters from Hell.

I’m mainly talking about The Lost Boys and Fright Night and I’m aware there are movies like Vamp that are out there but I haven’t seen it yet. To me, it seems like the 80’s paved the way for how a vampire should ‘really’ look like because afterwards… in movies like From Dusk Till Dawn, Blade: Trinity and The Night Flier, they aren’t the handsome classy men with sharp fangs that we thought they were. Sure, they start off as being ideal visions of what a perfect man should be, but once they transform into a full vampire they loose all their beauty and this goes for women as well. The progression seems almost instant but I’m also aware that older films showed the vampire as being demonic and otherworldly.

Since the very first vampire movie, Nosferatu, vampires were seen as demonic, blood-sucking monsters from hell. They were seen as pale, white human-like creatures with long talons, pointy ears, bulging eyes and razor sharp teeth. Their heads, massively enlarged and somewhat deformed. Honestly, had I seen Nosferatu when I was a kid I’d probably be afraid of vampires but I grew watching Dracula and this is where vampires would be brought down to a more human level. Bela Lugosi’s Dracula is what set the groundwork for what a vampire should look like for the next 50 years, with minor trail offs here and there. What Lugosi brought to the table was a monster that was both charming to look at, elegant, composed and nowhere near the demon that was seen in Nosferatu. He still retained the classic trademarks of vampires but physically he was different.

Throughout most of the 40’s, 50’s, 60’s and mostly 70’s, vampires were just people with plastic fangs in their teeth. Sure, it was still scary because we’re not use to seeing people with razor sharp teeth, pale skin and luring eyes. Back then, most horror directors tried to scare the audience with gratuitous bloodshed, unexpected jump-scares or just by the mere look of the vampire. If we look at the infamous Hammer vampire films like Taste the Blood of Dracula or the Horror of Dracula, I think what’s scary about them isn’t just Lee’s interpretation of Dracula but also that stretched out smile and those blood-red eyes. Throughout the late 50’s through the mid 70’s, Hammer constantly pushed the boundaries of how the vampire should act and look and I do believe that Lee’s Dracula was the prototype for what the 80’s would soon bring to the table.

Horror of Dracula (1958)

The Fearless Vampire Killers (1967)

The Vampire Lovers (1970)

Blacula (1972)

Martin (1977)

I’m also aware that the TV adaptation of King’s Salem’s Lot features a vampire that is the spitting image of Nosferatu and more than likely contributed to the inevitable physical change that would happen. However, I do believe that Lee’s vampire was the first incarnation of a truly demonic vampire that was different, whereas Salem’s Lot seemed to directly homage Nosferatu.

Fright Night was a truly revolutionary film in many senses. It brought the romanticism of vampires to the MTV Generation and re-popularized the vampire story. It exposed the new generation to classic horror monsters and it set the groundwork for what a true horror comedy should be like. However, it also set the standard for the re-imaging of the classic vampire in which many movies soon after would follow. For the first time, at least in terms of mainstream media, the vampire wasn’t just a man with fangs but rather some type of monstrous cross between bat, creature and human. For the first time, vampires looked like demons from Hell and I think that the reason why it happened in the 80’s is because the special effects were perfected then. Jerry Dandrige became the staple of modern vampires. Sure he wasn’t all pointy ears, wrinkled skin and yellow eyes but he brought back the Nosferatu-like qualities that vampires once held. Also, for the first time, filmmakers didn’t have to rely only on blood and jump-out scares to get the audience. They could rely on grotesque, horrifying look of the vampire.

As 1985 quickly turned into 1987 there were two vampire films that seemed to compete with one another, not in terms of their fanbase or their filmmaking, but rather their interpretations of the vampire. See, Near Dark paid tribute to the classic look of the vampire: all human qualities save for the long, razor sharp canines. Near Dark seemed to be a modern homage/adaptation of the vampire that was once popularized by Lugosi. However, on the other end of the spectrum you have The Lost Boys, which seemed to follow in the same footsteps as Fright Night but they were slightly different looking that Dandrige. The Lost Boys was like a cross between Lugosi’s vampire and Sarandon’s Dandrige vampire. The Lost Boys, and more specifically the head vampire, had the fangs and luring eyes but they also had the elongated jaws, the twisted smiles, the prominent cheekbones and the bend eyebrows. Compared to Near Dark’s bloodsuckers The Lost Boys are probably more frightening to look at and probably more violent. After 1987 there would be a major shift of vampire movies where classic looks meets modern interpretations.

Vamp (1986)

The Night Flier (1997)

From Dusk Till Dawn (1998)

Van Helsing (2004)

30 Days of Night (2007)

The way that I see it, it’s sort of like how zombies progressed in film and I’m not talking about the debate between running zombies and slow-walking zombies. Before the 80’s, zombies were just pale-faced human walking slowly with their arms raised half way into the air. It wasn’t until the 80’s when special effects were perfected did we see zombies that had skin falling off their faces, exposed bone and missing eyes. I mean, you can say that about any classic horror icon like werewolves or Frankenstein monsters but I think there is an ongoing war between modern and classic vampires whereas the special effects for werewolves and zombies seem universally accepted. I know some people prefer the classic Lugosi route and some prefer the Sarandon route. I’m more on the fence about it because both versions are so radically different and each version has its pros and cons. I just thought it was very interesting how there was a massive jump from just fangs to a complete physical makeover within the vampire subgenre and truly paved the way for modern vampire films to come.

The Absolute Power of Film

“Film is like magic; they’re like our hands… they’re a weapon.”

When I first saw Cigarette Burns I was greatly disappointed because it didn’t feel like a John Carpenter movie. To me it felt like somebody who wanted to be Carpenter bud didn’t have sense of how to direct. I thought the movie was lacking, the acting was poor and direction seemed rushed so obviously I thought this wasn’t Carpenters greatest but it couldn’t be worse than Ghosts of Mars. To my surprise, it seemed like most people that I talked to or commented on loved the episode saying that it was the best one out of the entire series so I thought I was missing something. Well, it turns out that I was but that something didn’t improve the aforementioned complains but rather gave me an understanding of what Carpenter wanted to accomplish with this episode. With that said, after the re-watch I still think the acting is poor and it lacked that ominous atmosphere that I grew to love about John Carpenter movies. I can look past the fact that he may have been under time constraints. But I want to expand on what I took from the episode.

While looking into the episode before watching it many people have stated that Carpenter was exploring the idea of connecting art with madness, much like what he was doing when he directed In The Mouth of Madness. Some stated that he was discussing the breakdown of civilized people because of art or the idea that art is the expression and liberation of supernatural entities by the artist. They’re all great ideas that I am sure Carpenter incorporated but what I saw was John’s commentary on how film can be used as a weapon and how powerful film can be when it’s given into the wrong hands. I see Cigarette Burns as Carpenter’s Inglourious Basterds. Many have stated that Inglourious Basterds was Tarantino’s way of saying that film can be used as a tool and a weapon but at the same time it could change history. This idea of film isn’t relatively new because a lot of directors feel this way but Carpenter decided to put a horror spin to it.

There are a few quotes that are littered throughout the film that make me believe that Carpenter is touching base on film as a weapon, and in some instances he is blatantly saying it. One quote always stuck with me even before I began watching the film and it was, “Film in the right hands is a weapon” and I believe this to be true. If we look at history, film has been used as a tool to brainwash the general public, it can provide convincing yet falsifying facts to persuade people into believing a lie, in fact the film even states, “The plate of the splicing table can be used to tell a lie or to tell the truth. It all depends whose hands it’s in.” It’s a very compelling argument and I won’t go into extreme detail on specific examples of ‘film weaponry’ but you can find the bulk of them during the World War II era and the 1950s. Film was used a propaganda tool and it wasn’t as obvious as some of the social guidance films but it could also be seen in films distributed by Hollywood. Directors use film to get their message across and we as the audiences are subconsciously affected by it.

In the case of Cigarette Burns, it seems like La Fin Absolue du Monde was such a powerful film that it makes anybody who watches it brutally attack each other or themselves. In its English translation the title means The Absolute End of the World. By using this translation I think I see a connection between the title and the reaction people have upon viewing the film; perhaps whatever is in the film makes the viewer subconsciously aware of our true violent intentions. In this case the end of the world may not be the total destruction of the world but rather the destruction of civilized humans because of some dispute or incident. Maybe the film suggests that it is only a matter of time before we begin killing ourselves or it reveals our deepest, darkest fears and that it pushes the audience to react. We’ll never really know because Carpenter chooses to not show the film in its entirety, and I think that was a good choice on his part.

There is a quote in the film that was said by a film critic that really puts the idea of using film as propaganda on the stand. He states, “We trust filmmakers. We sit in the dark, daring them to affect us, secured in the nous that they won’t go too far.” It’s a very interesting quote because it’s very true. When we see a film that interests us we pay to see it, sit in the theater in hopes that the filmmaker will either impress us or tell us something. It’s a lot of faith that we have in the filmmaker to show us something that won’t push us over the edge. How many times have you saw a film that was so revolting, so horrifying or so hard-hitting that you couldn’t believe what you saw? This bond, the trust between the audience and the filmmaker, is very psychologically based and I can say that I have experienced this bond. I never acted differently or changed personally but I walked out of the theater in absolute awe, shock, terror and assessment… it was The Mist. I left my trust in the hands of the filmmaker that everything will be fine but he broke that trust violently and unmercifully.

All in all I guess what I am saying is that Cigarette Burns may be about the connection between madness and art or the breakdown of civilized people but I think that Carpenter explores the idea that film is a tool and that as a tool it can be used as a weapon. He explores the idea that there is a connection between the audience and the film and the bonding between the people involved with the production and the film itself. “We were part of the film; bound to the negative like soul to flesh.” In this case, I believe that Carpenter is correct. Film is a very powerful tool and that it can hold great power over the people who view it. As many people have said, the film industry is (possibly) the greatest secret weapon that ever existed and I for one thoroughly believe that it is a weapon of destruction.

Mental Caries: A Look Inside A Decaying Mind

As a horror fan, when you lay down on the seat to have a dentist drill your mouth for cavities or pick at your teeth for plaque, you probably think about that movie The Dentist. I know I did, though funnily enough I never was afraid of the dentist because of it. No, when I saw this movie (when I was about 11 or 12) all I could think about was how vulnerable my teeth and gums really where. The entire well being of my teeth lied within the hands of my dentist and if he wanted to, he could make me ware braces the rest of my life. I wasn’t scared of my dentist drilling my teeth to bits but rather scared of the idea that he could. Then again, my dentist was a divorcee who turned to the bottle and was suspended of his license when people complained about his alcoholism and shaky hands. Though, this isn’t nearly as bad as Dr. Alan Feinstone. See, the way I remembered The Dentist was that it was a movie with gratuitous teeth torture and a lot of chasing but what the film really is, is an underrated film that drills into the mind of a psychopath. I’d go further into saying that it has the possibility of ranking up there with Psycho and Silence of the Lambs.

The story centers around a very successful dentist named Alan Feinstone. He’s got it all: a beautiful loving wife, a thriving practice and a respectable reputation within the dentistry community. However, when he comes to suspect that his wife may be cheating on him with the pool boy, he discovers that behind every smile of bright white teeth there is decay hard at work. Now, as he slowly begins to loose his grip on sanity, Feinstone begins to try to reason things out but his mind won’t let him. It isn’t long until he decides to slip completely off the deep end and kill those who have done him wrong and those who lie within his path. But the plot goes deeper into Alan’s psyche because once we realize that he is insane, we begin to suspect that perhaps his wife isn’t having an affair but that it might be in his head. Thankfully, in the end of it all, it’s up to you to decide whether all of it was fake or in his head.

So, how, exactly, does the film get inside the mind of Alan Feinstone? It’s very simple. Yuzna does a masterful job at utilizing filters and camera tricks to show Alan’s decent into madness. The entire movie has this ‘Pleasantville’ look; bright colors, luminescent profiles, heavenly whites and bright blue skies but every time we see Feinstone thinking about things… it’s distorted or showing him looking at himself in a mirror. It’s rather genius how they contrast the bright, glamorous lifestyle of a successful Beverly Hills dentist with the distorted, stylized camera angles. That would mean that this movie is visually satisfying and really adds to the distortion of Alan’s mind. It’s a pretty obvious technique to use image distortion and camera filters to show mental insanity but not many people utilize it. There is also the use of close-ups of grease stains, rotting teeth and mud. We are flung into Feinstone’s head as he watches, in disgust, as the pool boy sullies his wife’s clean face. The scary thing is, as the audience, we can’t help but feel disgusted as well, especially when we see brown rotting teeth. Considering Corbin’s performance is already strong, these camera effects only further Feinstone’s character.

Speaking of Feinstone’s character, what makes him such a great candidate for psychological profiling? As I mentioned before, I ranked this film up there with Psycho and Silence and for good reason. Both of those films have such a captivating yet charismatic character that can be analyzed for mental illness and Feinstone is no exception. In fact, I’d have to include Misery on that list as well. What is so captivating about Feinstone is that he is our anti-hero and we aren’t really given the opportunity to bond with the ‘final girl’ or any other character. We right away follow him from his grim discovery of his wife’s affair all the way till the end when he is sent to an institution. In that regard, I love how the film opens up with him addressing us on how everybody has a story. Going deeper into Feinstone’s head we right away understand that he is unstable because he flipped out over his wife for ironing the wrong shirt since his cufflinks didn’t match. Upon seeing his wife engaging in ‘first base’ activities with the pool boy we feel for Feinstone and we start to understand why he hates decay and he lies the metaphor for what Feinstone’s psyche is based on. His wife, dressed in clean white clothes, kisses the pool boy who rubs brown dirt all over her legs. It’s such a perfect metaphor for the act of dirtying perfection and causing decay and plaque. This drives Feinstone over the edge and at first he thinks about killing himself and he becomes sympathetic because he tries so hard to fight his hallucinations, and we watch as he helplessly descends into madness. He begins to think that everybody has dirty teeth, which may be a metaphor for how everybody has dirty secrets but wear masks of innocents. Perhaps he believes that it’s his job to clean up people’s immoral filth.

Throughout the film, Feinstone mumbles to himself on how dentists are underappreciated no matter how hard they work. He brings up a great quote that states how they have to clean people’s teeth and yet we, the patients, hate them for it. It’s very true because we all hate going to the dentist, especially at a young age but yet we don’t realize that the dentist is actually a great person to have around. Our teeth are one of the most important things in our bodies. When Feinstone finally decides to enact his homicidal revenge on his wife and the pool boy, it’s the defining moment and the point of no return. By this point, Alan becomes a full-fledged psychopath and believes that he has to rid plaque-infested human there is. It’s a rather grim but sad turn of events since we were with Feinstone all the way up until this point. It’s a rather tragic turn of events. This is where we get into the really grisly teeth torture where he drills people’s teeth apart, slices tongues and mutilates gums and lips. I couldn’t take these scenes because I have sensitive teeth and to see somebody’s gums ripped to shreds makes me queasy. By this point, Ken Foree says it best, “He’s a man driven over the edge.” All the pressure of taxes, a failing marriage and a reputation to hold up has put so much pressure on him that he finally snapped.

As far as comparing it to when I was a kid, it’s vastly different from what I remembered. Shockingly, I can’t believe that I didn’t have nightmares of teeth torture and dentistry. I was never afraid of my dentist but I hated going to him because of all the fluoride I had to keep in my mouth and the fact that I couldn’t eat for an hour after getting my teeth cleaned. I remember very fondly some of the dental torture and that beautifully shot scene where Feinstone was slashing the pool boy (pictured above). The rest of the film sort of escaped my head for some reason. Looking back on it, if you couldn’t tell, I love this movie but not because of dental horror but rather the characterization. At a young age it was obvious that I didn’t give two shits about Feinstone, I just wanted blood and action. Now, I think Feinstone, while he was thinking about plaque and decay are the best parts of the movie.

All these musing lead me to believe that The Dentist isn’t a typical horror movie. There are no monsters, the killer doesn’t pop out of the closet and there isn’t a ghost haunting anybody. No, this is a hard-boiled film that follows one man’s descent into insanity. Of course there are is blood and the occasional jump scare but otherwise, this movie is horrifying in it’s own right. It’s horrifying because of how Feinstone’s mind works. He’s the perfect psychopath because he believes he is doing good and isn’t aware that he is actually butchering people, and that is the worst kind of monster. In turn, The Dentist is a smart movie that really puts the viewer into Feinstone’s head and offers no sympathy for when things go terribly wrong. It’s a highly underrated movie that has the potential of being one of the most disturbing horror movies out there. In the end, it makes you want to power rub your teeth with alcohol and sandpaper.

The Carnival of Life and Death

This is an essay that I wrote for my vampire/zombie film class. We had to pick a movie and write a research paper on it's theme and thesis and how it connected to Dracula. I chose Carnival of Souls since I never saw it and I wanted to. I deviated a little away from my thesis/theme but in the process of writing it, I discovered more to the film than I initially thought.

Carnival of Souls; regarded by most horror film historians as a classic horror movie but to the general moviegoer and film historian it’s an obscure cult classic. Directed in 1962 by Herk Harvey, which would ultimately be his first and only feature film, was very dark, very moody and very well constructed for a horror film for its time and if you really think about it, it’s more of a character piece than an actual horror film. By looking at the elements it uses, you can tell that it really set a standard for the way horror can go. Undeniably I think it inspired Kubrick’s The Shining since it cut back and forth between dream/ghost sequences and real life. Back in the 90s a film called Jacob’s Ladder showed the journey in which a person takes when he is killed and his soul is taken to heaven and you could argue that the film uses the same tactic as Carnival of Souls since the character in the movie was dead the whole time. Romero has cited the movie as an influence for his zombie masterpiece Night of the Living Dead. Perhaps in Carnival of Souls the main heroine wanted to live but the ghosts prevented her because it was her destiny

Before Night of the Living Dead came out, this was probably one of the first low-budget movies that mainstream audiences knew about. Most of it’s infamy came from the fact that the film only cost $30,000 to make however some sources have stated that it was $17,000 (Brian’s Drive-In Theater). It was also known for having a cast that weren’t professional actors and actresses. It became a cult classic once the film was released, since it dipped under the radar and wasn’t brought to the public again till the 1980s. But before I get into anything I should tell what the story is about.

The film starts off with a group of girls that decided to have a drag race with a group of boys but end up falling off a bridge when they loose control of the car. Mary, one of the girls in the car, survives and is immediately found but for the moment she is frazzled from the incident. The film then jumps a few weeks and she gets a job as an organist at a church, however, while living in her new rented room and employed by the church she begins seeing haunting visions of a ghostly man in black but that’s not all. She starts hallucinating things, walking around as though she was a ghost and unable to hear anything. Soon she discovers that the root of all this is at an eerie structure near her residence that was once uses as a carnival back in the old days. Now she must discover who the ghostly man is and save herself from going insane, but she doesn’t know the dark secret the surrounds this whole problem. In the end we realize that Mary was dead all along and that it was her soul’s journey through life and death and ultimately to hell. The movie makes several points about morals, specifically Christian morals, and the power of the mind and imagination.

Nobody knows how Mary survived the accident, especially since no other person was recovered from the scene of the crash. She walks right out of the dirty water stunned while the rescue team stares at her in curiosity. Once the film jumps a few weeks after the fact, we notice that she is taking up her organist job at a church in Utah and here is where we get an in depth look at Mary’s character. Her organist teacher is sort of taken aback by the fact that Mary considers the job at the church as just another job to get money. He quickly dismisses this but her neighbor Mr. Linden then questions her about the morality of doing such a thing. Mary’s view of the church is “just a place of business. I’m a professional organist and I play for pay, that’s all.” Linden replies, “Thinkin’ like that, don’t that gives you nightmares?” considering the time period in which this came out in (early 60s) people were still religious fanatics. Mary is the type of woman who is not religious at all and most people find that very unconventional and rebellious. Morally she is polluted and even after her employer, a priest, fires her then urges her to “saver her soul,” she ignores it and continues on her way. Perhaps one can see Mary as a person who is way ahead of her time and even though the Hippie Movement was right around the corner it was still during a society that didn’t except who they were whereas now we do. While Mary is talking to a psychologist he also voices his concern for Mary’s view on religion; once more throwing out the fact that she is not the type of person that society wants her to be and perhaps she knows this and her soul is feeling a little regretful.

Another immoral thing that was brought to Mary’s attention by the psychologist was the idea that she never really wanted to be in a relationship with anybody. This would explain why she felt very disconnected with Mr. Linden and why she sort of passed him off as just another person. While she is talking to the psychologist he asks why doesn’t she want to be with anybody and she answers, “I have no desire for the close company of other people.” He then says, “Don’t you want to join in the things that other people do, share the experiences of other people?” Again, this was also something that was very unheard of and he goes on to state that she is a very strong-minded person… almost giving her this free sprit personality that was viewed as immoral by most Christian and religious groups. During the bar scenes when Mr. Linden confronts her about why she hardly talks to him during their date she, almost in a guilty sorrow-stricken manner, assures him that she wants to be with him and that she is enjoying his company. If we really believe that this is her soul, perhaps she is has some sort of regret not being with a person and maybe she is trying to rectify it. Though, you can argue that the ghostly figure that torments her is the way that Mary sees the men in her life. “As a figment of her imagination, this spectre manifests all of Mary’s repressed fears of the opposite sex, personifying them as a dark and malevolent force she cannot communicate with, touch or understand” (Rose, Carnival of Souls). She has already expressed that she doesn’t feel that she connects with anybody of the opposite sex; it would make sense that she feels frightened by the ghost but in the same way she really is connected with him in a morbid way. One can sort of see this ghost as an incarnation of Dracula but I will touch base on that soon. During the scene in which she leaves the abandoned theme park she looks back at the building, cut to the ghoul in shadow looking back at the car in which marry is driving off in. He then looks away as he tilts his head down in sadness and then Mary looks away towards the road in sorrow. “Their movements and expressions are perfectly matched. It’s like there’s an unspoken compact between them: we’ll meet for that eternal dance soon” (Singh, Jabberwock).

There are also other times during the film in which Mary feels like a ghost but I want to focus on something that she said to the psychologist that perfectly describes who she is and why she is looked at as being immoral. Mary immortally says, “I don’t belong in this world,” and I personally think she is right. She is a woman of power, strength and free and in those times… she isn’t right for that world. She belongs in the not too distant future. During the scenes, that feel like something out of the Twilight Zone, where she temporarily becomes invisible to those around her and where she couldn’t hear anything visually shows us just how out of place she is. It’s rather frightening and it’s her soul realizing for the first time just how un-ordinary she really is. Considering the fact that she is immoral and that most people frown upon her, it would make sense that she would go to hell for being this way. Once she finally confronts the ghost that beckons her, she sees all the souls of the ‘underworld’ so to speak. In probably one of the most frightening chase scenes in horror history, we see Mary being chased by her tormentor as well as a couple dozen people only to see her trip in the sand. The souls then circle around her and grab her and she disappears, representing her soul being dragged to hell for how she spent her life. Her journey as she discovers who she is, reflects on past film works. Paul Kesler states, “Fundamentally, Carnival of Souls is a visual exploration of death, which, in the course of this exploration, sees death from a subjective point of view that is at times reminiscent of Carl Dreyer’s ‘Vampyr’” (The Neurocritic).

While explaining the vampire novel Carmilla, Weiss describes the narrative vampire: “Within the narrative, the vampire represents the threat of violence as well as of sexuality. Usually the vampire seduces rather than attacks her victims” (Weiss). I found this to be true in most cases of the vampire. They are very sexual and in fact, vampirism in modern days is the act of drawing blood for sexual pleasure. As obscure as it may sound, I’ll argue that the ghost in Carnival of Souls is a Dracula-like vampire of sorts. This is because of many things but first I want to elaborate on the emotional/sexual part of the myth. The first time that Mary sees this ghostly figure she is frightening, but after visiting the abandoned them park she becomes obsessed with it only to find out that the ghost is connected with it. In a way, the ghost has seduced Mary into becoming obsessed with him and the theme park. She becomes so obsessed that she begins to think irrationally. Also, considering that Mary always thought of men as a gender that she never had a connection with, it’s rather ironic and it makes the ghoulish figure sort of an anti-sex symbol. To explain that more clearly, Mary doesn’t really like men that much and it’s ironic that the only guy she feels connected spiritually with is a ghost. Furthermore, the ghost is tormenting her and it only strengthens her views that men are a brutish gender. Mary seems to be the Mina Harker of this film and the ghost is the spitting image of Dracula and perhaps this ghost does want her for his own sexual needs and this is marked by his constant persistence and the smirking face that he often has. Going past the symbolism, even the physical elements the ghost has bares an uncanny resemblance to Dracula. He is dressed in a black suite with a white under shirt, much like how Dracula wears a black suite and cape and has a white vest and shirt under it. They both have pale white faces showing that they are dead and their hair is slicked back to show that they are out of the ordinary. But perhaps the biggest attribute they both have is their presence and how each one of them can lure and control unsuspecting people into their world. Dracula has those commanding eyes and the ghostly man… well; he has the same frightening dead looking eyes.

Carnival of Souls maybe a very obscure film and I wouldn’t doubt that most of the general public would pass it up but it really set a standard for the way psychological thrillers and horror films are made. It’s really one of the best interpretations of the journey of life and death to ever be committed to film. It’s a character study and it really puts Christian morals into perspective and begs it’s view to ask, if something happened to us and we died, was I a happy person with the decisions I made? Like Dracula himself, this film has stood the test of time and really is immortal.

Bibliography

Weiss, Andrea. "Lesbians in Film: Vampires and Violets." Penguin Books. (1992): 84-108. Print.

Walker, Brian J. "herk harvey (1924-1996) ." BRIAN'S DRIVE-IN THEATER (2009): n. pag. Web. 09 Oct 2010. http://www.briansdriveintheater.com/carnival.html#biography

KELSER, PAUL. "Carnival of Souls." Neurocritic (2006): n. pag. Web. 09 Oct 2010. http://neurocritic.blogspot.com/2006/07/carnival-of-souls.html

Singh, Jai Arjun. "Carnival of Souls: zombies, piano players, 'normal' people." Jabberwock (2010): n. pag. Web. 09 Oct 2010. http://jaiarjun.blogspot.com/2010/05/carnival-of-souls-zombies-piano-players.html

Rose, James. "Carnival of Souls." Electric Sheep: A Deviant View of Cinema (2009): n. pag. Web. 09 Oct 2010. http://www.electricsheepmagazine.co.uk/reviews/2009/03/01/carnival-of-souls/

Harvey, Herck, Dir. Carnival of Souls. Dir. Herk Harvey." Perf. Hilligoss, Candace. Herts-Lion International Corp: 1962, Film.