Dracula According to Freeland

In the wake of seeing Dracula, I thought it would be especially relevant to discuss how Cynthia Freeland would perhaps have analyzed the play. While the plot way very similar to that of the novel, I found that the portrayals of certain characters and the degree of sexuality expressed in the play differed from that of the original work from which it was derived.

In terms of genre familiarity, there is no doubt that the play is very much like the novel in the sense that it establishes the very characteristics that we now expect to see in all vampire films/plays/etc. In the play, Dracula was portrayed as a stately, perhaps aristocratic man with a personality as mysterious as his accent. He displayed a hatred of light, mirrors, and religious artifacts, and there were many scenes in which a coffin was present or implied. In fact, even the doorway leading into Mina's room was coffin-shaped. In this way, there is no doubt that Freeland would agree that the play followed all of the norms of vampire genre familiarity.

Freeland's next condition can also be found within both the play and the novel. According to Freeland, vampires must violate the boundaries between life and death. In doing so, they exist as a contradiction to how humans usually consider life; they are, in a sense, both alive and dead simultaneously. The play effectively portrayed this dual nature; the scenes in which Harker, Mina, Van Helsing, and others strove to first figure out what Dracula was and later how to defeat him presented the very existence of the vampire as a puzzling metaphysical problem.

Finally, I think Freeland would agree that the play portrayed Dracula as a creature that violated the norms of femininity and masculinity; perhaps even more so than the Dracula in Bram Stoker's novel. In the novel, Dracula had the desire to drink blood from all humans; both male and female. This is also true in the play. The scene in which Harker first cuts his neck, however, goes above and beyond Freeland's stipulation in the sense that it definitely generated homosexual undertones. This is not to say, however, that Dracula was in any way homosexual; there were numerous scenes that possessed blatant heterosexuality, such as the scene in which Mina is forced to drink from his chest and the scene in which Dracula forces himself onto Lucy's bed. Scenes such as these demonstrate the dual nature of the sexuality present in both the play and the novel; which proves Freeland's point that true vampires must in some way violate the norms of femininity and masculinity.

Dick Van Dyke and the Porpoises

Here is a link to the article I mentioned in class. Draw your own conclusions.

Just thought I'd share...

I'm not sure how very relavent this is, but I thought it interesting and wanted to share it here.

I read today that energy use in the frontal cortex of the brain increases 30% during a nightmare. Being scared is like exercising, then, right?





Info from: J.M. Bourre, "Effects of Nutrients (in food) on the Structure and Function of the Nervous System: Update on Dietary Requirements for the Brain. Part 2: Macronutrients," The Journal of Nutrition, Health, and Aging, Vol. 10, No. 5, November 5, 2006

Essentialism and the Haunted House

I recently read that some states in the US have disclosure laws that force realtors to state whether they are selling a "stigmatized home." What's that mean? Well, they have to tell you whether they're selling you a potentially haunted house, essentially. If something happened in the house at some point that would creep people out -perhaps a murder or something similar- the government forces them to tell you about it. Now what's the rationale for this? The house is cleaned and sterilized, all new carpet and furnishings, it's a perfectly good house in all physical and tangible ways... only it maintains a "certain something else" and "essence" that we attribute to it. And this belief in an essence is obviously not confined to the sophomoric superstitious -there are state laws. The City Council of Glancester, England ordered the destruction of a home where a couple raped, and killed several young girls, burying them in the garden and under the basement floor. The council made a point of removing all the bricks, crushing them into dust, then scattering them in a landfill at a secret location. A similar intervention occurred at the apartment where Jeffery Dahmer lived; it is now a parking lot.
This idea of an "essence" is an idea associated with a person or object, and though it's recognizably irrational, it's something many of us can't bring ourselves to overcome. A certain psychologist once conducted studies during which he asked people to try on a sweater that once belonged to Adolf Hitler. Needless to say, the subjects were reluctant to do so. And why? Isn't this sweater just like every other sweater that was manufactured at that same factory? Yes, it is. Same color, same texture, same thickness -all identical. Yet we regard objects not only as a compilation of their tangible and perceivable characteristics, but also as individuals. It's not just a sweater, it's that sweater, it's Hitler's sweater. We attribute an intangible characteristic to objects that ultimately affect our attitudes toward them. And it's this arbitrary assignment that's often more powerful than the actual properties the item has if forming out attitudes toward it.

Talk about the power of the mind.

The Evil Dead, Art-Horror, Art-Dread, and the Phenomena of Ash Williams

(NOTE TO DR. LANGGUTH: THIS IS A REPRINT OF A PREVIOUS POST FROM THE HORROR CLASS. THIS IS NOT NEW MATERIAL)

In light of this class' ability to actually use and comment on the blog, I have decided to repost one of my posts from my time in the Horror Film class that used the same blog. Unfortunately, during that run, not many people read the blog... hopefully you all enjoy

Sam Raimi’s 1981 horror classic, “The Evil Dead” is often cited as the definititive low budget horror masterpiece, and largely holds up as a truly horrifying, suspenseful film. Raimi’s visionary direction led The Evil Dead to receive much critical praise, and ultimately, an increased budget for two sequels (which progressively moved farther away from horror and into comedy). The Evil Dead can be applied to both Noel Carroll’s account of Art-Horror and Cynthia Freeland’s account of Art-Dread, and the film is a near perfect hybrid of both.
The movie begins with five college students, led by Ash Williams (Bruce Campbell), going camping in a Tennessee cabin in the woods. Immediately after they arrive, odd things begin happening (porch swings moving by themselves, trees making noises, strange fog, etc) but the students continue and unpack.
After the cellar door flings open unexplained, Ash and Scotty investigate. While in the cellar, they find a book and a tape. The book, which is later revealed to be The Necronomicon Exmortis (a book with demonic incantations), is bound in human flesh and written in blood. The tape is of a professor who lived in the cabins deciphering the book. For thrills, the students playback the tape, which reveals the incantations to have demonic properties, and immediately the woods seem to come alive in search for revenge. Later that night, one of the students, Cheryl, is brutally attacked by the woods, and demands to return to town. Ash takes Cheryl and drives away from the cabin, but the bridge on which they came in is now in ruins, stranding the frantic campers. Ash listens to the rest of the tape and learns that humans can be possessed by Candarian Demons released by the incantations and the only way to stop the demons is through bodily dismemberment. Cheryl soon becomes possessed and attacks the campers, but is detained and locked in the cellar. Scotty’s girlfriend Shelly is the next to be possessed by the demons, and she attacks Ash and Scotty, only to be brutally dismembered. After burying the body, Scotty flees from the cabin and is mortally wounded by the woods. Finally, Ash’s girlfriend Linda falls victim to the demons and is possessed. Ash is left alone to find a way to defeat the demons and escape the woods. Tortured by his possessed girlfriend, Ash drags her outside and buries her (unable to dismember her). She soon rises from the grave and attacks Ash, who is at the last moment able to behead her with a shovel. A wounded Ash returns to the cabin only to find that Cheryl has escaped from the cellar and Scotty has become possessed by a demon.
Ash hurriedly grabs a shotgun and barricades the doors to prevent Cheryl from re-entering the cabin. Ash then proceeds to the basement in search of shotgun shells in what is one of eeriest sequences of the film. In the basement, the house begins to bleed, random calls of “we’re gonna get you” can be heard, clocks begin rolling backwards, and windows slam open and shut. Ash returns upstairs for the final confrontation between himself and the demon possessed Scotty and Cheryl.
Ash realizes that if he tosses the Necronomincon into the fire, then the demons will disappear. After a brutal struggle, Ash is able to toss the book into the flames and defeat the demons in the cabin. At dawn, Ash leaves the cabin, but is stalked by an unseen demon.
The Evil Dead evokes a strong feeling of art-horror. The film does have a monster as Carroll would define, which is both disgusting and fearsome. The Demons are physically, as well as categorically, disgusting. The monsters would be considered fusion monsters by Carroll. The film’s imagery is intensely horrific, with graphic violence and gore throughout (from dismemberment, to decaying corpses, to self mutilation, gouging eyes out, etc.) which adds to the overall terror and physical agitation felt by the audience. The film follows a typical onset/confrontation plot (like The Thing From Another World) where our characters are thrust into a completely isolated situation, discover the workings of a monster, and are immediately the targets of its evil. The film does have several very suspenseful scenes which accentuate the high probability of the undesired outcome, such as when Cheryl walks at night into the woods (and is attacked), when Ash goes to the basement in search of shotgun shells (and experiences preternatural terrors), and when Ash looks for the missing demon/Cheryl.
The film has an atmosphere of dread throughout, which would help place it in the category of art-dread as theorized by Cynthia Freeland. For Freeland, in order for a work to evoke art-dread, it “must depict an encounter with something terrible or unsettling that is also deep, obscure, and difficult to comprehend” (Freeland 193). Some grand themes of art-dread films include cosmic justice, Man’s place in the universe, the amorality of the universe, and the struggle between good and evil. Though The Evil Dead’s primary theme is of survival, one could make the argument that it also examines the futility of Man’s effort in the face of supernatural evil, like the Candarian Demons. Freeland also argues that “a film of art-dread must make plausible the thought of imminent danger from something that is vague but profoundly evil or unsettling” (Freeland 196). For Freeland, “The Evil Dead” would probably be too concrete in its reveal of the ‘monster’, but also very good for its vague, unsettling depiction of the ‘evil woods’. In “The Evil Dead”, there seem to be multiple monsters at work. The most obvious (and of most concern to our hero) monsters are the Demons which possessed Ash’s friends, but there is also a greater evil which seems to have possessed the entire woods which we never actually see. The greater power of the objectless evil is felt throughout the film, like when Ash attempts to drive out of the woods, only to see that the bridge has been knocked out and the metal beams holding it up folded into a hand. Several of the characters frantically scream “it won’t let us leave!”, giving the viewer an unsettling feeling about something unknown. Freeland would applaud “The Evil Dead” for its tremendously unsettling and dread-inspiring setting.

“The Evil Dead” does not merely have one or two scenes of dread, but sustains a plausible environment of dread and unsettling fear throughout the film, forcing viewers to entertain such thoughts as “is there a demon around that corner?”. Truly a masterpiece, “The Evil Dead” is primarily a work of art-horror, but definitely would fall into Freeland’s classification of art-dread.
Director Sam Raimi used several cinematic techniques to enhance and sustain an environment of dread and horror. Several point of view shots from the position of “the demon of the woods” established the potential omniscience of the evil in the film, which seemed to be everywhere. Several chilling sequences also used the point of view technique, such as when Ash first walks through the basement, Scotty looking for the missing Shelly, and scariest of all was the point of view shot from the “demon in the cellar”. The extensive use of first person shots ties the viewer intimately with the action on screen, and with the protagonist, along side of whom we as viewers are not too many steps ahead in the narrative. If Ash turns a corner, we do not know what lurks behind it, unlike many horror narratives which have at least one scene which compels the viewer to scream “No, don’t go in there you idiot!”. The use of fog, off screen sound, and generally unsettling imagery helped set the stage for a truly horrifying narrative. The acting in the film was the weakest aspect, with Campbell providing the only decent performance.


No analysis of “The Evil Dead” would be complete without mentioning the truly odd phenomena that is the character of Ash Williams. Ash has gained a mythic, global, cult following that dwarfs that of any other B Movie Horror protagonists. In later installments of the series, Ash builds his mythic stature by such macho maneuvers as cutting off his possessed hand and replacing it with a chainsaw, and perpetually wielding his “boomstick”. The character reached such popularity that the third installment of the series was officially titled “Bruce Campbell versus the Army of Darkness” in several areas. Bruce Campbell’s charismatic, accessible, and weirdly believable portrayal of Ash is a memorable aspect of “The Evil Dead”.

Overall, “The Evil Dead” still stands the test of time, and 28 years later still provides a chilling account of horror and encounters with supernatural evil.

Special Effects

Horror has many aspects to portray itself. From all the books we have read in class, there have been many descriptions to get across to the reader the feeling of fear. They usually describe the scenes so well that you could visualize everything, and in your mind, and possibly make the scene even scarier than it was ever intended. I know that while we were reading Dracula, the scene with the carriage driver scared me a lot more than it seemed to affect anyone else. I kept imaging being in the carriage alone with the odd driver who kept disappearing and with wolves surrounding me. The element of fear from reading that blew me away, and I had to keep reading to see what was going to happen next. In the movies, sometimes it almost seems that those scenes don’t have as much effect. When watching this same scene in the newer 90’s version of Dracula, Keanu Reeves didn’t seem worried at all; then again that might just have been Keanu Reeves himself. The driver, still creepy and weird, didn’t seem to have the same effect to me. He didn’t disappear back and forth and there weren’t the wolves surrounding them the whole time. More than anything I think Reeves was scared of the cliff height. Sometimes it just seems that the special effects and visual images just hold back the true horror it could release on the audience.

Special effects I think have a lot to do with how well the audience gets that feeling of horror. Some movies it just doesn’t cut it. A lot of this has to do with recent technology also. Some special effects that seem common place today were un-thought of back in the day. Even some the older ones though knew their capabilities. ¬¬I think Night of the Demon, although it would have been intimidating without the monsters shown, did a great job with the effects, especially for being in 1957 and very limited with their technology in special effects. The monster was very frightening looking with smoke and fangs, very intimidating. Another horror movie from that same time period, 1958, was The Brain from Planet Arous. This is a perfect example of a movie with ridiculous special effects that just make it humorous. The thought of a giant brain attacking from another planet is still a frightening monster but it just makes it hilarious. Even the newer ones today don’t know when to say they are out of their hands. The make-up, costumes, gore, sounds, and any other special effects really make a difference on how the movie is portrayed. I personally am not fond of scary movies but some of them just make me laugh. It makes me laugh harder when I find out they didn’t mean it as a spoof. Other scary movies, that do themselves justice with their special effects, I can’t watch because I will get paranoid and sleep with the lights on for weeks. The horror parody movies are the best at pointing out the ridiculous effects. One parody with surprisingly good gore effects is Shaun of the Dead. There are parts in there that almost make it worse to me than some of the horror movies. There is a scene when the zombies are ripping out a man’s intestine that is truly horrific looking. Another perfect example of a horror movie that has ridiculous special effects making it more of a comedy is Shark Attack 3. It was made in 2002 and it’s supposed to be a horror movie but it cannot even be taken seriously. All these special effects just add to the movie if done correctly; they can make it truly superb. However, when done incorrectly the special effects just make it another laughing matter.

Here are the four clips:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvPowFM_-XM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qImQ1YBZtwg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nzd0R_OeOc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGDqYnKHHrU

Defending Freud, and a Look at Freudian Literary Criticism

So far, the arguments I’ve seen against Freudian theory have amounted to: “Freud talks about sex, thus he is a fraud.” I don’t necessarily hold that argument against anyone personally, especially considering that in my Psychology experience during my undergrad time, it seems as though the accepted pedagogical approach to Freud is, “His theory is a crock, so we’re not going to really cover him with any depth.” There are a few inconsistencies with the Freud-bashing that I’d like to address. First, to dismiss Sigmund Freud as a fraud is ignorant on two counts: Freud’s theory does not “boil down to sex,” and his theory undeniably altered the approach to psychology, if not the way the entire world thinks about human mind. Furthermore, to use an analysis of a story through a Freudian lit. theory perspective written by a third party as proof that Freud is a fraud is an assumption that Sigmund Freud himself tailor-made his theory for a literary approach.

To say that Freud’s literary theory boils down to sex is to ignore both the primary emphasis and the final goal of his research. If anything, Freud’s research boils down to a “battle,” if you will, between natural human urges and subconscious thought, the result of which constitutes one’s personality and ability to live within society. We begin with the “id,” the natural desires which include but are not limited to sexual desires that are by their nature incompatible with social living. In other words, if our natural urges were to reign uncontrolled, killing everybody we disagree with and having sex in the streets would not be considered wrong. If the id had its way, all of that oedipal desire to kill dad and mate with mom would be a-okay. The subconscious “Super-ego,” which represents morals, justice, and all other socially acceptable ideals, fights to repress all of those nasty id ideas. Stuck in the middle of the battle is the “ego,” which is basically our conscious awareness. When the super-ego is, for one reason or another, overwhelmed by the id, that failure is manifested in our conscious behavior, in what we call neuroses and psychoses (conditions as simple as anxiety and as complicated as schizophrenia). Freud’s theory addresses the balance between base urges and social order, and the problems that arise between the two, and he formed it on the basis that an individual’s certain physical or social problems could be attributed to a problem within the mind other than something that “made sense” back in the day, like witchcraft or evil spirits. (Source) Granted this is just a nutshell version of Freud’s theories, which are far denser, but it goes to show that his ideas can’t be dismissed as a bunch of rambling about penises and vaginas.

Of course anyone could still call Freud an insignificant crackpot, had his ideas not revolutionized psychology. The fact that I’m even discussing the notion of a human subconscious and a human personality can be attributed to Freud. Right or wrong, Freud opened the door to the study of the human mind, along with psychiatry as a practice. The theories of his successors, even those who completely disagreed with him, have been sparked by his work’s relevance, and continue to shape psychiatry today. To put this in perspective, the National Institute of Mental Health reports that over 26% of Americans over the age of 18 suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder, which is about 58 million people (Source). That means that if you know anybody who suffers from anything from claustrophobia to schizophrenia, their condition may not even have been recognized had it not been for that “fraud” taking the first step into acknowledging the subconscious.

Thanks, fraud.

As far as literary theory is concerned, using a critics choice of the Freudian lens as proof that Freud himself is a fraud is ludicrous, considering that Freud himself has nothing to do with literary interpretation. Freudian literary criticism, like any other critical formula, is simply a set of ideas transposed onto fiction. This doesn’t guarantee that the critical formula will accurately fit the story. Furthermore, the interpretation does not depend on the set of ideas that the story is measured against, it depends on the way that the critic uses the ideas to view the story. Since it is dinnertime, I will use a food metaphor. Using critical literary theory is like going to a buffet. You pick and choose things on the buffet, and what you put together you call a meal. The way you put things together might be different from the way the guy behind you puts them together. The point is, if there is anybody to be blamed for a lousy critique, it is the critic, not lens.

In addition to this, an interpretation of the losing-eye-horror from other critical lenses could seem just as ridiculous. In fact, a feminist critic might propose that losing the eyes can be interpreted as a fear of emasculation, because without eyes with which to see, man can no longer be the dominant sex. This isn’t very far from a Freudian interpretation, yet if the feminist lens was used to depict a situation of fear over emasculation, I doubt that there would be accusations of fraudulent thought against feminists.

The word “fraud” seems like one of those weighty words like “hate,” that shouldn’t get used very often because they are pretty strong. Yeah, I know Freud’s name is only one letter away from it, and I have my own problems with the foundations of Freud’s theories, but I can’t deny that his theories had an impact; a big impact, on modern thought, and he’s about as far from a fraud as it gets. If we dismissed every idea that had novel yet somewhat disturbing conclusions, we would still be afraid to fall off of the flat edge of the earth, and we’d still be letting sick people bleed out in order to get rid of the bad spirits in their blood.

"I don't drink... wine"

The Dracula play we most of us saw Friday was my, and I'm sure many of your, favorite representation of Dracula so far. The acting was amazing in about every aspect. The accents were well done and not over stated, and Dracula was easy hear and understand. Harker was the right amount of confused and easily manipulated, unlike Keanu Reeves "Whoa there's Dracula" in the film version.

I really enjoyed the special effects of the play. Despite the small cast and I'm sure limited budget, the use of blood and fog created and eerie and at times truly frightening setting. Renfield's heart being ripped out of his chest by Dracula was impressively believable. The scene could of came off as cheesy and over acted but instead it was executed beautifully.The scenery was excellently used with such limited stage size. The separation of the three platforms to use for narration of the various letters and diary entry and one for the insane asylum maybe the play easy to fallow and fit the book better than any other representation I've seen so far. The use of the trap door was excellent and added a creative element to the small set.

One of the best parts of the play in my mind was the actor who played Renfield. His laugh was perfectly creepy and very disturbing at times. The scene in the book that I found most disturbing was Renfield's rant right before his death and the play's representation of this scene was even more horrifying than I had imagined it when reading the book.

The cast did an amazing job sneaking around by the seats and popping out of unexpected places. The actors really worked to make the audience become part of the production. The blood splatter was an interesting tactic to involve the audience. I came out with some ricochet blood on my leg but i enjoyed the affect and it washed out just fine.

Overall I'd give the play a solid 5 bloody vampire wives out of 5.

Well done Cincy Shakespeare Company

Sight Over Sound- No Contest

As the handout on ‘the Sinister Resonance’, Penny’s post, and subsequent discussion have effectively shown, sound can be a medium of art-horror. You can use Carroll’s formula with a slight modification: I am occurently art-horrified by a sound X….(and so on). While this may be true, I would strongly argue that sound can never be on par with sight as a medium of art-horror. As Edmund Burke noted in his 1756 masterpiece on the sublime and beautiful, “the passion caused by the great and sublime in nature is astonishment, and astonishment is that state of the soul in which all its motions are suspended, with some degree of horror. The mind is so entirely filled with its object that it cannot entertain any other, nor reason on that object which fills it. Astonishment is the effect of the sublime in its highest degree; its inferior effects are admiration, reverence, and respect”.

Reverence, respect, horror, astonishment, sublimity: all of these things are best realized in an image. Take any piece of art that inspires feelings of sublimity (I like to think of Memling’s “The Last Judgment”). This sort of awe and horror can be achieved also in the horror genre of fiction, particularly with images of the art-horror monster.
For example, take the massive, 500 foot tall, thunder-emitting three headed dragon beast King Ghidorah, of Toho fame.





The mere sight of this monstrous, horror and awe inspiring creature generates art-horror, and any deaf man can appreciate that! At some point, the methods of Cat People and The Haunting, though their subtle hints at the supernatural are indeed frightful, must play second fiddle to the medium of sight. Seeing the monster does not categorically make it less scary (is the monster in Alien LESS scary when it shows its acid blood/three layers of razor sharp teeth/unstoppable killer instinct? Any reasoned analysis would say no. Also, if I were to hear a creeping King Ghidorah around a dark alley corner, I would not be as art-horrified as if I saw him thrashing through the air over a major metropolitan area.












In conclusion, sound can never be what sight is to the horror genre, or to notions of sublimity. Actions speak louder than words, and sights horrify more than sounds.

Robert

Whoops I Meant Freud . . . A Response

I too find Freud to be, well, a fraud. Ever since we reviewed the story "The Sandman" I have found the loss of eyes to be within so much of the media, literature, television, and more that we are exposed to on a daily basis. Is EVERYONE trying to address the issue of loss of sexual organs through the metaphor of eyes?

I find this hard to believe.

How can the loss of male reproductive organs, however important they may be the the well-being of the world, be the center of so many metaphors? One could speculate that Freud had wisdom beyond the average man, and he is able to just understand the representations of the mind by interpreting them through his infinite psychological wisdom. The average man only subconsciously represents these things through images such as eyes, wombs, and more.

Yet through Freud our world boils down to sex, sexual desires, and sexual fears. Is that ALL that humankind is concerned with? Reproduction and pleasure are, of course, important but I would argue that people are concerned with far more things than just this. Not EVERY part of our conscience or sub-conscience deals with that which Freud boils our world down to.

Nathan, you are right. Freud is a fraud.

An Alarming Development

I was browsing the Web this morning and found this article. As we know, this cannot end well.

The Night of the Vampire

Please have a listen to a classic ode to vampires and the vampiric performed by the great Roky Erickson.