"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
JVL
if i look back, i am lost
Sade Olutola
🪼
Stranger Things
DEAR READER
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open
Acquired Stardust
No title available
No title available
@theartofmadeline
oozey mess
No title available
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me
Not today Justin
blake kathryn
titsay
taylor price
Claire Keane
seen from Malaysia
seen from Netherlands
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from Malaysia
seen from Italy
seen from Hong Kong SAR China
seen from Belgium
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from Belgium
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Italy
seen from France
seen from Australia
seen from United States
seen from Switzerland
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from Singapore
@penumdrum
Doll, doll
...I called her. That's what she was. A magic doll. [...] 'Let me dress you, let me brush your hair,' I would say out of old habit, aware of her smiling and watching me with the thin veil of boredom over her expression.
when a deathmatch gif breaks containment and some rando calls it an "irresponsible stunt" like yeah man. we know
You guys call anything Catholic just because it's christian and vibesy. "oh he's southern and makes me feel bad about myself" girl that's a baptist
Gothic literature must be cursed to forever be misinterpreted by mainstream public because how did this happen
Dracula book: an evil count who only sees the world as a resource to be drained for his own pleasure is stopped by the group of people who deeply care for each other
Dracula in media: a tragic romantic hero, main love interest of one of the protagonists who must be liberated from her dull little life
Frankenstein book: any human has capacity for evil when completely abandoned and shunned by the world and the people who brought him into it
Frankenstein in media: don't play God because it's against nature's laws
Jekyll and Hyde book: repression and only caring about external appearances can cause your worst impulses to indulge themselves in dangerous ways if ignored for too long
Jekyll and Hyde in media: what if there was two of the same guy but one of them was evil and gross?
Apologies if I come across like a pedantic asshole, I don't mean to. I'm very blunt in text, and that causes problems for me, so I just want to note in advance that I'm not trying to be aggressive and condescending on what's possibly just a vent. I don't have much skin in the game when it comes to portrayals of Frankenstein (never read the full text) or Jekyll and Hyde (haven't touched it at all), but it is worth noting that there has always been a tragic angle to Dracula. It's not the only lens, and I understand how being fed the same one is tiring, but I wouldn't call it is a "misinterpretation." I think it's important that while Stoker's childhood of illness and his life within a post-Irish Famine imperialist England did very likely color his work, his possible queerness (and I use possible in the way that you would use 'allegedly' in a YouTube call-out video) as well as his anxiety surrounding that should also be taken into consideration when analyzing Dracula's character and his role in the narrative. I think it's also worth noting the context of when Dracula (1992) was released, which I think is what you're referencing? Sorry, there's a lot of Draculas.
Dracula's Daughter was released in 1936. Between the sixty years between that specific take on a tragic (and arguably sympathetic) vampire and Dracula (1992), we also got: Blacula (1972), Anne Rice's Interview with the Vampire (1976 and the Vampire Lestat (1985), The Lost Boys (1987), and the Vampire Diaries (1991). And these are just a few. The energy surrounding people's perceptions of vampires was/is just different now than it was at even the turn of the century because of titles like these, and it's clear the film wanted to lean into the underlying sympathetic aspects of Dracula to fit with that modern day lean to vampires that felt more human than monster without upsetting people too much. It's also worth noting that they may have probably (can never say for certain) wanted to reassess some of the themes in the original Dracula like the racialization of Dracula himself and his dynamic with English women (1990s America, while certainly not the best, still had a very different view of interracial dynamics than 1800s England), female sexual autonomy and the ideal Victorian woman, and the religious tension between man (er vampire) and God. To be honest, there is an argument that Dracula is still a villain in that movie, though he's definitely more of anti-villain.
Now, there are a lot of reasons to be very critical of Dracula (1992), particularly their cowardice in fully addressing the queerness of the original text by tucking Johnathan away off screen after a while because this was the 90s (and in doing so destroying his dynamic with Mina), or just the way it kind of fails to do what it set out to do with the women of the story, or the marketing of the film as an adaptation when it's clearly not, or even just like...it not being the best written film? That said, I think that criticism of it being a "bad adaptation made by people who don't get it' isn't really fair since it's obvious it's not supposed to be and actually hand-waves the real problem, which is actually a lot more insidious than media illiteracy; that being the implicit profit incentive that may have ran behind this decision. Because a romance is more generally profitable than an horror, but if you can't have the object of affection be Johnathan, at least not explicitly, you have to pick the next best option.
No need to apologize. I was making a broader statement about the adaptations of Dracula but yeah, certainly the Coppola one had a ripple effect. I don't necessarily dislike the different interpretations of the story as much as I dislike the specific romantic trope of pairing Dracula and Mina together to the point where it's part of the Dracula mythos now. I understand why it happened and how the more marketable and less controversial couple became the default over the canonical Jonathan/Mina or the subtexual Dracula/Jonathan, but it makes it no less frustrating to see.
I'm in no way a purist when it comes to books and I don't mind filmmakers bending the story as long as it goes in an interesting direction. Dracula, in particular, I think works even better when he has sympathetic qualities. After all, we kind of already have a more traditionally monstrous Dracula in Nosferatu. But despite the hundreds of adaptations we barely touch upon the homoerotic subtext of the novel or the themes of modernity vs tradition, or Dracula trying to smooth over his foreign nature to fit in more seamlessly in England, or how he uses his wealth rather than his vampire powers to open doors for himself. Certainly different versions of all these stories have validity withtin the text, so I'm less mad about people misinterpreting the novel and more about it being narrowed down to one not particularly new or challenging version of itself
"(...) I'm less mad about people misinterpreting the novel and more about it being narrowed down to one not particularly new or challenging version of itself."
Ah, I see. Than yeah, I definitely agree! Thank you for clarifying a bit more even when you didn't have to. I didn't mean make it seem like I was accusing you of being such (a book purist that is), and I also didn't mean to sound so frightful (I've had some...interesting experiences in the past). Vampires have certainly taken an interesting shift in pop culture that's been rather awkward and clunky in such a short amount of time, and the fact that Dracula is no longer a trend setter anymore, but rather a product of series of trends it put in motion to create is equally fascinating and, like you said, frustrating. I myself have very mixed feelings about all of it, especially when you can tell someone is more inspired by another person's feelings about a work than the actual work itself.
TL;DR: Everybody needs to read more! Maybe then, they can sort their own feelings about something than rely on other people's.
Gothic literature must be cursed to forever be misinterpreted by mainstream public because how did this happen
Dracula book: an evil count who only sees the world as a resource to be drained for his own pleasure is stopped by the group of people who deeply care for each other
Dracula in media: a tragic romantic hero, main love interest of one of the protagonists who must be liberated from her dull little life
Frankenstein book: any human has capacity for evil when completely abandoned and shunned by the world and the people who brought him into it
Frankenstein in media: don't play God because it's against nature's laws
Jekyll and Hyde book: repression and only caring about external appearances can cause your worst impulses to indulge themselves in dangerous ways if ignored for too long
Jekyll and Hyde in media: what if there was two of the same guy but one of them was evil and gross?
Apologies if I come across like a pedantic asshole, I don't mean to. I'm very blunt in text, and that causes problems for me, so I just want to note in advance that I'm not trying to be aggressive and condescending on what's possibly just a vent. I don't have much skin in the game when it comes to portrayals of Frankenstein (never read the full text) or Jekyll and Hyde (haven't touched it at all), but it is worth noting that there has always been a tragic angle to Dracula. It's not the only lens, and I understand how being fed the same one is tiring, but I wouldn't call it is a "misinterpretation." I think it's important that while Stoker's childhood of illness and his life within a post-Irish Famine imperialist England did very likely color his work, his possible queerness (and I use possible in the way that you would use 'allegedly' in a YouTube call-out video) as well as his anxiety surrounding that should also be taken into consideration when analyzing Dracula's character and his role in the narrative. I think it's also worth noting the context of when Dracula (1992) was released, which I think is what you're referencing? Sorry, there's a lot of Draculas.
Dracula's Daughter was released in 1936. Between the sixty years between that specific take on a tragic (and arguably sympathetic) vampire and Dracula (1992), we also got: Blacula (1972), Anne Rice's Interview with the Vampire (1976 and the Vampire Lestat (1985), The Lost Boys (1987), and the Vampire Diaries (1991). And these are just a few. The energy surrounding people's perceptions of vampires was/is just different now than it was at even the turn of the century because of titles like these, and it's clear the film wanted to lean into the underlying sympathetic aspects of Dracula to fit with that modern day lean to vampires that felt more human than monster without upsetting people too much. It's also worth noting that they may have probably (can never say for certain) wanted to reassess some of the themes in the original Dracula like the racialization of Dracula himself and his dynamic with English women (1990s America, while certainly not the best, still had a very different view of interracial dynamics than 1800s England), female sexual autonomy and the ideal Victorian woman, and the religious tension between man (er vampire) and God. To be honest, there is an argument that Dracula is still a villain in that movie, though he's definitely more of anti-villain.
Now, there are a lot of reasons to be very critical of Dracula (1992), particularly their cowardice in fully addressing the queerness of the original text by tucking Johnathan away off screen after a while because this was the 90s (and in doing so destroying his dynamic with Mina), or just the way it kind of fails to do what it set out to do with the women of the story, or the marketing of the film as an adaptation when it's clearly not, or even just like...it not being the best written film? That said, I think that criticism of it being a "bad adaptation made by people who don't get it' isn't really fair since it's obvious it's not supposed to be and actually hand-waves the real problem, which is actually a lot more insidious than media illiteracy; that being the implicit profit incentive that may have ran behind this decision. Because a romance is more generally profitable than an horror, but if you can't have the object of affection be Johnathan, at least not explicitly, you have to pick the next best option.
new son
OnThisDay in 1849, Edgar Allan Poe passed away under mysterious circumstances. Of all the artists who gave life to Poe’s macabre tales over the years, perhaps none captured them quite so brilliantly as the Irish artist Harry Clarke: https://publicdomainreview.org/collection/harry-clarke-s-illustrations-for-poe-s-tales-of-mystery-and-imagination-1919 #OTD #EdgarAllanPoe
JACOB: My feeling about Louis is that he is the most vampire of all of them. He has the highest drive and jonesing for blood, I think he really wants blood, I think he hates human beings. Everything he says he is, I think he is the opposite. [...] I think he feels the need to overcompensate for a really deep blood lust, and he really wants to be a vampire. [...] He's the reticent vampire because he is reticent to embrace what he is. SAM: Until he's not.
Jacob Anderson talking about Louis de Pointe du Lac (x)
She wants some More.
Claudia Appreciation Week: Somebody To Love
Interview with the Vampire (2022) | Interview with the Vampire, Anne Rice | Claudia's diary entry
One of the more obvious differences in the show when compared to the book is Claudia's search for love and companionship. The book has limited capability of having us know Claudia's true feelings on the matter, but her primary reason for searching for other vampires is the hope that they possess knowledge that Lestat withholds from her. In the show, the primary reason for it is love. Claudia's whole perception of love is molded by Louis and Lestat's love for each other. Her insecurity over being taken for granted and not put first by her fathers leads to her trying to seek any other sort of companionship elsewhere. When Claudia returns, she requests to be put in a 'more equal' position alongside Louis and Lestat as a sister, hoping that this can also allow her more equality within their trio, and be considered a proper companion alongside them, not just as a daughter they neglect. Unfortunately, this does not give her the desired outcome.
whats your favourite girl you’re deranged ldpdl moment? mine’s in ep2 when hes shit-talking lestat per usual re the opera and the tenor being like ‘lestat was a SNOBBY nasty bitch who killed an innocent man of MIDDLING talent for an offending note. it was SO barbaric daniel it very nearly put me off killing forever but lestat had a way about him x 3 and i didnt want to disappoint so i pretended to enjoy it and we drained and feasted on him all. night. long. and we could do that because lestat was an Artist of Death. i, a mere babybird of a fledgling, a fumbling botched vampire had no stomach for such DEPRAVITY. i did however feel CHARGED listening to the thoughts and reading the mind of the tenor. i relished in the quiet almost meditative remembrance of a rich picturesque life in italy, of the warm hearth of a loving home, the weather-beaten face of a doting father who taught him to fish, the deep blue waters and the open horizon. it was TRANSCENDENT. anyway, i havent killed since the year 2000. i sit here a master of my own instincts unlike the rest of the vampires who are slaves to the blood.
*waiter enters the scene with a bloodbag* the ab negative you ordered, fresh from the farm.
daniel: what farm!?
louis: what farm indeed
INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE (2022 - )
Little Birdie Lu's caught in a trap. But she's flapping her wings and getting free!
Black hair appreciation on IWTV
AMC's Interview With The Vampire does such a great job showcasing the beauty and versatility of black hair. These are some a few of my favourite black hair appreciation moments on the show:
Louis' many hairstyles throughout the decades, inspired by the real hairstyles black men wore during those time periods.
Bonus points for them styling Jacob's real hair instead of using cheap looking wigs like some other tv-shows do.
Mama Du Lac's fro and Grace's updo at her wedding.
Claudia putting a headscarf in her hair before bed. I also love the use of hair – her transitioning from cute plaits to sophisticated updos, to show that she has matured from a little girl into a young woman.
An honourable mention also goes to Lestat playing with Louis' hair during an intimate moment, something that we rarely get to see on screen.
Unholy Family Promotion from season 1
Lestat described in less than 2 minutes:
(All credits to Éros Brousson)
I could not prevent it // Laws of tradegies
