Looooooove that this gave me an excuse to rewatch the movie. This is definitely in my top ten horror movies of the last five years.
The big stand out for me was the scene with Abigail controlling Sammy. I mean, every scene in which Abigail leans into the ballerina persona is excellent (running down the handrail?? amazing) but this one is the real standout for me thanks to the amazing acting from Alisha Weir and Kathryn Newton, and excellent direction/cinematography.
(Also, I was approximately 75% of the way through the movie before I realized that Alisha Weir had played Matilda, at which point my gobs were smacked by the incredible talent of this actress.)
I also love that Matt Bettinelli-Olpin's signature is becoming a woman absolutely covered in gore (Ready or Not 1&2 were amazing), so the very ending itself is just excellent to me. And who doesn't love a good Matthew Goode cameo?
It is literally so ridiculously hot. Like who gave Dan Stevens the right to look so good drenched in blood? Vampires are already often portrayed as sexy in the media but GOD DAMN, Frank’s transformation hits different. I haven’t stopped thinking about it since I watched the movie
this isn't necessarily my fav scene from Abigail, but it's the one that I can't stop thinking about. the scene of Kathryn Newton's character falling into the swimming pool full of bodies. omfg that was worse than any of the gore lol. if that had been me, all my survival instincts would vanish in favor of getting clean. Abigail can come kill my naked ass while i'm showering idc.
— Okay, what do we know about vampires? — That they're not real! — What are we talking about, like Anne Rice, or a True Blood? You know… Twilight? … very different kind of vampires.
Note what's not mentioned in Abigail: Dracula. And that's just logical, because, what are we talking about, Dracula 2000 or Dracula Untold? … very different Draculas.
But also, at one point we see a heraldic design featuring a dragon, which suggests that Abigail's father is Count Dracula. But they shy away from explicitly stating so.
By not mentioning Dracula at all, it's left open whether or not Abigail is set in a world in which Dracula is known as a fictional vampire from a Bram Stoker novel and numerous adaptations based on it.
Another interesting detail, that is surprisingly related to this, is that Peter uses a silver tray to check whether Sammy has a reflection after she has been bitten and is worried about turning into a vampire. At that point in time she has not turned and has of course a reflection. But it's then never shown whether or not any of those who have been turned have a reflection.
Bram Stoker has studied a lot of folklore for his writing and many of the sources he drew from are known. It's unknown where he got the idea that vampires don't have a reflection in the mirror, and the leading theory is that that's a thing he made up.
So in-universe in Dracula that's real and has therefore entered folklore, and Peter could know it from there. In a universe in which Dracula is fiction but vampires are real, that part, that Bram Stoker probably made up, would presumably not be real, but Peter could know it from fiction.
Note that the works that are mentioned — Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles, True Blood, Twilight — all don't do the vampires lacking a reflection thing. This beautifully supports the ambiguity around Dracula by leaving it open whether vampires having no reflection is folklore or fiction in-universe.
The silver tray is then used to reflect sunlight. This makes the bit about Sammy's reflection a set-up to establish that Peter found something reflective. And it makes clear that the vampire mansion doesn't have many mirrors because, as we see, it would be bad to have sunlight bouncing around too much. So the lack of mirrors doesn't necessarily imply that mirrors would expose them or that they have no use for mirrors.
Another thing: the kidnapping is a set-up and the mansion into which they bring Abigail turns out to be another home of hers. That leaves it unclear whether vampires in the Abigail-universe can enter someone else's home uninvited or what would hypothetically happen if they tried to forcibly move her into any third party's home.
—
In Renfield the villain explicitly is Dracula and that name clearly rings a bell for Rebecca. But it's not clear from dialogue whether Dracula is known but assumed to be fiction, or whether the name is known from a Victorian news story and events that gained notoriety but are assumed to be rooted in superstition; like the New England Vampire Panic or the Serbian vampire outbreak that's been investigated by the Medicus Glaser.
So there's a lesser but similar ambiguity in Renfield.
—
Because the novel Dracula is written in the form of letters and journal entries that would exist in-universe, it wouldn't be a paradox to have the vampire character Dracula exist in a universe in which the novel Dracula also exists. Stoker could have collected and published all of it directly from the sources. He could also have added or changed any amount of it for dramaturgy. So an author can make choices about what parts of it are treated as true.
But in such a world Count Dracula would be something like a celebrity who would prefer not to be recognised in most situations. So shouldn't he try to avoid appearing anything like people imagine Dracula? Shouldn't he dress and comport himself in the least Dracula-like fashion. That's a funny concept, but one that doesn't work well for a film that pays homage to the old Dracula films the way Renfield and Abigail do.
In a world without the novel Dracula most vampire fiction that came after it would not be the way it is, and it's unlikely that vampire fiction would be as popular as it is. When you think about it, it's questionable whether modern-day characters could be expected to know anything about vampires if they're not into occultism or from a cultural background that warrants it. The assumption that everyone knows the word ‘vampire’ and has some ideas of what's supposed to help against vampires would face at least many questions if you'd specify that Bram Stoker's Dracula wasn't there to boost their popularity. That's just way too involved alternate history world building for a vampire story.
So staying ambiguous about the novel was surely the best approach for Renfield and Abigail.
Rewatched Abigail 2024 and I noticed a picture of cats, a dog, and a bunny on Abigail's side tables next to her bed (as well as Kristof). I first I thought they were just cute decoration but I wonder if those were her pets over the years that passed away. I mean I don't think her and her father would feed on animals.
I wish there were more Kristof and Joey fics. I don't really ship them because of the movie I mean they only had a few minutes together but I like the idea of the second movie being about Abigail wanting a little brother so they take Joey's son and Kristof taking Joey to be their mother and his wife. Like I said before I heard there was a deleted scene where Abigail said she wants a brother and there's the canon ending where Abigail see "see you around, Joey." Too bad the actress who played Abigail has grown up.
