DARK SHADOWS FORUMS
General Discussions => Current Talk Archive => Current Talk '24 I => Current Talk '08 II => Topic started by: Mysterious Benefactor on August 21, 2008, 08:20:22 PM
-
You might think this topic is OT, but no. This article:
John Seavey’s Storytelling Engines: Angel (http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2008/08/20/john-seaveys-storytelling-engines-angel/)
claims that the 'idea of a (say it with me now) “vampire with a soul”, fighting for his own personal redemption by doing good deeds' can be traced back to DS. Well, not quite because when he was a vampire, Barnabas didn't have a soul, at least not in the same way that Angel did - though Barnabas did have a conscience. And while the two can be similar, they're not identical. Though one could definitely say that Barnabas did often fight for his own personal redemption - though with him, whether he was a vampire or not, he often took one step forward and two steps back. [ghost_wink]
Discuss...
-
Well I heard one critic say that Barnabas totally transformed the Vampire genre. Up until him the vampire was only played as an evil, malicious, predator. And that Barnabas changed the course of history by being the first reluctant vampire in literature or film. This was on one of the DVDs extras towards the end of the show. He paved the way for Louie or is it Louis, Angel, the Twillight vampire, and lead vampire on True Blood.
-
They never discussed in the DS scripts whether or not Barnabas had a soul when he was a vampire. Perhaps the idea of a vampire lacking a soul comes from Miss Rice? It may exist in some of the old Eastern European folklore collected by "Reverence" Montague Summers back in the 1920s. Many indigenous or pre-Christian thought systems treat what we would call the "soul" as having three components. Due to traumas of various kinds (includes being the victim of a hex/curse), part of this tripartite "soul" can be ripped away. If what remains includes the original physical body imbued with some form of life force, this can behave like someone possessed or like "one of the living dead." I won't go on because I am getting into off topic waters here.
To me, the way the Angel character was handled on Buffy (from what I saw of it) was very different from how Barnabas was portrayed on DS. Of course, I'm sure that there was some awareness of Barnabas and DS in the mix on the part of the people who worked on the show. Has Joss Whedon ever mentioned the series in interviews?
G.
-
The only time that I'm aware that Whedon mentioned DS was when he was upset with rumors that the WB was supposedly canceling Angel in favor of the '04 DS pilot. But as we know, the canceling of Angel and the '04 pilot actually had nothing to do with each other. And I've read many interviews with Whedon, and I've never seen him reference DS in any capacity as an inspiration for anything he has done - and I can't say that's ever really surprised me. I love DS and I've loved everything I've seen Whedon do, but I don't think they have all that much in common.
-
The vampire in Dracula's Daughter definitely struggled against her vampire nature in the 30's, but the idea of a heroic vampire didn't really begin until Barnabas. There was no mention in DS about if Barnabas had a soul or not. I think he did , as nothing says he didn't. In Anne Rice's works, Lestat says he doesn't know if he has a soul or not, but from his spiritual journey thru th ebooks I think her vamps have souls.
There are a lot of similarities between Angel and Barnabas. Angel came from a wealthy family in the 1770's, with a difficult relationship with his father, a loving but weak mother, and a much younger sweet but frail sister. Angel's time of origin, his background and his family are nearly identical to Barnabas's. Angel was made a vampire by Darla, a beautiful angelic appearing blonde who was his lover as well as later his enemy. Angel's realtionship with Darla is very similar to Barnabas's relationship with Angelique.
I think it's obvious that Angel was strongly influenced by DS and Barnabas. Nearly all vampires since DS have been influenced by Barnabas, including Coppola's Dracula, with Dracula a more romantic figure pining for his lost love and the music box he gives her.
-
Perhaps. But I don't really see the Darla/Angel relationship on the same plane as Angelique/Barnabas at all. Darla loved Angel, but an obsession on the level on Angelique's for Barnabas? Not really. And Barnabas' and Angel's family hierarchy might be similar, but Angel was basically a no good drunkard, something Barnabas was most definitely not. And after becoming a vampire Angel wasted no time in destroying his family and relished every minute of it - even destroying his sister. That was not at all like Barnabas.
-
Dark Shadows has been mentioned by the BtVS&A staff, though never through Whedon himself as far as I know. A clip from DS even appears in the Buffy Season 2 DVD bonus features. In addition to that, one of the writers mentioned DS in a commentary, saying that he "felt Buffy was closer to My So-Called Life than Dark Shadows." Gunn also directly referenced DS in an episode of Angel, and there are a few paragraphs dedicated to DS in Buffy: The Monster Book, though they had a few pieces of incorrect information if I remember correctly.
In reference to Taeylor's comments on TrueBlood, Bill and Barnabas are tremendously different characters; I wouldn't really describe Bill as a tortured soul type. Of course, Barnabas helped to usher in vampire mania to the modern era, setting the stage for Anne Rice to further popularize vampires, eventually leading up to the new generation of Buffy, Angel, Sookie Stackhouse/Southern Vampire Mysteries/TrueBlood (too many blasted names for one series!), Twilight, Moonlight, et al, so it's entirely possible that Bill wouldn't exist without Barnabas.
And I don't really consider what Darla and Angel had love. I think the only person that Darla truly loved post-vampire was Connor, but that's just my opinion.
-
A clip from DS even appears in the Buffy Season 2 DVD bonus features.
I really need to start watching my Buffy DVDs one day - most are still sitting on the shelf with their plastic still on them. But I don't want to start watching them until I have the time to watch the series all the way through. (And, no, Midnite, I haven't seen those last six episodes from Season 7 yet. But like I say, for me Buffy still hasn't ended until I watch them. [ghost_wink])
In addition to that, one of the writers mentioned DS in a commentary, saying that he "felt Buffy was closer to My So-Called Life than Dark Shadows."
Exactly.
there are a few paragraphs dedicated to DS in Buffy: The Monster Book, though they had a few pieces of incorrect information if I remember correctly.
Imagine that. Though hardly surprising given that incorrect info about DS is pretty much and quite sadly the norm in most books.
-
If I remember correctly, the clip is in the featurette "Beauty and the Beasts" on Disc 6.
Should I post those few mentions of DS from The Monster Book on here or would that infringe on copyright too much? [ghost_tongue2]
-
I didn't say Barney had a soul. He was just reluctant! Joss Whedon in my opininon expounded upon that and made Angel much like Barnabas only with a "soul" as his moral compass.
-
Yes, and I think Angel's conscience was a bit more strict with him than Barnabas's was. It seemed like it only took Barnabas the length of a trip from the docks back to the Old House to forgive himself for killing a random hooker. Actually, unless he's immune to them as a vampire, it's astounding that Barnabas never got an STD of any sort from drinking so much prostitute blood.
-
RE: your last post ROFLMAO GOOBER!! :)
I have always wondered about HIV/AIDS and vampires. Since vampires can't die by human means I would suspect it is a NON ISSUE. Most vampires regenerate and heal. I also was gonna point out how Coppola used ELEMENTS of DS for his version of DRACULA.
In retrospect, what I was trying to say was that Barnabas caused a DRAMATIC ripple affect, on the whole vampire lore, that we are still seeing 42 years later. TO ME, that speaks VOLUMES about the affect DARK SHADOWS had on pop culture. I mean we are sitting here at our computer on August 21, 2008 debating a show that has been off the air since 1971. It's extraordinary that this show was the first soap to capture a young audience and continues to attract a young audience who could watch state of the art special effect programs but they are enamoured with DS. And it amazes me that even after my being in fandom for 17 years I continue to enjoy, dissect, and debate DARK SHADOWS and it NEVER gets old for me. And just think of how many times this show has been brought back from the dead. And all the rules it broke. To be fair DS didn't have as many eps as most soaps like General Hospital(which would be virtually impossible to put on DVD), but there were soaps that probably lasted about as long as 'Shadows but are they on DVD? NO! No other soap opera has ever been turned into two major motion pictures and now three and possibly a franchise with the new Depp project. No other soap opera has been brought back as nightime series twice albeit for sort times. I believe Dark Shadows will be discussed, dissected and watched for thousands of years to come, if the world survives.
I hope I am making sense as I am slightly delirious! I have combed through this post for thirty minutes trying to articulate my feelings! I hope you see where I am coming from cause I am hitting POST! [ghost_wink]
-
I think the comparison between Angel and Barnabas is always brought up because both vampires had a "conscience". Barnabas didn't like what he was cursed into being, and as such he begged his father to end his life so that everyone around him wouldn't end up dying. Meanwhile, Angel was a selfish, evil fiend who killed anything and everything, just for sport, but when his soul was introduced into the equation, he made conscious decisions to change his way of life. Of course he couldn't kill anyone because he'd feel guilty, but he still could've fed off of people without killing them, but chose to drink pig's blood instead.
I read this article a few days back after seeing it posted on Whedonesque. I thought it was definitely interesting, and I'd like to see this guy try to analyze the original DS like he has other shows.
-
I have always wondered about HIV/AIDS and vampires. Since vampires can't die by human means I would suspect it is a NON ISSUE.
That was certainly Ben Cross' take. It probably won't surprise anyone that when Cross appeared on Joan Rivers' talk show as part of the publicity leading up to the debut of the '91 series, she brought up the AIDS issue. Cross was somewhat taken aback, but his response was that a vampire has his own worries and this world has its own.
I hope I am making sense
What you wrote made perfect sense.
-
Should I post those few mentions of DS from The Monster Book on here or would that infringe on copyright too much? [ghost_tongue2]
Well, we'd prefer to avoid infringing a copyright, period. [ghost_wink] That said, brief excerpts (with citations), paraphrasing when possible, might get by better than quoting long passages.
-
I used to know someone who went to a booksigning with Anne Rice and she asked about the whole AIDS/HIV issue. According to her, Anne Rice's comment was "They're immortal. Get it?"
I agree with Quentincollins that although technically Countess Zeleska in Dracula's Daughter was the first "reluctant vampire" on film (the title character of Varney the Vampire in the early 1800s also was sometimes very relucatnt), Barnabas was the first "hit" of such an idea and almost certainly ushered in Louis, Nick, Angel, etc.
But comparing Barnabas and Angel is a bit tricky because you have to remember their vampirism was very different. Joss Whedon's shows explicitly described what a vampire was--namely, a human whose soul has been replaced by a demon. Not, interestingly enough, their mind. The mind is the same. Internal evidence of the both series would seem to indicate the soul is something like a spiritual "organ" that encourages people to feel empathy for one another as human beings, which seemed to be a foundation for moral standards. Take that away and it is like removing every single inhibition, then replace them with the drives of a predator.
So far so good (kinda/sorta).
Yet vampires of DS seem different. It seems as if becoming a vampire altered the personality, but mostly by giving the new undead an overwhelming hunger as well as more aggression. This showed up in all sorts of ways, but in Barnabas' case this meant a much more fierce temper (as poor Willie can attest). Yet unlike Buffyverse vampires, DS vampires seem to feel waves of bloodlust. Barnabas, interestingly, went through long periods without feeding (this may have to do with the sheer length of time he was undead). Angelique showed the capacity for self-control but no real interest in it, whereas vampires like Chris Jennings just seemed to be appetites with legs. One suspects it is largely a matter of willpower and personality.
On the other hand, certain aspects of Barnabas' story do seem to resonate for this kind of story. The troubled family, the love/hate relationship with one's maker, the dreadful toll taken by those close to the vampire, the struggle for some kind of redemption through good works--all these are present in Barnabas, Louis, Nick and Angel when you think about it. Details vary quite a bit, but the essentials are there and one can note how other "reluctant vampires" failed to grab the imagination--including the lead in Moonlight and that show on Lifetime--also failed to have these elements. Not that I'm claiming that this is a formula for good vampire story-telling, but that those details did resonate and if you're gonna tell a truly rivetting tale of this genre you need to have details that resonate in some such way.
-
In season 3 of Forever Knight, they did an episode that was an interesting exploration of the whole HIV/AIDS thing and how it could or could not impact vampires. I think the episode was called "Fever."
G.
-
Re Monster Book, basically, they just mentioned the show several times and got some facts wrong; if I recall correctly, their biggest goof-up was saying that there was only one trip back in time and basically said that Angelique and Quentin both made their first appearances in the same storyline. They either wrote it terribly unclearly or just screwed up.
If I remember correctly, in the books that are serving as the basis for TrueBlood, HIV/AIDS had mutated to a form where it indeed could affect vampires, as well. But in DS vampire "rules," it probably was essentially a non-issue.
I do think that Angel and Barnabas are just two completely different characters. Yes, they're both reluctant vampires, but as I said before, Barnabas seems far less concerned with redemption, for one thing. Heck, Spike cared more about that than Barnabas did. It's also interesting how [spoiler]Spike's love for Buffy made him a better person, eventually leading to the restoration of his soul, whereas Barnabas's love for Vicki made him want to kill Burke and chop off Jeff's head.[/spoiler]
-
[spoiler]...whereas Barnabas's love for Vicki made him want to kill Burke and chop off Jeff's head.[/spoiler]
Yes, well, that's our Barn. [wink2]
-
Sure is! [ghost_cheesy]
-
It is true, in DS love tens to push people into doing monstrous things. Love drives [spoiler]Angelique to destroy everyone around Barnabas, love drives Barnabas to try to embrace Josette, Maggie and Vicky as vampires, love drives Barnabas to kidnap Maggie and torment her, love drives Beth to try to kill Quentin.
Love also drives Julia to try to help Barnabas even as she covers up his crimes.[/spoiler]
There are examples of goodness in love, with the more pure loves of Joe/Maggie and Jeff/Vicky but there are many examples of how love destroys. DS certainly wasn't afraid to explore the dark side of human nature.
I hadn't though tabout it, but Barnabas really doesn't seek out redemption. He does change over time, but he never spends too much time trying to repent, he just moves forward. And even once Barnabas changes into the anti-hero figure, he still is presumably killing whores on the warf, we just don't see it or hear about it very much.
-
Well, now wait a minute--how do we know Barnabas wasn't feeding from cattle, as he did when he first arose? Or perhaps with time vampires need less blood in general? We don't really know, because that was among the many questions two which DS never really gave any hint of an answer. Barnabas didn't talk much about redemption, but he did his best to try and protect his family as well as others whenever possible.
I was actually thinking for a bit in the other direction. Seems to me you could easily make the point that the whole Barnabas/Josette/Reluctant Vampire story could have been suggested by three classic horror movies:
The Mummy with Boris Karloff, which had as the center of its plot Imhotep trying to find and reclaim the princess he had loved and for whom he died. Even though she was now reincarnated as someone else.
Werewolf in London not only had a cursed hero in an inverness coat (!) but also was about his trying to keep his condition a secret while seeking a cure.
And of course Dracula's Daughter in some ways is a distaff version of the whole plotline, with Countess Zaleska seeking a cure for undeath from a male doctor with whom she falls in love, but who does not feel that way about her. There's even a romantic triangle!
Not that I'm suggesting Dan Curtis, Sam Hall, etc. were committing plagerism. Far from it! But the ideas and plot elements they used--and which have now become such staples as to be almost cliche--did exist prior to DS and may have helped fertilize the imagination of the writers.
-
Sam Hall wasn't actually a part of the writing staff when the idea of Barnabas being a reluctant vampire was conceived. [ghost_smiley] And as for DC, well, he fought the idea because he wanted Barnabas to be strictly evil. [ghost_rolleyes] It was Ron Sproat and Malcolm Marmorstein who, through much persuasion, finally convinced DC that a reluctant vampire was far more interesting than a strictly evil one. And the rest is history. [ghost_wink]
-
Indeed MB. I was gonna point that out but you beat me to it.
-
Mysterious, can you point me to some documentation of what you say? I'm not doubting you--just want to read up more on such things. Would adore knowing more about how different story-telling decisions were made!
-
There are videos of Ron Sproat's appearances from the early Fests. I couldn't tell you at which appearances he discussed the evolution of Barnabas (possibly all of them) because I've only read the transcripts - and unfortunately I don't recall the years. The transcripts are possibly still available on the Internet somewhere, but I have no idea where. And the books in which he discussed the matter are long since out of print. However, I probably have something around here from back in the '80s that at least has excerpts from them. When I get a chance I'll try to track something down...
-
A lot of the transcripts are from the glory days of ZINES. Have I mentioned how much I miss zines. LOL Yes I have a million times. Zahir, I will try and look through some of my old zines for transcripts as well.
-
Zahir,
There's an interview with Sproat (where Edward Gross, unfortunately, consistently calls him "Sprout") in the DS Tribute Book that discusses the evolution of the Barnabas character:
"...Dan hated a lot of what we blocked out storywise, because it made Barnabas sympathetic. Dan never wanted him to be sympathetic. He hated it."
And then there was HoDS, sigh.
Sproat also talks there about the contribution by Frid, who "suggested that we write against the evil and he would play against it, which would make it more interesting."
-
So interesting! [ghost_smiley]
This reminds me a lot of Gene Roddenberry and TREK. Kudos to the man, but much of what made TREK so successful was the team working on it, especially Gene L. Coon. When Roddenberry got to make sweeping edicts for the new TREKs he came close to driving a stake through the heart of his creation forever. He was the one who decreed "no conflicts between Starfleet personnel" which was a rule that forced the writers into one formula after another (usually involving a brand new particle) and virtually never allowed the regulars to interact in any meaningful way. Hence their efforts to get around that rule with DS9 and VOY, which were both superior to TNG inho.
Likewise, from what you're telling me, Dan Curtis didn't really "get" what made Barnabas popular and interesting. Of course, after doing HODS he then did a turnaround and tried to use the same device to make Dracula somewhat sympathetic in his own adaptation of that novel, starring Jack Palance.
That was after HODS, right? [ghost_undecided]
-
I was just discussing that with someone a few days ago off-site. I think Dan Curtis totally missed the point of Barnabas's appeal - people were watching him not merely because he was a vampire, but because he was a well-written character being portrayed by a great actor. DC apparently misinterpreted this as the fans going gaga for the supernatural stuff, leading to a (to paraphrase Gerard) "the more spooky crap, the better!" philosophy. I am, of course, using the word crap in a general sense here; there are parts of DS I'm not terribly fond of, but none of them are crap.