Showing posts with label vampire community. Show all posts
Showing posts with label vampire community. Show all posts

Sunday, August 4, 2013

Twenty-Six For a Year, Immortal Forever


File:Youth and Time 1901.jpg
Youth and Time

All my life, I’ve been getting into some variation of the following conversation:

Generally Well-Meaning Host or Recruit: “How old were you when you were sired?”

Me: “Oh, I was twenty-six.”

Generally Well-Meaning Host or Recruit: “And you’ve been twenty-six ever since.”

Me: “No. I was twenty-six for one year. And then I turned twenty-seven! Next month, I turn 143.

That’s what I’ve said to everyone who asked me that question this month. Yeah, it comes up a lot.

I was born on September 22, 1870. I’m not the same person I was in 1896.

This shows up all the time in immortal fiction. Nothing wrong with asking an immortal when it happened – the only thing I take issue with is the assumption that ‘twenty-six’ is was pretty much when my life and my personal development ended.

Some immortal fiction has that same conversation almost word for word. Tuck Everlasting, Let the Right One In, and Twilight all come to mind. Except the immortals almost always respond differently than I did.

Tuck Everlasting (2002 film) poster.jpg

And almost all of those protagonists were ‘turned’ as frigging children. I always hope that’s just for pathos and not wish fulfillment. Some days I don’t feel like giving the writers the benefit of the doubt.

Jessie Tuck says he’ll be seventeen until the end of the world. Eli says xe’s been twelve for a long time. Edward Cullen says he’s been seventeen for a while.

Edward Cullen.jpg
Seventeen for a while? Whose fault is that?

Guys – you’ve gotten older since this conversation started. You can’t stop chronological aging, and it will never be the same thing as physical aging.

My people don’t turn into vampires overnight. In most Vampire fiction, it happens in a few minutes, or at least a few nights. For us, it takes one and a half to three years between the infection and your full transition. Hell, it took me a full three years.

We’re not entirely sure when the aging process stops during the transition, so really: my age at my ‘time of siring’ was twenty-six to twenty-nine. God knows: you age so fucking much between the ages of twenty-six and twenty-nine.

And it doesn’t matter, because I’m still 142. But the idea is that I can somehow be over a hundred years old and only twenty-six at the same time.

Ah, but did I officially stop ‘aging’ when I was twenty-seven? Twenty-eight and three point five months? Really – what is my number?

I still remember what happened with my initiate Adam. He was getting nervous about his impending thirtieth birthday and tried getting me to sire him a few months early so he’d be sired at twenty-nine. I’d already spent the requisite five years evaluating him, so I did it – a few months weren’t going to make any difference to me. They apparently meant a world of difference to him, though.

Logan's Run came out the year the youngest Baby Boomers turned thirty. Clever.

Yeah, the Baby Boomer youth obsession hit him pretty hard. Trusting people over thirty was one thing, but being over thirty? I was quite a bit over thirty myself at the time, so you can imagine the depth of my sympathy for his plight.

To this day, he still insists he was just kidding. And to this day, after a round of chuckles, I still insist that I believe him. Yeah, we’re both liars.

Sigh. You know, as a sire, I was supposed to teach him to be a good liar, too. I failed.

File:Doriangray 1945.jpg
Dorian Gray: the Poor Man's Immortality

I’ve said this to every one of my initiates before and after: “Babe – I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but you will turn thirty. Vampirism only cures physical aging. We already have a cure for chronological aging – it’s death! The only alternative to getting old is dying young. And our business is saving lives, not validating absurd societal prejudices.”

People who actually care about things like chronological age don’t care how young you look or how healthy you are, not usually. If they did, they wouldn’t go by chronological age at all – they’d go by your appearance, health, and abilities. They sure as hell wouldn’t care about the difference between twenty-nine and thirty.

I know these people. I know that back when I was in my eighties, a lot of them would start getting real uncomfortable around me. I mean – I was older than their grandmother. Who cares if I look like I’m still a twenty-something?

File:JeanneCalmentaged20.jpg
Jeanne Calment, 20
I don’t have these problems so much anymore, though. I’m 142! They have no basis of comparison between this and what I’m ‘supposed to’ look like. There’s no accepted and highly stereotyped social role for a 142-year-old. I’m free from their expectations and judgments!

Yep. The Immortal Ageism Paradox. When I was eighty, I was a granny in disguise. Now that I’m sixty-two years older, I’m young again!

Other thresholders go through the same thing. 123: yeah, that’s pretty much a twenty-something, right?

It's actually considered a major threshold when you hit 123 in vampire culture (at least today). Jeanne Calment (RIP) was deceased at 122 and holds the record for the oldest verified human lifespan. If you're a 'thresholder,' you're older than the oldest human who ever lived. Naturally, that threshold is subject to change, with improved medical advances. I look forward to the day when the threshold is two hundred or more.

Jeanne-Calment-1996.jpg
Jeanne Calment, 121

At 142, I’m not treated like a forty-something. But in my privileged position, I get to see how the ageists of the world treat them.

Jeanne Calment, 40

Aging and gaining life experience aren’t the same thing – you can stop your aging process in your twenties and it wouldn’t change your ability to accumulate life experience. Aging is the accumulation of damage, not wisdom. And maturation is kids turning into adults physically and psychologically – you can be mature and inexperienced.

Life experience happens just over the course of your being alive – twenty-somethings aren’t ‘twenty-something-shaped’ because their bodies are too healthy; they’re ‘twenty-somethings’ because they haven’t had enough years to be anything else (literally and metaphorically). Except for all those twenty-somethings who are wise beyond their years, of course.

People need to recognize aging and maturation for what they are. And they need to recognize chronological aging for what it is – the earth has made this many revolutions around the sun since you were born. Congratulations!


It is not a statement of a person’s worth, life experience, or even an exact measurement of the amount of damage they’ve accumulated, really. People can be healthier than their years, and visa versa.

This crap goes away in an immortal society. I figure it’s a relief for a lot of human members of the vampire nation. I mean, they turn forty, their American friends give them cards that say crap like: ‘you’re over the hill and its so fucking funny that we’ll laugh at you at make jokes about failing memory, weight gain (because that’s also so fucking funny), and other stereotypes that we’ve decided you’d love to hear about!’

Come to us and you can celebrate your birthday in a place where the forty-somethings are impossibly young, the people under three hundred are hip, and the people over three hundred are revered and respected.

There’s no double standard here – ask most vampires, and they’ll tell you that humans never get old. They all die far too young.

But obviously this stuff can’t go completely mainstream until we discover the cure for aging in humans. In the meantime, all we can do is try to fight this nonsense through education, cultural change, and as much mockery as possible.

File:Peter Pan 1915 cover.jpg
I am not Peter Pan.


Images Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. 

Sunday, May 13, 2012

Titanic: Life Story


There are countless stories about immortals, Vampires, and long-lived fantasy races. How many stories are there about human centenarians?


http://www.silverwhistle.co.uk/fanfic/ficpics/ElvenWallpaper.jpg.

Really, how many honest-to-gosh, non-supernatural centenarian humans are there in fiction? You’d think Hollywood would’ve gotten the memo about humans living longer. No one’s interested in stories about centenarians? Or is that just what Hollywood thinks?

I wonder. I get people asking me questions about the 1950s through the 1970s. And not just vampire questions, either. And I’m just sitting here wondering if they ask their grandmothers or, well, mothers the same questions. Sometimes, yeah – they’ll even relay their grandmother’s stories to me, which is great. Other times, well, it’s hard not to be cynical.

How often are older characters ever protagonists? When you do see centenarians in fiction, they’re usually played for laughs – as are most older characters, even if they’re under sixty and therefore barely twice the age of much of the audience. Look at Grandpa swear, because older people don’t do that. Hilarious! Look at Grandma have a sex drive, because older people can’t have that. Hilarious the second! Look at Gramps forget things and walk slowly, because memory problems and the systematic loss of your mental and physical faculties is really goddamn fucking Hilarious, isn’t it my fellow young person?

Okay, occasionally they mix it up and give us a psychotically evil old person like Mr. Burns, but that's not what I call progress. If they're not giving us Mr. Burns, it's Grandpa Simpson.

The Simpsons sometimes tries to make up for it with a few sympathetic nods to the plight of American old folks and some Lisa Speeches. I'm talking Golden Years Simpsons, here, too. Guys, that doesn't work if you're laughing at Grandpa, too, and you treat him as 'Generic Old-Shaped Old Person Representing all Old People.' 

Even Titanic does that a bit. In an early scene with 101-year-old Rose, she forgets a social encounter that happened a few minutes ago - which, of course, her granddaughter condescendingly reminds her of. And earlier, before Brock Lovett talks to her, he gets reminded to: ‘speak up; she’s kinda old.’


http://www.cornel1801.com/.

Sigh. If she needs you to speak up, she’ll tell you. Don’t start by barking at her – she’ll know what it means. And Brock urges her to tell the story – the movie, basically – by saying ‘anything you can remember, anything at all.’

She snarks back: ‘Do you want to hear this or not, Mr. Lovett?’ (Ha - I'd have been tempted to say: 'well, I was on the Titanic - and it sank! True story.')

And then – fast forward to the end of the film, when all the characters are hanging on Rose’s every word, after she’s told this story at the level of detail any historian would weep for.

They hear about Rose the Younger, the bold, witty, Progressive-era girl who wanted more out of life, and they start seeing her again in the present. And we the audience see her too. They give Rose a sense of humor and a wealth of wisdom and depth that older characters should have, and she becomes a person with a rich and interesting life story instead of the ‘very old goddamn liar’ they reduced her to at the start of the film.

I’ve been there. God, I’ve been there. For my people, talking about our history is like Pinocchio syndrome: we become real. It makes us real, and it makes history real.  

I love that. And I love how the Titanic characters go from seeing the sinking of the Titanic as nothing but an excuse for collectibles and trivia questions to seeing it as a real event affecting real people. (God, especially Brock, who calls Rose his 'new best friend' after he infers that she must have the Heart of the Ocean if she really was on the Titanic. That's right, Brock: beg the disaster survivor for the valuables she secured the night she watched thousands of people die. 'You lived through a hurricane? Did you bring me some loot?' At least he got better.)

I love the way the film almost effortlessly conveys that this is what history was – historical people were not aliens with incomprehensible motivations, and had romance and sex and drives and ambitions that steered them right or wrong, in this case literally. It’s so great to hear that, in an era of anti-presentism and ‘historical relativism’ – which usually translates to ‘history is really hard to understand, so we give up.’

My people are hyper-aware of our place in history. It’s a huge part of our culture. And we were partly founded by Enlightenment people from circles that were just as hyper-aware of the past and the future. But most people you meet just aren’t, whatever time period they’re from. They live for today, and that’s where they stay.

Rose and Gloria Stewart single-handedly elevate Titanic from just another disaster movie with a big ego, an ungodly budget, and special effects that'll look impressive for about ten years, and will be unintentionally comedic in forty. Hell, it's one of the only disaster films that actually shows one of the survivors years later and gives any thought to the long-term. At least for a little while, it stops being just another film exploiting an historical catastrophe and becomes an historical commentary.

Victor Garbor actorThomas Andrews shipbuilder
chasingthefrog.com

It could have done a better job at being that. Mr. Andrews and the Unsinkable Molly Brown, played by the excellent Victor Garber and Kathy Bates, should have been co-protagonists if they really wanted to make the film a first-rate historical drama. But as a fictional account of fictional people’s historical love lives in interesting times, it succeeds much better than most, and better than I ever would have anticipated.

Kathy Bates Molly BrownUnsinkable Molly Brown
chasingthefrog.com.

I love Gloria Stewart’s quote: “When I graduated from Santa Monica High in 1927, I was voted the girl most likely to succeed; I didn’t realize it would take so long.” I hear you, Gloria. I love that she was the only Titanic cast member who was alive when it happened, and lived to be 100-years-old herself (RIP). Hollywood society even gave her respect and admiration in the only way it knows how: she got nominated for an Oscar and she was voted into People magazine’s ’50 Most Beautiful People in the world’ list in 1998.

In an industry that treats people like fashion trends, casts out any forty-plus woman who isn’t Meryl Streep, and has had more influence on the modern youth obsession than air-brushing, Gloria Stewart’s story is a breath of fresh air. Her biography is pretty damn interesting, too.


flapperdays.blogspot.com.            


She helped found the Screen Actors Guild and, in 1936, the Hollywood Anti-Nazi League. After getting stage roles in New York, she opened a successful art furniture shop, got some of her oil paintings into the permanent collection at the Los Angeles County Museum, then got some of her professional-grade bonsai trees in the Huntington Library Japanese Garden permanent collection – and this was all after re-marrying and while raising a daughter. Gloria returned to acting in her sixties – when most women’s careers are long over – and got to be the oldest person ever nominated for an Academy Award at age 88. Meanwhile, she was writing fine art printing books, one of which is in the permanent collection at the J. Paul Getty Museum. She was still acting at the age of 94, and made her last appearance in film at age 100.

I wish she had gotten to see the Titanic Anniversary.

allvoices.com
Gloria Stuart



Titanic, for all its flaws, gave us a great centenarian character and treated her, and the historical event it was depicting, with at least a modicum of respect.

One great thing about historical relativism is that it works just as well on the present and recent past – you can use it on 1897 just as easily as 1997. Titanic was made in a time period that’ll be remembered for (among other things) its ageism. And I might have to defend non-ageist 1990s people the same way I defend liberal 1912 people from generalizations like ‘those were the times,’ while acknowledging that we have made progress and the culture really has changed. After enough time has gone by, all citizens represent their eras, and all fiction becomes historical.

For all these reasons and more, I declare Titanic the movie ‘fair for its day,’ and can’t wait to look back at it in relief for how far we’ve come.

http://i.usatoday.net/. 

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Interview with... need I go on?




(Disclaimer – this is just about the movie. The book series is sufficiently different that it merits a different write-up.)
http://therottingzombie.blogspot.com 


The Man, the Myth, the Movie
Interview with a Vampire is a Vampire movie, not just an action/romance movie with Vampires. Really, does Underworld need to be a Vampire/werewolf movie? You could replace the lichens (hey, lichens are composite organisms, too), I mean, ‘Lycans’ and Vampires with any warring faction and barely change the story one bit. If your leading lady is just going to be shooting people and wearing tight leather for the whole movie, couldn’t she be almost anybody? If these guys have been doing the same thing for a thousand years, do they really have to be immortal?

 Interview, on the other hand, really uses the Vampire premise. Here, Vampires aren’t monsters for a protagonist to defeat to prove his self-worth, or masculinity, or anything else so subjective. Again, that could really be any monster: you could swap the Vampires for gang-bangers and barely change the story (look at the Lost Boys). Also, these Vampires aren’t generic dangerous love interests for young women. Those could just as easily be real life sociopaths, and still be the stuff of spectacularly ill-advised fantasy (look at the Lost Boys).

No: Louis’s character conflict and arc and relationship with Lestat are all defined by this unique situation and set of circumstances. The existential questions raised by Vampirism, the moral implications of killing to survive, the process of gradually becoming desensitized to murder, ‘siring’ as seduction, and the experience of agelessness without physical maturity: these are not window dressing. They’re the substance of the story. I really have to give Anne Rice and the filmmakers credit for that: these kinds of stories can still succeed regardless (I do mildly like the Lost Boys), but thinking through a premise allows more opportunities for originality. Plus, you feel like you get your money’s worth.
http://deliciousreadsbookclub.blogspot.com. 
I liked the basic idea back in the 1970s and still do: a Vampire narrating the story of his life – which we get to watch in flashback – to a then-modern reporter. It’s still rare to find any Vampire media that reflects my actual experiences, though I obviously shouldn't and don't expect this of writers, and I like escapism and new takes on old ideas as much as the next person. Still, I do love a human character whose response to encountering an old Vampire is to sit and talk with him. Most of my coolest hosts are like that. I love Daniel Molloy’s line: ‘I’m a collector of lives.’ I’ve often felt the same way, and so do many of the people who talk to me.

Incidentally, one fun series of questions I get from the aforementioned cool hosts is: do vampires find Vampire movies scary? What movies do we find scary? In fact, do we find movies scary? Sure. My scariest movie: Threads, a British docudrama about post-nuclear war survival. I first watched it in the 1980s, when it was basically the world’s most horrifying weather forecast. Expecting a genre film to replicate that experience would be unfair. Movies are obviously not aimed at my people, but they’ll work if they reflect our insecurities and vulnerabilities.

Take Interview: the scene where Claudia and Madeleine are burned to death by the sun. Horrifying. Especially the build-up: Claudia and Madeleine are trapped in this narrow tower, sentenced to death in a chaotic flurry, with just one vent leading to the outdoors – no exit, barely enough room to move let alone escape, and the vent is too high for them to reach or guard. Then it’s daytime, we watch the sunlight slowly descend upon them, and we watch Claudia’s confusion and gradual realization of the situation, her gasping in horror as direct sunlight slowly hits them. Then the payoff: we see this sculptural pile of ashes that’s still shaped like her in her last moments of horror. True Blood pulled something like this recently (except it involved a witch and voice distortions), and it was unintentionally hilarious. Interview made it as horrifying as it should be.    
http://reviews-of-movies-i-watched.blogspot.com. 
I hated Claudia from start to finish, and this scene still made me feel for her. Madeleine was innocent though, and I still don’t understand why the Paris Vampires killed her. She wasn’t an accessory to Lestat’s murder, and she was an adult. God, five minutes earlier she was promised immortality, and it all ended like this. Executed for her sire’s crimes. Bastards.

Basically, the whole film is a scary what-if scenario for my people. What if there was no real vampire society, and you and your sire had to fend for yourselves? What if your sire was evil? What if you really were hungry and desperate for blood every minute, and could blow at any time? What if you pulled away from a victim, and he/she really was dead?

The scenario’s not so far-fetched. There are vampires sired outside of our community, generally called ‘extra-nationals,’ and they make Louis look mentally balanced by comparison. Whenever we find and imprison one of them, it’s a reminder of what we could have been, and that it’s our circumstances that made us who we are – now that’s psychological horror, right there.

My culture emphasizes introspection and personal development. The fear of losing your ideals and the basis of your personality with time, and with the changing cultural zeitgeist – that fear is very real, whether it’s justified or not. My people are by no means alone in that regard. Sometimes as you get older and learn about moral ambiguity, and the role of conditioning and moral breakdown, the monsters don’t look as external anymore. They may not even look much like monsters.

I think Interview works better as horror, especially adult horror, than most of the Vampire films that take the perspective of the hunters and the victims. Those films usually play on the fear of monsters. Stories like Interview play on the fear of becoming monsters ourselves. That’s one reason the Vampire genre has lasted so long: it combines the two. I think the latter is scarier. And really, which one is more realistic?

http://reviews-of-movies-i-watched.blogspot.com. 

 In 1984, the Inner Party wouldn’t just torture you for resisting them: they’d break down your sense of reality and morality until you could maintain the controlled lunacy of doublethink, and you’d be willing to throw your lover into a cage of rats if it meant saving your own ass. Contrast that with, say: ‘some guy from the Thought Police killed Winston Smith in the middle of the night, oh, and he had scary teeth and claws.’ Yeah. Lestat killing the prostitute at the beginning of the film was alarming but not scary. Lestat destroying Louis as an individual as we watch him regress into a monster as horrible as Lestat, on the other hand, is memorable and scary.