Nina Auerbach first took a trip to Transylvania in the 1950s.
At the age of 14, she and her best friend discovered Universal horror movies. Every Saturday night, the two girls would sit in front of the television and watch "The Mummy," "Frankenstein" and, their personal favorite, "Dracula." They were mesmerized by the Count and his bloodsucking brood.
Unfortunately, the girls' nocturnal activities didn't meet the approval of their parents. "They thought this was very sick," recalled Dr. Auerbach, a professor in Penn's English department. "Our parents wanted us to go to parties and dances on Saturday night."
In the end, the parents won out: The girls were forced to socialize. But, in their hearts, they were still children of the night. "We'd go to these horrible, wholesome parties that we hated and make vampire faces at each other," Dr. Auerbach said triumphantly.
Dr. Auerbach never outgrew her fascination with the fanged. During the 1960s, Hammer's vampire films served as a source of entertainment, giving her an opportunity to escape daily worries.
"I got my first job as a professor in Los Angeles, which was the most ghastly, surreal, terrifying, awful sort of place," Dr. Auerbach said. "During my first week there, I drove about 100 miles to see 'Dracula Has Risen from the Grave,' and I felt better."
Looking back, Dr. Auerbach realizes that the Hammer films--with their overabundance of buxom actresses--are "sexist and patriarchal." Still, from a feminist's standpoint, the movies do have their positive points. "I loved those women being docile, doughy wives, and then suddenly they turn into vampires, and they prowl and are powerful," she explained. "They're empowering sexy, transforming sexy."
This is the kind of insight found in Dr. Auerbach's new book, "Our Vampires, Ourselves" (University of Chicago Press). Looking at the genre through the eyes of a literary critic, she contends that vampires mirror the societies into which they are born--ironic, since classic vampires cast no reflections themselves.
Starting with the earliest examples of vampire literature, Dr. Auerbach traces the evolution of the undead. She demonstrates that, despite the common characteristics shared by vampires, telling changes take place over time.
Consider the vampires that haunted the 1960s and 1970s. Proud of their powers, they flaunted their vampirism. They contrast starkly with more contemporary vampires. "The vampires of the 1980s are depressed," Dr. Auerbach noted, "and they've become disempowered."
Literally disempowered. In movies such as "Fright Night" (1985) and "The Lost Boys" (1987), vampires are changed back into mortals--"unvampired," as Dr. Auerbach calls the process. Unvampiring also occurs in "Near Dark" (1987), an obscure film Dr. Auerbach raves about. She found the closing sequence in which Mae (Jenny Wright) is unvampired particularly chilling.
"I have never been so frightened by a vampire movie," Dr. Auerbach said. "It's like losing immortality. It's another kind of death. Maybe it's supposed to be a happy ending, but I think it's the most awful despair and loss of faith--even loss of faith in fantasy."
Dr. Auerbach claims that the downtrodden vampires of the '80s say something about the political climate of the country at the time. "There was absolute despair of individual powers in the Reagan years," she said. "Vampires in the 1960s and '70s had been political subversives and feminists--empowered beings. In the '80s, there was no belief in those powers."
The vampires of Anne Rice novels also suffer from occasional bouts of depression. But with their good looks and lavish lifestyles, it's easy to forget the odd melancholy moment. Dr. Auerbach finds that Rice's books are reminiscent of the vampire stories of Byron and Polidori from the early 19th century. "They're beautiful; they're aristocrats; they're socially adept," she said. "They're gorgeous and similar to Anne Rice."
Although she thinks there are better vampire writers than Anne Rice, Dr. Auerbach does note that her books have caused a resurgence of interest in the vampire genre. "Anne Rice made vampires very glitzy, psychedelic, beautiful and deathless," she noted.
The current breed of hip vampires has struck a vein with audiences. Some troubled souls are so enamored by these vampires, they claim to be vampires themselves. Dr. Auerbach speculates that these people change their identities in order to cope with the very real fears they must face.
"Vampires are immortal, and this is an age haunted by the deaths of the young," she noted. "Vampires don't have to get jobs. One thing about the vampires in Anne Rice that's interesting--and this isn't just Anne Rice--they're all very rich.... The great fear of this generation is that they'll be living less well than their parents."
Dr. Auerbach, who at one time taught a course on vampires at Penn, has had firsthand experiences with people who believe they are undead. She found their attitudes more terrifying than any work of fiction.
"In my first vampire course at Penn in '91, a whole group of students came to the last class dressed as vampires," she remembered. "And I thought it was funny, but it wasn't funny, because they were announcing who they were.... They just sat there with dead faces, not even taking notes. I was extremely unsettled. I hated to think I'm teaching these Penn students with their lovely faces and their future before them who in their hearts know they're vampires."
Vampire buffs unable to separate fantasy from reality are nothing new. For years, some scholars have claimed that Dracula was actually Vlad Tepes, who ruled Wallachia in the 15th century. "Something happened in the 1960s in America that made us want to believe that Dracula was Vlad the Impaler, because then there really was a Dracula," Dr. Auerbach said. "It was like King Arthur: Maybe he'd come back. But there was no evidence. In Stoker's notes, Vlad the Impaler is never mentioned. And Vlad the Impaler was quite unlike Dracula. "
In actuality, Dracula was based upon Bram Stoker's employer, Henry Irving, according to Dr. Auerbach. "Stoker worked for a tyrant," she explained. "Irving was a great actor, and he was a dictator at the Lyseum." The Lyseum was the theatre run by Irving and his partner, Ellen Terry.
Dr. Auerbach sees Stoker's book as a legacy for the 20th century, foretelling the coming of fascism. Apparently, Stoker was wise to fashion Dracula, the "fascist tyrant," after Irving. Ellen Terry's children, who grew up around Irving, eventually became followers of Mussolini.
"They were English, but they really admired [Mussolini] because they said he was just like Henry Irving," Dr. Auerbach explained. "No one could mesmerize the crowds the way Mussolini could--except Irving. Stoker really knew about what was going to become fascism."
For some reason, Dracula's megalomania is ignored in film adaptations of the novel. The tyrant from Stoker's novel transforms into a lover on the screen. "There's this whole schtick in movies that the girls are really attracted to the vampire, and that isn't in Bram Stoker: He's disgusting, and he wastes them," Dr. Auerbach said. "Maybe our vampire movies don't depict what we're most afraid of, which is not love and sex, but tyranny and power over others."
Irving may have been a tough boss, but he certainly wasn't a vampire. So are there any real vampires? Probably not. Then again, Bela Lugosi was buried in his Dracula costume.
"I hope he came back to life," Dr. Auerbach said with a smile. "I hope he's flitting around right now. People think that's such a pathetic thing for an old actor, but I'm sure he was doing because it made him immortal. It is immortality."
Looking for a few flicks to make your Hallowe'en evening complete? Try renting a few of these vampire films from your local video store. They all receive high ratings from Nina Auerbach.
"I don't know if these are the scariest around," she said, "but they provide a good spectrum for those who think vampires are only one thing."
Nosferatu (1922): This silent film still packs plenty of scares today. Based upon Stoker's "Dracula," this film from F.W. Murnau is a product of the German Expressionist era. Max Shreck's skeletal, ratlike vampire is a terrible thing to behold. Dr. Auerbach also recommends the 1979 remake from Werner Herzog.
Dracula, Prince of Darkness (1966): The first sequel in the long series of Dracula movies from Hammer Films. Terence Fisher returns to direct Christopher Lee, who once again dons cape and fangs as the bloodsucking Count.
Dracula (1979): Dr. Auerbach's favorite screen version of Stoker's classic tale, and, in her opinion, the one with the strongest feminist undertones. Frank Langella plays the title role, and Sir Laurence Olivier sharpens a few stakes as Van Helsing. Kate Nelligan gives a terrific performance as a "brave, rebellious Lucy who longs to become a vampire so she can soar away from her dreary fiancˇ," Dr. Auerbauch said. John Badham directs.
The Hunger (1983): Tony Scott's stylish take on the Whitley Strieber novel. After time runs out on her lover (David Bowie), vampire Miriam (Catherine Deneuve) turns her attention to Sarah, a blood specialist played by Susan Sarandon. Bauhaus, a goth band favored by vampire fans, performs "Bela Lugosi Is Dead" at the beginning of the movie.
Near Dark (1987): Dr. Auerbach loves this direct-to-video gem directed by Kathyrn Bigelow. A nomadic band of hard-living vampires prowls the desert, looking for victims. Dr. Auerbach particularly admires the performance of Jenny Wright, who plays a vampire named Mae. A still of Wright, blood smeared on her lips, adorns the cover of Dr. Auerbach's "Our Vampires, Ourselves."
Carmilla (1989): This hour-long film, based on the Sheridan Le Fanu tale of the same name, was originally made for the cable-television series, "Nightmare Classics." Dr. Auerbach believes it is the only film version true to the spirit of the original story. Meg Tilly plays the title vampire, Ione Skye the woman she befriends.
Questions? Comments? Send e-mail to The Compass.