Saturday, June 22, 2013
From Vampire to Human
Did anyone else find it odd that out of nowhere Caleb comes up with the idea of being injected with blood rather than biting on prey? I have no idea how he knew it would turn him back into a human. The story transition was weakly supported and more time could have been spent showing how the two characters were able to turn back into humans in my opinion. This was the only real major flaw I saw in the movie because it gave the audience no idea of how it brought the two key characters from being vampires to humans.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think if you want to see a movie where everything is explained, you should try another one. The entire Near Dark movie leaves things at face value. We don't know how they became vampires in the first place so why would we know how they became human again? They don't even say the term "vampire". Personally I like how vague the movie is about all the details and explanations of a complex subject like vampirism. Because in the end, it's not about why everything happened, it's about what is happening and you just have to have a little faith that's how it works. Caleb is decently confused and so are we. I think it adds to the emotions we feel as an audience.
ReplyDeleteAs for Caleb coming up with the idea of a transfusion, I'm going to assume it was inspiration from all the bottles in the back of his Dad's truck. He just had an epiphany. He didn't know it would work, but I think everyone was willing to at least try something. It could be considered a little weak because until that moment, Caleb expressed no interest in hospital work, doctors, or medical procedures so how would he even know about transfusions?
I'd agree with Melissa, and note that most horror and sci/fi leave the details understandably fairly vague. Trying to make these things to clear "messes with your head," as John Connor says after trying to explain to the Terminator the time-travel conundrum about how at 45 he sends his father back in time but that he hasn't been born yet. If we accept vampires, I think the movie figures accepting transfusions might reverse the process isn't a much bigger leap.
ReplyDeleteBut I understand some such details can be problematic. Hitchcock is often nicked for the same sort of flaws in his thriller plots. He was famously dismissive of such complaints, implying he was more interested in more important things (like the characters and their issues).
I think the use of transfusion was an interesting concept. I can't think of any other "vampire like film" that I have seen where someone attempted a blood transfusion to restore their humanity. There are some vague clues in the film that indicate how a few of the characters became the way they are but I think that in place of saving time and not slowing the film down this information is pretty much kept brief. My question is why exactly did Calebs dad have all those bottles in the first place. Perhaps I missed it, but I thought maybe he was a meth dealer or a veterinarian or something.
ReplyDeleteI just remembered that Caleb's dad was a veterinarian of some sorts. When we first see him he is with Sarah and he is injecting some medicine into a cow and Sarah is helping him. So, at the very least he knows how to care for animals and you could probably assume Caleb knew some things about it too from his life on the farm.
ReplyDeleteI personally think that them making the "Man boy" need for companionship was a huge aspect of the movie. Showing the viewers no matter how ugly the monsters we may become we still are human on the inside and we still need friendship and love. Even though they had become these people with no regard to life or respect for people.
ReplyDeleteI suppose I’m a little confused about Caleb; he’s not as good of a guy as I feel he is portrayed. And, I think he enjoys power and being in control. Our first introduction of him he pursues Mae and becomes aggressive when he stops the truck and refuses to drive her any further unless she kisses him. Later, at the end of the movie, he says he’s supposed to be a part of the living world but I think it’s only because that’s where he’s more powerful over Mae and then turns her without even asking her! I can’t imagine the psychological overload she must be going through… how can one lead a normal life after that?
DeleteI have never really enjoyed vampire movies because it makes me wonder why the rules aren't all the same it is frustrating to me I like the rules to be set in place
ReplyDeleteI somewhat agree: I wasn't so suprised by the film's sudden use of blood transfusion as a means to change vampire's back to human, but what disturbed me - and distracted me - was thinking if that solution was an 'acceptable' one.
DeleteOn the other hand, the film never identified anyone as a 'vampire' so I suppose all possible solutions were fair.
-PK-
I thought it was great that everyone apparently has the same blood type! No worries of rejection by the body.
DeleteHAHAHA RIGHT!! The idea of a quick blood transfusion is fascinating since its an extremely unique approach to a "vampire film" however it's not very practical. Maybe that lack of realism is supposed to be existent? We often are frightened because we put ourselves in the role of the protagonist and in reality we know that a blood transfusion isn't feasible due to the insane amount of health complications that could possibly happen. Knowing in reality that their approach most likely won't work as depicted on the screen,produces fear....at least to me.
DeleteYou will find the rules are not the same with a lot of horror monsters. Zombies don't have a set skill set. Same with Werewolves. Ghosts certainly don't. I think that makes all of these creatures so interesting. The writer can make up their own world how they see fit. I don't think it is very interesting to have to stick with the same set of guidelines. A writer is trying to make their own story with their own set of rules. As a viewer, going into the unknown is much more exciting to me while watching a film.
ReplyDeleteI agree that each writer sets their own rules. It can throw you off , but it's a good thing. I also think its the way some writers/ directors choose to make social statements and such. Take the Twilight movies for example (ok, shut up in the back row - I watched with my niece and enjoyed them). I found the whole argument about "vampires don't sparkle" stupid. It was her story and what I took from it ( along with others) was that just like the serial killer down the street that everyone thinks is such a nice guy, you never know who the monsters are. If they are good looking (vampires are supposed to be good looking and have mesmerizing appeal) they can be more dangerous because we don't expect it. If you only expect the monsters to be ugly and come out at night; I guess you'll be the one more likely eaten first.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the film and thought it was interesting that the curse (of vampirism) was in their blood all along. I thought it was interesting how May and Irena have similar qualities.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to the entire film Near Dark, I thought the whole film kind of went in the style of the blood transfusion theme. Actually, the more I think about it, I think you could sum up the film by discussing that one scene. The whole movie has a pacing that seems . . . I guess the best word I can think of is nonchalant (defined as coolly unconcerned, indifferent, or unexcited; casual). The movie goes from violence to quiet, quick to slow, bloody to sunny in a swift and casual manner, and I think that allows the viewer to adopt a certain mentality for the film. Just like with Tarantino’s films, sometimes the violence is regarded in the film with such an unconcerned air that the audience can either adopt that attitude for the scene as well OR read into it based on the filmmaker’s decisions. Obviously the transfusion and his return to normalcy were not the important bits in the film. It was descent into darkness and his unwillingness to cooperate with the other creatures that were of importance in the film. Essentially, according to the rules set forth by the film, Caleb either had to turn back to a human or die, because he would not kill others to be a vampire. So, it makes sense (in my mind) that the filmmakers not make a big deal about the change from vampire to human, particularly because he never made too much of a lifestyle change in his departure from humanity.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I noticed, at the end of the movie when Caleb is fighting to get his little sister back for the second time, he’s still wearing the boot spur Severen gave him. What do you think that means?
ReplyDeleteI think the thought of killing for food was so repulsive to Caleb that he was willing to try anything. I am not sold that he knew that it would work. If this movie did one thing really well, it was that Caleb was not very smart. He loved May, but loved his family more. I think he would have rather die than kill for food.
ReplyDeleteI think the reason Caleb was turn to human through human blood transfusion was to put or re-estalished human again as the person superior to vampire. Caleb is in charge when he is in human form but weak and confused when in vampire form. Caleb was able to turn Mae to human but what don't what is next chapter in behaving like a 1oo% without a relapse back to vampire.
ReplyDeleteNear Dark seemed to introduce several new elements into the vampire mythology. I don't remember seeing a vampire film where the failed attempts to kill a vampire are shown on screen. This film shows us what it would look like if one was to shoot an "immortal" vampire in the chest. It was interesting how the vampires felt pain and would become temporarily disfigured but would soon heal back to their normal ways.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with Garrett in that I dont think the film did a great job at showing that transition from vampires to humans... I sort of felt like this should've been a element of the movie earlier in that the audience would've known that this was possible. I feel like if this would have been a known fact earlier that the film would have been more interesting.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this, like the whole issue should have been referenced earlier, like it wouldn't even need to be a big thing but acknowledged at least. It just came out of left field to me. Also the lack of rules, I mean even Blade for example had rules for the vampires, you knew how to kill them, you knew the differences between the vampires and motives even.
DeleteI think it was just the lack of rules for me or motivation for the vampires. I would have been fine with the blood transfusion if it had been worked in at some point earlier in the story. The most interesting part of the film to me was the ending, when he changed Mae back into a human and she seemed less than thrilled, like that could have been an interesting film in itself.
I thought it was a little cheesy, it was like a good way to provide a happy ending for the filming. We save the guy and then we can save this girl he loves and the audience goes home happy. I get that each movie has it's own rules but I found this one hard to swallow given all the vampire movies that have been released over time.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it was something that if it was explained would have made me think differently, it was kind of simple. Like it worked in Children of Men for me, I didn't need to know why babies stopped being born.
I don't know, stuff with Near Dark didn't sit right with me. There were also no rules on how to beat the vampires besides get them into sunlight long enough until they blow up.