Vampires: The Adapting Face of Social Commentary

Vampires have been a part of Western pop culture for several centuries. They are perhaps the most universally recognizable character in all of cinema, falling behind only Sherlock Holmes. The archetypal vampire we’re most familiar with has been portrayed over an astonishing 274 times in Western film, which does not include global vampire-themed films and shows. Out of these, the most famous interpretation comes largely from Bela Lugosi’s “Dracula” (1931), from which the classic Transylvanian accent and widow’s peak originated. The high collar and cape was introduced by playwright Hamilton Deane to help Dracula vanish on stage and vampires’ sharp canines were popularized by Christopher Lee’s "Horror of Dracula" (1958).

This reimagining of the vampire legend is nothing new, with iconic traits such as vampires’ fear of crucifixion, intolerance for sunlight, and lack of reflection in mirrors being added onto 18th century English folk tales in Bram Stoker’s 1897 Gothic horror novel “Dracula.” Vampires, in short, are beings from folklore that subsist by feeding on the vital life force (generally human blood) of the living. In truth, the design of vampires varies drastically depending on its purpose in media.

As Stanley Stepanic, a professor of Slavic Languages and Literatures at the University of Virginia, says, “The vampire, it’s called Count Orlok—not Count Dracula in the original—comes from the Dutch, which means war. So there’s some connection there with war and the loss of human life; in particular, young men for Germany during WWI and in the rest of the world too.”

“It’s also a clear symbol of foreign intervention or a fear of immigrants. Jewish immigration maybe, or Jewish influence,” Stepanic said. “We know the unfortunate tradition of that.”

The vampire Stepanic is referring to is the antagonist and title character of the classic 1922 silent horror film “Nosferatu” who is based on Bram Stoker's Count Dracula. To the average individual, the image of Orlok is downright terrifying, but its design may be worth re-investigating as a cultural artifact regarding anti-Semitism and xenophobia.

Count Orlok is human-like but foul looking, spreads disease, and reinforces negative Jewish connotations. Within a larger historical and geographical context, Orlok becomes a stereotypical eastern European Jew, with parallels to anti-Semitic caricatures in the film’s extended shots of Orlok's long and pointed nose, the use of dramatic lighting to highlight his dark, bushy eyebrows against a large, pale forehead, and costume design that makes Orlok's more feminine stature apparent.

The medium of film permits further articulations of stereotypes more effectively than the book Orlok is based on. However, the vampire isn’t always used to instigate xenophobia or other forms of hatred. Since vampires aren’t technically human, directors have historically used them to show behavior that would otherwise be too weird or controversial if vampires were otherwise human. This psychological distance is key.

In the 1930s, homosexuality in film was essentially banned by the Hays Code, which enforced censorship on American cinema in response to an increase in public complaints about the lewd content of movies and the scandalous behavior of Hollywood movie stars. While this can apply to both heterosexual and homosexual media, LGBTQ+ representation was particularly targeted by this code, as it was intended to prevent the normalization and “sexual pervasiveness” of queer characters and their everyday lives, considered by many Christian groups to be unclean and morally corrupt.

But even during the Hays Code era, several film directors and scriptwriters managed to subvert censorship, starting with 1931’s “Dracula.” Shawna Kennedy, a horror actress at the Verdun Manor Haunted House in Texas, explains this phenomenon in the 1996 Halloween episode of “This American Life.”

“The sexual response and the fear response in human beings is similar—increased heart rate and respiratory rate. Some of the images that we have in Western culture of things that are horrific are also basically sexual,” Kennedy said. “The werewolf is the beast within. Basically, vampirism is just sex from the neck up. You're penetrating a passive person. It really is a very sexual sort of monster.”

The use of vampires as sexual metaphors can stem back to Stoker's novel. Bram Stoker was a closeted gay man "and a friend of Oscar Wilde, a not-so-closeted gay man," as Richard Primuth, writer for The Gay & Lesbian Review, puts it. "[Stoker] began writing Dracula one month after Wilde was convicted of sodomy and sentenced to hard labor. In a nod to Wilde, he used the idiom of Oscar Wilde’s letters to Lord Alfred Douglas in his “Dracula.”

Predating Stoker's novel is the 1872 gothic novel "Carmilla" by Irish author Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu, which depicts Carmilla, a lesbian vampire, expressing romantic interest toward the protagonist. A key point, though: Carmilla is the antagonist. In other words, homosexuality in vampires were deemed OK as both were viewed as otherworldly and morally corrupt. Their depictions offered enough removal from humans to allow for discussion of homosexuality.

Similarly, in the filming of "Dracula's Daughter" (1936), Universal Pictures was well aware of the lesbian implications of a female vampire gazing at a partly nude woman. Though it was later changed to have the woman clothed and the camera cuts away before she’s bitten, the homoerotic undertones are still present.

The same point is largely emphasized by YouTube’s Now You See It, which published a video on “The Power of the Vampire Myth.” It discussed the general origins of vampires in film history and thus inspired this article. In it, the portrayals of homosexuality are contrasted using two vastly different films: “Philadelphia” (1993) and “Interview with the Vampire” (1994).

In "Philadelphia," lawyer Andrew Beckett (Tom Hanks) hides his homosexuality and HIV status at a powerful Philadelphia law firm. However, when his secret is exposed and he’s fired shortly afterwards, Beckett resolves to sue for discrimination. “Philadelphia” is ultimately advertising the good homosexual to cater to heteronormative society. Beckett is kind, hard-working, and for the most part, closeted. He never kisses his partner, and the one scene where they share a bed was cut from the theatrical release. These precautions were completely necessary—the film may have been written off as gay media being shoved down straight throats, instead of opening up the conversation it wanted to.

In contrast, “Interview with the Vampire,” which came out a year later, goes much further, showing near kisses, sexual frustration, and the main gay couple adopting a daughter. As Now You See It puts it, "When it’s vampires, you can hide your meaning in a symbol. Then the movie can have more nuanced characters and discussions. The movie doesn’t need to give us any lectures about homosexuality like ‘Philadelphia’ does.”

Now, instead of heavily influencing the ostracization of marginalized groups, vampires in film were calls for acceptance and normalization. Take, for instance, Joss Whedon’s hit television show, “Buffy the Vampire Slayer,” which ran from 1997 to 2003. The show uses its high school setting and inclusion of vampires and other monsters (representing controversial themes related to adolescence, drugs, and sex) to piece together a more complete depiction of teen life. The show encapsulates a lot of what we think of vampires today and applies their ambiguity as metaphors on a broader scale, including magic, demons, and human souls as other metaphors.

A particular instance of this is seen with the vampire Angel, who—unlike other vampires in the show—has kept his human soul despite being turned. In the Season 2 episode “Innocence,” Buffy has fallen for Angel, a completely ironic situation considering she is a vampire slayer. They sleep together, and it comes with consequences. Due to a gypsy curse that forbids him from experiencing true happiness, Angel loses his soul and the compassion that it gave him. Buffy cries and mourns the loss of the man she once knew and ultimately puts a stake through his heart.

It’s a sad counterpoint to the Angel that was already established. Despite vampires being antagonists in the show, Angel was always seen as the exception. There’s a fantastical element to his reversion, a feeling of betrayal in his casual cruelty that leaves Buffy feeling hollow and alone. It’s a radical spin off of the vampires of the Hays era, featuring a more direct and realistic parallel to human sexuality and relationships.

There are also the not-so-subtle nods toward bigotry in “Buffy” with Xander, a member of Buffy’s Scooby Gang. Disgusted by demons, Xander often refers to Spike, a vampire who joins their gang, as “it,” despite Spike’s ability to exhibit love, loyalty, and appreciation without a human soul. Xander ends up being involved with Anya, a former demon turned human, and they get engaged. At their wedding, however, Xander’s family doesn't mingle well with Anya’s many demon friends, with his father calling them “circus folk,” something akin to the derogatory slang used for gypsies.

Ultimately, because vampires are larger-than-life creatures, their use them in film has allowed human problems to be depicted in an indirect way that makes them easier to understand. As sociocultural ideas and anxieties have evolved over generations, so too has the legacy of the vampire. The comfortable distance they provide allows for directors to make powerful social commentary without the full responsibility. Vampires throughout film history are vessels for the taboo. After all, when you’re a bloodthirsty monster, who cares about your sexual preference?