Download The Vampire Film: Undead Cinema (Short Cuts), by Jeffrey Weinstock
Book fans, when you require an extra book to check out, find guide The Vampire Film: Undead Cinema (Short Cuts), By Jeffrey Weinstock here. Never ever fret not to find just what you require. Is the The Vampire Film: Undead Cinema (Short Cuts), By Jeffrey Weinstock your needed book currently? That holds true; you are actually an excellent viewers. This is an ideal book The Vampire Film: Undead Cinema (Short Cuts), By Jeffrey Weinstock that comes from great author to show to you. The book The Vampire Film: Undead Cinema (Short Cuts), By Jeffrey Weinstock provides the most effective experience and lesson to take, not only take, but likewise learn.
The Vampire Film: Undead Cinema (Short Cuts), by Jeffrey Weinstock
Download The Vampire Film: Undead Cinema (Short Cuts), by Jeffrey Weinstock
The Vampire Film: Undead Cinema (Short Cuts), By Jeffrey Weinstock. In what situation do you like reviewing a lot? Exactly what about the kind of guide The Vampire Film: Undead Cinema (Short Cuts), By Jeffrey Weinstock The have to check out? Well, everyone has their own factor why ought to check out some books The Vampire Film: Undead Cinema (Short Cuts), By Jeffrey Weinstock Primarily, it will certainly connect to their requirement to obtain knowledge from guide The Vampire Film: Undead Cinema (Short Cuts), By Jeffrey Weinstock as well as wish to read simply to get enjoyment. Novels, tale book, and also various other enjoyable publications come to be so prominent now. Besides, the scientific e-books will certainly likewise be the finest need to decide on, especially for the pupils, teachers, physicians, business person, and also other professions which love reading.
This The Vampire Film: Undead Cinema (Short Cuts), By Jeffrey Weinstock is really appropriate for you as newbie viewers. The visitors will certainly always start their reading behavior with the preferred theme. They might rule out the author as well as author that create guide. This is why, this book The Vampire Film: Undead Cinema (Short Cuts), By Jeffrey Weinstock is truly ideal to check out. Nevertheless, the concept that is given up this book The Vampire Film: Undead Cinema (Short Cuts), By Jeffrey Weinstock will certainly show you several things. You can start to like also checking out till completion of the book The Vampire Film: Undead Cinema (Short Cuts), By Jeffrey Weinstock.
Additionally, we will certainly share you the book The Vampire Film: Undead Cinema (Short Cuts), By Jeffrey Weinstock in soft file forms. It will certainly not interrupt you to make heavy of you bag. You need only computer system gadget or device. The link that we offer in this site is offered to click and after that download this The Vampire Film: Undead Cinema (Short Cuts), By Jeffrey Weinstock You recognize, having soft data of a book The Vampire Film: Undead Cinema (Short Cuts), By Jeffrey Weinstock to be in your gadget could make ease the visitors. So this way, be a good user currently!
Simply link to the internet to get this book The Vampire Film: Undead Cinema (Short Cuts), By Jeffrey Weinstock This is why we suggest you to utilize and utilize the established technology. Checking out book does not indicate to bring the published The Vampire Film: Undead Cinema (Short Cuts), By Jeffrey Weinstock Developed innovation has allowed you to check out just the soft documents of guide The Vampire Film: Undead Cinema (Short Cuts), By Jeffrey Weinstock It is very same. You could not should go and get traditionally in searching the book The Vampire Film: Undead Cinema (Short Cuts), By Jeffrey Weinstock You may not have adequate time to invest, may you? This is why we offer you the most effective method to get the book The Vampire Film: Undead Cinema (Short Cuts), By Jeffrey Weinstock now!
This introductory volume offers an elegant analysis of the enduring appeal of the cinematic vampire. From Georges M�li�s' early cinematic experiments to Twilight and Let the Right One In, the history of vampires in cinema can be organized by a handful of governing principles that help make sense of this movie monster's remarkable fecundity. Among these principles are that the cinematic vampire is invariably about sex and the vexed human relationship with technology, and that the vampire is always an overdetermined body condensing what a culture considers other. This volume includes in-depth studies of films including Powell's A Fool There Was, Franco's Vampyros Lesbos, Cronenberg's Rabid, K�mel's Daughters of Darkness, and Merhige's Shadow of the Vampire.
- Sales Rank: #275499 in Books
- Published on: 2012-05-29
- Original language: English
- Number of items: 1
- Dimensions: 7.80" h x .60" w x 5.80" l, .45 pounds
- Binding: Paperback
- 144 pages
Review
This book provides a perfect introduction to the vampire subgenre that does not completely abandon historiography whilst vouching for a more organic thematic arrangement. Essential reading for vampire cinephiles and horror aficionados alike.
(Xavier Aldana Reyes The Gothic Imagination)The Vampire Film is certain to provide a novel, penetrating look through the layers of meaning surrounding the bloodsucking undead.
(Rue Morgue)The Vampire Film is well written and engaging. Jeffrey Weinstock has provided both scholars and general readers with yet another useful tool with which to hunt the vampire.
(Jim Holte Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts)This timely book on the vampire film highlights the continued attraction of the genre.
(Juliette Wood Folklore) Review
Jeffrey Weinstock's analysis of vampire cinema is challenging, elegant and persuasive. On the basis of a large number of critical film readings, the author assesses vampire cinema's disturbing relation to sex, technology, and otherness. Vampire films, Weinstock demonstrates, simultaneously screen cultural anxieties surrounding these key themes and invert them. The well-known tropes of the lesbian vampire, the vampiric mediality of film, and the monstrous otherness of the vampire all come back from the undead to haunt the reader of this book. Ambitious in scope yet lucid in structure, Weinstock's The Vampire Film will prove an indispensable resource for vampire researchers, students and lovers alike.
(Isabella van Elferen, Utrecht University) About the Author
Jeffrey Weinstock is professor of American literature and culture at Central Michigan University. He is the author of The Rocky Horror Picture Show (2007) and Scare Tactics: Supernatural Fiction by American Women (2008) and is an editor for The Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts.
Most helpful customer reviews
2 of 3 people found the following review helpful.
A good read marred by errors, typos, and contradictions
By John Colaresi
If you're looking for a comprehensive chronological history of vampire films with cast and production credits listed, this is not the book you want. This one should appeal to advanced readers who are looking for trends on this subject as you can read from Amazon's descriptions taken from the cover. Dr. Weinstock focuses on the vampire's relationship with sex, technology, science fiction, race, and other topics using examples from well known films, some I wished he spent more time on like 1983's 'The Hunger' or at least mentioned like 2009's 'Daybreakers,' and the not so famous or forgotten ones like 2001's 'The Breed' starring TV's Highlander Adrian Paul. A few years ago I found that DVD in a $3 bargain bin and didn't think much of the movie at the time so I traded it in at my favorite DVD store in Portsmouth New Hampshire. Now after reading his lengthy section here, I need to watch it again so I'll have to buy it again at a cheap price or wait to see it on TV. Although I believe the film was a commercial and critical dud, it does have its rabid fans on Amazon.
The author's analyses are thought provoking and he cites frequently from his extensive bibliography to back his arguments such as showing how in 1915's 'A Fool Was There' Theda Bara's vamp, a word derived from vampire and who used her powers of seduction to figuratively drain the blood out of her male victim, was the precursor of our famous, literal bloodsuckers of filmdom. Some of his comments are laugh provoking as he occasionally goes out on a limb by saying 1958's 'The Horror of Dracula' is the "manifestation of the 1950's 'Red Scare', the rampant and at times rabid hysteria concerning the spread of communism into Western democracies'' because "the vampire is literally a 'red' as vividly red blood splashes his coffin in the opening credits and later runs down his face." I believe this was one of the first (if not the first) vampire films shot in color so the filmmakers made good use of the color red to attract the audience's attention and to prepare them for more blood and nothing deeper. If this symbol-minded, simple-minded reasoning isn't amusing enough, try this other eyes-rolling inducer about how Dracula's coffin arrives at the "funeral home operated curiously by one 'J. Marx' ... one listing above K. Marx in the phone book." For him the "K" stands for Karl as in Karl Marx which of course is another commie connection although there are no phone books in the film to back up his theory. Nothing "curious" about that for me because Jimmy Sangster, a screenwriter for hire also known for making sure he was always paid for his work (i.e. a capitalist), was probably only interested in adapting the novel and not copy the Lugosi version. If he had communism on his mind, you would think he would have made the sign say 'K. Marx.' Ya know, sometimes a horror film is just a horror film.
Weinstock sees the first 'Blade' film as "a thinly-veiled allegory of American race relations in which vampires stand in for whites, and humans in general for racial minorities." That analysis might fly except there are vampires of every race in this film although the majority of them are white. Perhaps he didn't see them due to the film's dark photography. The author makes a similar case with the 'Underworld' series where the werewolf laborers of the vampire ruling class are equated with black slaves on a plantation and miscegenation is "the key to solving racial animosity" but still a crime punishable by death. His argument is more persuasive here. He also sees the third 'Blade' film as a veiled reaction to America's occupation of Iraq by comparing Dracula's return to "a terrorist, a monster imported by a domestic fifth column from the Middle East - from Iraq no less - who can assume any form he likes and is out to destroy the Western way of life..... Vampires are part of George Bush Jr's axis of evil." This assumption is based on how this film came out a year after our invasion of Iraq in 2003. Another amusing interpretation but again I doubt that's what the filmmakers had in mind except that Iraq was in the news and they decided that Dracula did not come originally from Transylvania but instead from the cradle of civilization, ancient Mesopotamia, now known as modern Iraq. I can hardly wait for the next vampire film featuring a US President: 'George W. Bush - Vampire Hunter' and also in 3-D like the one with Honest Abe. Ya know, sometimes a horror film is....
Debatable interpretations aside, unfortunately for a thin paperback of 144 pages there is an unbelievable amount of annoying errors, typos, and contradictionss that kept derailing my train of thought. When the first mistake, a typo of an actor's name, incredulously appeared on the second page whacking me between the eyes, I had a sinking feeling I was in for a rough ride or I should say a rough read. My intuition about an impending train wreck was realized because in addition to that page's typo of Lon Chaney Jr referred to as Lon Cheney Jr, this typo is repeated on page 11 and again on page 96. I was relieved to see his name finally spelled correctly on page 124 or so I thought until I noticed it spelled wrong again in the Index on page 140. An easy to spell, famous name in horror films misspelled four out of five times is four times too many in any book no matter its length. On page 10 Catherine Deneuve's character Miriam Blaylock in 'The Hunger' is referred to as Bleylock. On page 32 the character Marya Zaleska in 'Dracula's Daughter' is misnamed as Mayra. Speaking of Index misspellings, film historian Lotte H Eisner is referred to as Lott H Eisner although correct on Page 80 and in the Bibliography. Another well known actor, John Malkovich from 'Shadow of the Vampire,' is misspelled as Malcovich in the Index as well as on page 87. On pages 58 & 86 and in the Index the director of 'Shadow' is referred to as E. Elias Merhinge whereas his last name is correctly listed as Merhige in the book's Filmography. On page 99, Blacula is referred to as "a jeckle and Hyde figure" but the correct spelling is Jekyll with a capital J and not like in Heckle & Jeckle, the cartoon magpies. On page 131 of the Filmography, the release date for 'Captain Kronos - Vampire Hunter' is stated as 1994 instead of 1974 although correct on page 96. On page 132 'The Horror of Dracula' has its release date listed as 1985 instead of 1958 but correct on pages 21 & 93. Danish director Carl Theodor Dreyer is referred everywhere as Carl-Theodor Dreyer. Really now, this is not a dull book so I doubt the proofreader was bored to sleep after checking the first page.
As for errors, on page 96 James Mason is incorrectly identified as "the Nosferatu-esque vampire Straker" in 'Salem's Lot.' Reggie Nalder played the vampire whose name is Barlow correctly named previously on page 29 and later on page 127; Mason was his human protector Straker. On the same page (96) the author mentions how Dennis Hopper was featured in 'Planet of Blood' whereas the correct title is 'Queen of Blood' and also wrong in the Filmography. On page 111 the second film of the 'Underworld' series is referred to as 'Underworld: The Rise of the Lycans' where as the correct title is 'Underworld Evolution.' 'Lycans' is the third film in the series, chronologically the first one and both correct in the Filmography. Also in the same paragraph, we have: "He pursues Michael and Selene (Sheen and Beckinsale), but then..." Scott Speedman played Michael as Michael Sheen was correctly identified as the "werewolf slave Lucien" in the previous paragraph. I'm not surprised to find these mistakes because on the previous page 'Evolution' is misdated as 2009 instead of 2006 and 'Lycans' is misdated as 2006 instead of 2009 although both are correct in the Filmography. I'm willing to bet that anyone who worked on this book and has seen these films once would have spotted these title, date, and casting errors, and a quick visit to Wikipedia or IMDb could have eliminated any doubts.
A week after I posted this review, I watched Criterion's marvelous Blu-ray of 'Cronos' and reread the section on the film. His analysis was good but again I found more errors. On page 90 we have "in a prologue, the viewer is flatly informed that in the year 1537, an alchemist....'' whereas my wife and I flat out heard 1536 when we replayed the first few minutes of the film to verify my finding. On pages 90 and 91 Ron Perlman's character is misidentified as Dieter De la Guardia's "cousin" but further down on page 91 Dieter is referred correctly as his "uncle," thus making Perlman his nephew. I suppose a role misidentified two out of three times is better than four out of five Lon Cheney Jrs and not as bad as two out of two John Malcovichs but these kinds of mistakes and others scattered everywhere even in an inexpensive short paperback as this one are ridiculous. As if all these mistakes aren't enough, the book's final section is called "Coda: Vampirising Genre." According to two online dictionaries there is no such word as "vampirising" or even vampirizing so if anyone can explain what the hell does "Vampirising Genre" mean, please tell me because I'm clueless. Paging the Editor!
I don't understand how anyone involved in the writing and especially the publication of this book didn't spot these mistakes so let's hear their explanations. To quote my wife, "Maybe the publishing houses don't see the vampire books as 'scholarly' and don't care about researching them. Big mistake. Anything connected with history, even popular history, should be researched and documented carefully." I wonder if the university professor who wrote the back cover's glowing blurb repeated above proclaiming "this volume will prove an indispensable resource" and if the writers of the Amazon Editorial Reviews stating this book is "a perfect introduction to the vampire subgenre" and "well written" and "useful" also noticed these mistakes? Since when did "well written" mean contradicting oneself throughout the book? Since when did "useful" mean relying on misinformation as fact? And let's not get into defining "perfect" and "indispensable." That professor wasn't kidding when she says this book is "challenging" because it sure challenged me to question its accuracy starting with the second page. As for these reviewers, did all of us read the same book?? This group includes the members of the International Association for the Fantastic in the Arts who bestowed this book their 2013 Lord Ruthven Assembly Award for Best Non-Fiction Title (Was there no competition that year?) and whoever posted an ad in FILM COMMENT magazine congratulating the author for winning this award! All I know is I wouldn't want my name or my group or publication's name used to promote inaccurate and, worst of all, careless work.
It seems every time I go back to this book I find something wrong. We'll see what happens after I re-watch 'The Breed.' In support of my wife's thoughts about printing houses' dismissive attitude about vampire film books, read Jonathan Lampley's review of another book on this subject also containing errors & typos:The Vampire Film: From Nosferatu to True Blood Fourth Edition - Updated and Expanded
And you thought I was being harsh on a book? Regardless of the obvious absence of proofreaders and fact checkers for 'The Vampire Film: Undead Cinema,' this book is still a good read for fans of this film genre. Four stars for content and no stars for no editing equal a two star rating in my book. So far my review earned two out of three "helpful" votes. I don't understand why anyone would think that being warned about numerous mistakes would be unhelpful unless the voter had something to do with this book and didn't like my comments.
Postscript 8/27/13: Last night I rewatched 'The Breed' which I found in that store in Portsmouth while on vacation (Maybe it's the same disc I traded in?). It's still a so-so film but I enjoyed it better this time. The good news: Rereading this book's section about the film increased my understanding of it and there are no typos to report. The bad news: While discussing this film, on page 120 the author refers to "Clive Barker's recent vampire trilogy, 'Dracula 2000,' 'Dracula II: Ascension'(2003), and 'Dracula III: Legacy'(2005)." Huh?? Although I'm unfamiliar with these films, Wikipedia and IMDb confirmed my memory that Barker was not associated with any of them. I forgot how he referred earlier on page 94 to the first film as "Wes Craven's 'Dracula 2000'" and now as Barker's, another inconsistency and wrong on both counts. Labeling the film with names before the title as in Wes Craven's 'Dracula 2000' gives the wrong impression saying he directed it. Craven was only involved in producing the trilogy (Wiki and IMDb differ on his producer credits.) and had his well-known name listed above their titles to attract horror fans: "Wes Craven Presents..." Clearly the direction credit should be given to the lesser known Patrick Lussier who helmed all three films so it's correct to say it's Lussier's 'Dracula 2000' and not Craven's, and certainly not Barker's. And again why am I not surprised to find Lussier credited correctly as the trilogy's director in the Filmography. Naming three different directors for the same film throughout the book is an editorial mystery or more like a nightmare, the latter which makes sense as this is a book about horror films. Considering all these kinds of contradictions and other mistakes everywhere not caught by anyone, one could easily think that several people wrote separate parts of this book and didn't know what the others were doing, and that might be the reason it received an "Assembly" award as in an assembly line but without quality control inspectors, i.e. editors. I've seen less mistakes in a vanity press publication. Anyway as I said before, every time I go back to this book I find something wrong. It appears I'm the only one who gave this book close attention so if anyone spots more mistakes, please let me know.
Postscript 9/7/13: Here's proof that Wallflower, the book's publisher, doesn't proofread and fact check their books about horror films. Read Erica's review of:European Nightmares: Horror Cinema in Europe Since 1945 I ordered this book and two more of their film books before I read her review. I dread what mistakes I'll find...
0 of 1 people found the following review helpful.
Essential reading
By Lucy's Mom
Anyone who is interested in vampire films should read Jeffrey Weinstock's intelligent and well written analysis. Something new to ponder on every page.
The Vampire Film: Undead Cinema (Short Cuts), by Jeffrey Weinstock PDF
The Vampire Film: Undead Cinema (Short Cuts), by Jeffrey Weinstock EPub
The Vampire Film: Undead Cinema (Short Cuts), by Jeffrey Weinstock Doc
The Vampire Film: Undead Cinema (Short Cuts), by Jeffrey Weinstock iBooks
The Vampire Film: Undead Cinema (Short Cuts), by Jeffrey Weinstock rtf
The Vampire Film: Undead Cinema (Short Cuts), by Jeffrey Weinstock Mobipocket
The Vampire Film: Undead Cinema (Short Cuts), by Jeffrey Weinstock Kindle
