MovieChat Forums > Dracula: Prince of Darkness (1966) Discussion > Vampirism parallels evil, including corr...

Vampirism parallels evil, including corrupt ideologies

I appreciated the elaboration on vampire lore by Sandor, the monk (Andrew Keir). One reviewer on IMDb scoffed at the idea that the undead have to be willingly allowed into a person’s abode, but this fits the parallel of vampires to evil itself, which first affects a person’s mindset (ideology) and THEN their behavior or lifestyle. In short, evil cannot overtake a person unless s/he willingly allows it.


What if the vampire attacks you in the street?


Applying this to the parallel: It explains why it's necessary to don your spiritual "armor."


Where does spiritual armour feature in the vampire story?

Can you not just wear your spiritual armour at home? Then it wouldn't matter who or what you willingly let into your home.


People act according to what they think/believe. In other words, ideology determines action and lifestyle, which explains the proverb “Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life.” This can be summed up as “Be careful what you think for your thoughts run your life.” Guarding one’s heart (mind) from negative, unproductive thoughts/ideologies is a key piece of the spiritual armor noted.

You’re right that even in the security of one’s home a person would need this “armor” to some degree. A monk living on a mountain monastery seeking to escape worldly temptations would still have to deal with the temptations of his own flesh and thought life. How much more so when the individual goes out into society and is exposed to unhealthy ideologies, lifestyles and the social pressure to conform? Where is a college student more likely to fall prey to drunkenness, drugs, sexual promiscuity and the consequences thereof — at home or on South Padre Island where all the hedonism is occurring?

(I’m not saying, by the way, that it’s wrong to celebrate on Spring Break or go to South Padre Island. As in anything, wisdom and moderation apply).

Relating this to the vampirism in this movie and others: Vampirism is symbolic of evil, which first affects a person’s mindset/thought life (ideology) and THEN their behavior or lifestyle. As such, evil cannot overtake a person unless s/he first willingly allows it. This explains why the undead have to be willingly allowed into a person’s abode.


So instead of Keir's vampirism lore being analogous to admitting "ideology" and paying the price for it. This is simply a meandering and specious load of nonsense about stuff you don't like.


It has nothing to do with stuff I personally don't like (such as liver or a certain style of music) and everything to do with intrinsically negative & destructive behaviors and thought patterns, which is what I mean by "evil."

It's useless to continue communicating with you so have a good one.


Exactly. It's like when we were in school and they were doing those anti-drug classes. But we wondered what you're supposed to do if you're just walking down the street minding your own business, and then ten guys jump you and force a pill down your throat. Inquiring minds want to know!


Vampires are a metaphor for the rich, the 1%.

They're dependent us, they drain us in order to live. But we have mixed feelings about being used that way, even if we resent it we find them fascinating and glamorous, and some people want nothing more than to be used by them, or to become one of them. Even if it costs us our souls.


It's an interesting metaphor, but it's too obviously extreme Left-wing and assumes that money itself is evil, which it isn't. It's the LOVE of money -- greed -- that is evil, not money itself. It's okay for a person to have money, but it's not good for money to have you.

Also, someone can be totally poor and be guilty of the love of money. Being poverty-stricken is no more a virtue than being rich is a vice. I've seen poor people rip-off struggling people without a second thought. Also, a goodhearted well-to-do individual might give a homeless person a generous amount of money, but he wastes it on booze or drugs. One is wise and the other a fool.

we find them fascinating and glamorous

It depends on the movie (or show) and the individual viewing it. For instance, I don't find the vampires as portrayed in the Hammer flicks glamorous at all, but rather foul and diabolical. As far as "fascinating" goes, only in the sense that they're a mysterious life-form unrecognized by the scientific community and you naturally want to learn more about them, but certainly not to be like them in their accursed existence. But gloomy Goth girls who walk around with coffin purses might disagree.


Money isnt evil in itself, and being rich doesn't make a person evil. But a great many of the methods people use to get rich or stay rich involves the exploitation of other people, and could fairly be called "evil". Enough to extend a metaphor, anyway.

As far as glamorizing vampirism, that comes and goes. Stoker's book-Dracula wasnt glamorous, but the 1930s movie version was. And the glamorization of vampires hit an all-time high in recent years, with that trashy "Twilight" mess and everything it influenced. When it was The Shit, it wasn't just the Gothy girls who wanted a vampire boyfriend, so did their boring suburban mothers and grandmas!


Well said. But I'm not so sure the 1931 version of "Dracula" genuinely glamorized vampires. I get the surface charisma of Lugosi as Drac but, beyond that, vampirism as depicted in the movie strikes me as an abysmal, dreadful existence. Does sleeping in a dark, cold coffin during the sunlit hours every day and then sucking people's blood at night to survive -- and killing 'em -- sound like fun? (I haven't seen it for a long time so I'll have to revisit it).


FYI Lugosi's Dracula was considered to be quite the hottie back in the day! When he first played the role in stage, women were fainting or disgracing themselves in the audiences, although I must say that "Twilight" must have set an all-time high for getting women to disgrace themselves.

As for vampirism being a dreadful existence... well, this sort of Vampire Fever never seems to strike people who have sense. Funny about that.


The top 25 having more than the bottom 3 billion is evil.


uh, oh, the green-eyed monster is rearing it's head.


If you don't think greed is involved in that statistic then you're hopeless.


The top 25 having more than the bottom 3 billion is evil

Slandering diligent, industrious people with blanket statements is also evil.

It’s also evil to steal from the most productive in society through inordinate taxation and then freely give that money to the lazy. Just because it’s legally done by “the government” doesn’t make it right or good. Speaking of laziness, sloth and apathy are evil as well.

It’s also evil to limit the earnings of creative, hard-working people in a free society and dictate what they should do with the money they've EARNED. And it’s stupid to denounce the success of entrepreneurs who provide quality jobs for hundreds or thousands.

People can of course fall on bad times for one reason or another and understandably need a helping hand for a season, which is what charities, ministries and effective government programs are for.

I’m not saying any of this necessarily applies to you in any way because I don’t know you and you seem like a respectable person. Like you, I'm against greed and the abuses thereof. I'm merely offering balance to your words.


It's not slander. It's a statistical certainty. You're using ideology to defend a situation which, with a modest rearrangement of wealth, would lighten the suffering and misery of many and greatly reduce.the conditions under which many of the evils of this world thrive. While havjng a negligible adverse impact on the wellbeing of those that can fund it.

25 on one side. And billions on the other. The scales are tipped outrageously on one side.

Nobody ever said that greedy people couldn't be "hard working". Or vice versa

But camel through the eye of a needle and all that.


You're making a blanket statement that maligns industrious, productive people in general as "evil." That's slander. The root of slander is envy/jealousy and its purpose is to poison people's minds against the individual or group in question.

Who said anything about "ideology." I only care about what's right, balanced, effective and factual.

Speaking of ideology, your perspective rewards idleness, stifles individual freedom, glorifies (worships) "the government" and penalizes personal ingenuity & diligence. Your Marxist model has been proven erroneous over and over, look no further than the USSR and Cuba.

Why is it that people constantly try to escape communistic countries and go to Western democracies with free enterprise, e.g. East Germany back in the day? How come it's never the other way around? If the American system is so "evil" why are there constant hordes moving to the USA from all over the earth, legally and (more so) illegally?

While having a negligible adverse impact on the wellbeing of those that can fund it.

In your system the masses become equally poor with no one enjoying the "wellbeing" you speak of, EXCEPT the (supposedly temporary) governing officials, who -- to all intents and purposes -- become the reviled bourgeoisie that communism sought to get rid of in the first place. In such a system bribery becomes epidemic to secure services above others who can't afford to bribe.

As far as your theoretical "negligible adverse impact" goes, why does this "negative impact" always INCREASE in your flawed paradigm? And who are you (and your new Commie-Messiah Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) to say what that adverse impact should be for the productive/diligent?

Lastly, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is more accurately known as Alexandria Occasionally-Correct.


You're goofy.