MovieChat Forums > Vampire Diary (2007) Discussion > The Ending [Spoilertastic]

The Ending [Spoilertastic]

posted 16 years ago by skbrewer-1
7 replies | jump to latest

I loved this movie. It's a very solid indie film whose strengths in character and mood make up for some of its weaknesses (the pacing got to me). I gave it a 6/10.

There's part of the ending that I'm curious about though. When the police are coming in to take Vicki, she tells Holly that she lied to her and that there are no such things as vampires. Was this supposed to be a twist? I took it in stride with the rest of the movie-- that is to say, Vicki and her baby really are vampires, and she was desperately trying to get Holly to take her and see that she makes it.

My problem is this though... We never see Vicki eat, but she drinks water on the trip to the beach house. Clearly Holly never sees her eat either, and given her reaction in the one scene where she tries to eat, I think we're led to believe that she never does. Vicki can clearly go out in daylight, and she has a reflection, which breaks with two relatively common "vampire" tropes. She's clearly not entirely well though, psychologically, and given the tone of the movie it's not a stretch to believe that she is just a psychopath, and that Holly was sharing in her delusion.

So the more I thought about this line, it could go either way. I was just sure that in the last scene where we see the daughter feeding, it would show her with four fangs or something to put my question to rest, but I didn't see anything either way. (from Holly and Vicki's exchange, paraphrased: Vicki: "My earliest memory is having my fangs removed with no anesthetic." Holly: "You had fangs?" Vicki: "Four of them. That's how you'll recognize a real vampire.")

Anyone else have any thoughts on this? I'm interested to hear other people's impressions about the ending. I'm not the kind of person who demands that all loose ends in a movie be tied up and that there be no lingering questions, but I'm curious on this point as to whether the filmmaker intended us to have this question, or if we were supposed to see that line as Vicki's desperation to save her baby.

[–] Pablo-60 16 years ago

In a Fangoria magazine article (issue 276, Sept. 2008) the creators of the movie can't seem to agree on the answer to your question; don't quote me on this, but I think that the writer states that Vicki IS a vampire; but the producer is not so sure. For what it's worth, I enjoyed the ambiguity, and don't mind that it's left open for interpretation. That, IMHO, makes the movie even better. Best regards.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ShGarland 15 years ago

Besides, IMO - she was no vampire.
- no strength
- daylight
- couldn't fly, etc...
- rather unsophiticated

She was a delusional psycho who thought she was. Therefore need to drink blood. So, yes in a way she was a vampire because she lived on blood, but not in the traditional sense of the meaning. she's no different than say, Hannibal Lecter.

The problem with sighting daylight as a reason why Vicki wasn't a vampire dates clear back to 1897 and what's likely Bram Stoker's best known novel. Haven't finished reading that novel yet, but I believe Dracula, in his purist, most literal form, was capable of walking in daylight without being harmed; he just wasn't capable of using the trademark powers of the vampire until night fall. Also, if he's either a wolf or a bat once the sun rises, he cannot revert to his human form till nightfall.

I agree that Vicki was a delusional psychopath, but also regard her as a vampire.

"Well, it's no harder to be nice than it is to be creepy. And it's more fun."

[–] Tw0-B1ts 16 years ago

I'm actually inclined to say she was. As you say, we never see her eat. If she was a normal human AND pregnant, she'd certainly need to eat a lot, and often. Too difficult to manage covertly and probably not worth the delusion. I think she recognized it as the most plausible explanation to save her daughter. In most vampire stories, secrecy of existence is crucial. It matters nothing to me if she doesn't fit the other vampire stereotypes: sensitivity to sunlight, superhuman strength, transforming into mist or bats, holy water, crosses, and the lot.

For all this, I would have still been willing to concede either way. Holly, however, desperately believed. Either she would have accepted the daughter as a vampire and fed her blood all her life (to the age she is in the video) or should would have raised her normal and never fed her again. If she's still feeding the daughter at that age, I'd have to say she was also a vampire. I don't think normal humans could live on a diet of blood (could they?)

[–] stranded_teen 16 years ago

I'm inclinded to agree with, Tw0-Blts. I think Vicki was a vampire, albeit a very vulnerable, psychologically scarred one. I've been wondering how she gets her freedom in the end of the film, however . . .

Maybe some answers will be revealed during the sequel, if it goes ahead, and provided the story deals with the same characters.

http://ohthehorrorblog.blogspot.com/

[–] Razar_C-1 14 years ago

Just quickly;

No. A human cannot live on a diet of just blood.

If a person is capable of actually drinking blood in the first place, they'll only get minor benefits -if any at all- from it, and will sicken and weaken very quickly if they take no other sustenance. Left overlong, it would be fatal.

The reason being that human bodies need nutrients. Some of these can be produced by the body. Others such as vitamins (vital amines) and essential amino acids cannot. Hence the 'vital/ essential' part of the name. Blood is incapable of being digested by the human body in such a way as to make any use what-so-ever of any of the nutrients that might be in the blood. So, although a 'donor' might be excedingly healthy, with the perfect balance of nutrients in her/ his blood, the 'drinker' will gain none of these benefits at all by drinking said blood.

Furthermore, blood is slightly basic. This is a result of the acidic (hydrochloric/ muriatic acid) content of the stomach, and the body's need to balance the body's overall pH. So, to drink overmuch of blood, the pH level of the stomach first, and then later the rest of the the body, would be imbalanced.

So, to summarise; Although none of the above might immediately be fatal in and of themselves, over a prolonged period of time (months), the combination of them all, and the lack of any real dietary intake, will invariably lead to sickness first, and then death. Unless a person is born (or otherwise made) with physiology entirely alien to anything we have seen before in recorded (human) history, then they cannot subsist on a diet of blood alone.

Peace out.

[–] grimreap9187-1 14 years ago

I thought there was ambiguity as to whether or not Vicki was a vampire, but the end with the little girl feeding on blood proves it. Vicki only drank blood and the little girl always drank blood. Also note that earlier in the movie Vicki mentioned something about her vampire mother having vampire daughters, but never sons. As someone else said, a human cannot survive on blood and Vicki and her baby did. As for sunlight and power and such, most of those are movie or literature inventions. In folklore vampires are undead creatures who need to feed of various lifeforces (sometimes blood) that creep into the night because that is when they can feed safely. So Vicki fits the oldest description of a vampire, one who needs to feed on other's lifeforces to sustain her own.