Douglas Le Vampire (Lord Ruthven Begins)

Availible for sale here.

The play was not officially a Ruthven play in the original French version written in 1865. But it's clearly drawing on the earlier French Ruthven plays, so the Translator (Frank Morlock) chose to take some artistic license.

The play gives it's Vampire an Eastern European background. That seems standard to us today, but among French and English 19th Century Ruthven and quasi Ruthven plays that all seem to have a 17th century Scotland fetish (due to Ruthven being a Scottish name) this is the only one I can think of. This Vampire clams to be the heir to a Scottish noble house through his mother, but his father was a Moldovian count.

It fits the usual Ruthven play pattern in that the lead of the play becomes an unwitting accomplice of The Vampire, knowing what he is but being for some reason unwilling or unable to warn anyone as The Vampire proceeds to target his Sister and/or Love interest.

I actually think it was unnecessary to make this name change of Douglas to Ruthven to imagine it being Ruthven (or any other more well known Vampire), because I feel it highly probable that The Vampire is NOT who he's claiming to be, and so his true name is never reveled at all.  Meaning you could just make it Rutvhen or some other more well known Vampire via Headcanon/Fanon.

It anticipates Dracula in having the Vampire's antagonist be a Doctor, a man of science familiar with the Vampire legend, but unlike Van Helsing and Dr. Stewart this scientist is also a remorseful accomplice of the Vampire. But Dr. Maxwell does follow the tradition of the protagonists of other Ruthven plays going back to Aubrey of Polidori's original story in being a person who becomes aware of his Vampire state and is mostly helpless as the Vampire then targets his Sister and love interest.

The Vampire also has a sort of Hypnotic ability. This was also not a universal trait among Pre-Dracula vampires. I think Stoker took it primarily from Carmilla which is still latter then this. I don't recall it appearing in any other Ruthven plays, not nearly so explicitly anyway.

I read this play months ago and I feel it serves an interesting overlooked stepping stone in the development of Vampire fiction from Lord Ruthven to Count Dracula. It's unlikely that Stoker read it though, since it wasn't available in English back then.

Most shocking, it does seemingly provide the only example that I've found Pre-Nosferatu of a reference to Vampires who have to avoid Sunlight. This Vampire doesn't currently have to, rather it's something he's trying to avoid becoming by succeeding in his current plan. An early example of the possibility of there being different kinds or classes of Vampires.  Thing is, since I know Morlock is more wiling to take liberties then Stableford, maybe that wasn't in the original version?

Since the BlackCoatPress translation sets a precedent for changing the identity of the title Vampire. I think it could easily work to make another translation, that moves the setting from 1648 Scotland to 1890s London, replaces the Douglas inheritance the Vampire is after with Carfax, and then...

Dr. Maxwell = Dr. Stewart
Fanny = Mina
Anna = Lucy
Reginald = Johnathon Harker
Sr. William Clifford = Sr. Arthur Holmwood
Dick Thorn = Quincey
Tom Platt = Renfield

And you'd have a script that arguably resembles Stoker's novel more then Horror of Dracula (the first Hammer Dracula film) does.  And, Spoiler Alert!!!!  Anticipates Scars of Dracula by having The Vampire struck by Lighting at the end.

I'm going now to add my thoughts on the original story Morlock adds.

It's basically a Ruthven origin story, and ties him to the historical Ruthven clan of Scotland. Who were prominent during the reigns of Mary Stuart and James VI of Scotland and I of England.

It's focused on Patrick Ruthven who was behind the Murder of David Rizzio. But it's implied to be his Son who actually becomes The Vampire.

I like how the story starts but not where it ultimately goes.

But back to the subject of removing the name Douglas not even being necessary to pretend this Play was a Ruthven Play.  It could have benefited Frank Morlock to do some genealogy research and find that this historical Ruthven clan had marriage with a historical Douglas clan.

For once Spencer will be the one not buying the Red Herring

From seeing her reaction to Toby mentioning Andrew. 

Thing is nothing the Liars learned there could really exonerate Andrew, he could be Charles for all they know. And their escape plan kinda destroyed evidence anyway. 

But it still seems Spencer is not gonna be biting on this Andrew thing. 

The PLL season premier was awesome

The show is back with a vengeance.

The game is definitely changed now.

I can't wait to see what happens next.

Spencer and Aria were Frozen Today

The Flash First Season was Awesome

It was great, it's a DC show that afraid of the Comic Booky elements.

I still can't put into words my thoughts, but I wanna get it on record here.

Can't wait for Season 2, but till then I got PLL.

Dammit DC, stop doing this.

I've been catching up on lost time on my none DC related Blogging subjects while trying to find out how to put into word how wowed I am by closing episodes of The Flash's First Season.

And then I read this.

When the reports that the movie was why Deadshot was killed off came out I chose not to believe them, now I'm pissed.

I expressed how excited I was about what DC is doing on Television.  I said I was glad they are separate universes both from each other and the Cinematic Universe.

But the entire point of WHY I was glad for that was that we could see different takes on different characters.

I thought we were done with the days of the Bat embargo and Smallville having all kinds of limitations on it.

I'm fine with the notion that the big three, Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman, can't appear on TV shows (in their fully formed forms) as long as everything else is fair game.

I'm sick of DC always giving the movies first dibs, and then being afraid TV will cause confusion.  The know the animated projects we don't get confused by, or the Comics themselves which aren't even all the same canon due to DC bringing the Multiverse back.

Arrow had a 5 year plan mapped out in advance.  I'm sure not every detail, but a lot of basic things.  And I haven't exactly been thrilled with much of what they've done each season. But to then because a movie is green lite take away assets they were banking on is just plain mean.

And they are being illogically selective.  The Flash is the lead and title character of both a TV show and am upcoming Movie, and both Flashes are Barry Allen.  They aren't afraid that will be confusing.  But recurring characters are confusing?  One Floyd Lawton is white and one is black but they are afraid people won't be able to tell the difference?

This happens endlessly with Iconic characters who are no longer copyrighted.  We have lots of Sherlock Holmeses and Draculas and Frankensteins all over pop culture.  But we can only handle one Harley Quinn or Deadshot?

I don't even think Harley Quinn on Arrow would make sense, she can't exist without The Joker, The Joker can't exist without Batman, and I prefer no Batman or Superman in the DCWverse.

But it's the principle of the thing.

So I'm obviously not saying I want each television DC Universe to have one of every character.  But there are certain DC characters who it's in their DNA to be not limited to any one subsection of the DCU, Amanda Waller, assassins like Deadshot, organizations like HIVE.  The League of Assassins, while it's head is mainly a Batman villain it does have tentacles all over.  These are lesser known characters they have a created a great chance to show in a short time how versatile they are by letting different writers do different things.

Instead it looks like the reason the Teen Titans won't have Roy Harper or Wally West is because a different channel has dibs on them.  Having Dick and Barbara won't be seen as stepping on Gotham's toes however.  (And no Donna or Cassie because of weird contract stuff concerning Marston and Wonder Woman, but I suspect that'll be the same for the movies.)

Maybe their logic is that it's because they're lesser known then the big 2 and their supporting cast? We already have multiple Alfreds and Robins and Batgirls and Jimmy Olsens as cultural icons, from the movies alone before this new string of shows started.  But Roy Harper might seem to non comic readers that he was written for..... I forget the actors name.

But Gotham and Arrow both had their own Dollmaker without it being an issue?  They were in different seasons though, and now they're both dead.

It's all so stupid.

Look DC, I'm excited for your Movies, and for your TV shows.  I have a lot of faith in where you're going now in-spite of past problems, and have expressed that excitement to your harshest critics.  But if you continue to be afraid that some of your properties can't handle both, while consistently giving first dips to the medium that we actually spend less time in.  Your going to neuter a lot of your potential.

Comparing The Sign of The Cross to Quo Vadis

Besides just being set in the same historical context, both involved a high ranking Roman Soldier falling in love with a Christian slave girl, and Poppaea is interested in him to further complicate things. And both are films I like.

Mercia and Lygia

Comparing the females leads, I find Lygia was stale and two dimensional, she's a common example of how Christian good girls in these kinds of films often lack any real depth, she also comes off ridiculously naive at times, and the actress I didn't find to compelling either.

Mercia however while having some of those tendencies still comes off as a much more real character, I really felt for her watching the film, the Lesbian dance scene is not just there to make the film "Sexier" it's an important scene, as I haven't seen the censored version I can't even imagine how the movie could have gotten around it. You can see in the scene that Mercia is being tempted, she is struggling, melting a little to use their words, then she draws strength from the other Christians singing and it's a very powerful scene, and my favorite of the film.

If only it didn't reinforce negative perceptions of Homsoexuality it'd be perfect.  It is worth noting however that the most extreme Ant-Gay Christians tend to believe it not even possible for a truly saved person to even be tempted by homosexuality.  That having that inclination at all is a sign of being a Reprobate no longer even eligible for Salvation.  

I suppose there is room in my head canon to see Mercia as someone who in-spite of her revulsion to this obscene pagan display, would not disapprove of loving intimacy between two loving believers of the same sex.

I just noticed both male leads are named Marcus? Names sometimes escape me.

Now it's reversed, Fredric March's performance seems not very well fleshed out, going from admirable to a total dick from scene to scene without much warning, and at the end I didn't buy his conversion at all, it just seemed to come out of nowhere.

In Quo Vadis Robert Taylor's character is far from the most brilliantly written male lead, but at least I buy his character development, we see his view of the Christians slowly changing so his finale conversion scene seems very believable, and it makes a nice ending.

Nero Caesar

Charles Laughten was a great actor, but he didn't get to do much here, what he does is very good but I'd still have liked more.

Peter Ustinov gives a very compelling performance despite my historical objections to how Nero's depicted (He was a Tyrant but a component one, mentally unstable but not completely irrational) I still loved the performance a great deal, and it makes the film very entertaining.

Poppaea

I don't agree with this historical view of her, most of the bad things said about her come from historians of the senatorial class much latter. Josephus actually knew her and paints a very different picture, and there is no basis in any early Christian traditions for suggesting she was like a Herodias or Jezebel putting the idea for the persecution in Nero's head.

But putting that aside I do enjoy a good Femme Fatale, but frankly Patricia did not make a good one in my opinion. I didn't find her very attractive and nothing in her performance is very compelling.

But Claudette Colbert was awesome, she was Sexy and conniving and vindictive but not without depth either, she does rather steal the show.

The cast lacks in direct parallels after that, surprisingly The Sign of The Cross has neither Peter nor Paul, but a Titus and another old dude who's name escapes me. I don't know if that Titus was meant to be the one to whom Paul's Epistle is addressed. At any rate they play their role adequately.

In Quo Vadis, Paul's' role is smaller, already gone from Rome when the Fire happens. Truth is, based on the traditional sources it should be the opposite, The apocryphal Acts of Peter has Paul on his way to Rome when Peter is killed. They again play their role adequately, but not to compellingly, Peter's Crucifixion should have included some preaching from the cross, as is it feels kind of tacked on. And why are Peter and Paul so far apart in Age? I actually always assumed they'd be the same age.

No one else in SOTC really stands out after that. Quo Vadis has an again very undeveloped Acte (I find Acte's story fascinating, and don't really buy how it's handled here). And the Spanish slave girl is easily the most beautiful woman in the film, and gives a very passionate captivating performance but again doesn't feel to real to me, rather a little overdone.

The best character in Quo Vadis is probably Petronius, he's the character who's wise and noble despite not being a Christian at any point, "A heathen conceivably, but not an unenlightened one", providing the opposing voice when the discussion of scapegoating the Christians comes up. Leo Genn's performance is very good.  Thing is, I would have given that role to Seneca, Seneca is in this film but as just another Roman senator, what makes him intriguing is lost, he was a Stoic philosopher, so Monotheism wouldn't have been unheard of to him.  I could see him tolerating Christianity in a similar vain to Gamaliel in Acts.

Taking the comparison beyond just stacking up the characters. Like with Mercia SOTC in general shows more humanity and depth from the Christians. The Torture scene is very well done, and the kid being so frightened at martyrdom makes the film feel more real.

But Quo Vadis is longer, which especially for this genre I prefer.  And with a bigger budget it's grander and has a more Epic/Theatrical/Operatic feel. The scenes of Nero and his entourage back at the palace during the fire, with Nero fiddling and then the Mob storming. And then the scene I mentioned earlier the debating whether to Scapegoat the Christians is very well done, my favorite part of the movie, I love how Petronius's whole argument is very well delivered.

So in general I'd have to say Quo Vadis comes off the more re-watchable film. Though a professional film critic would probably call SOTC the more well made film. I wish DeMille had gotten to remake more of his old Black and White films like he did The Ten Commandments.

However one thing I notice quite interestingly looking at my review is that The Sign of The Cross handles it's female characters better while Quo Vadis handled the male characters better. Not what you'd expect at all, an older film having the better written female leads then the younger one.  And connecting to another observation of mine, I think DeMille was probably a more conservative person then the creative team behind Quo Vadis.