Perhaps you will resist, but I humbly suggest that you take the time to cover more of the intricate histories of Romania, especially from this angle. What angle? That of direct story telling. Damn. You are good. Could you do some journalism, as in, chase down interesting individuals for stories? I am certain such material would find readers.
No this is truly a great idea. When you get them in the right circumstances Romanians are naturally v gregarious, will take any opportunity to talk about their lives and often have strange tales to impart. I will try it. I might be able to get funding from the cursed EU for 'preserving oral HIsToRiES'.
No... I didn't see it and probably won't see it. I hate watching american films set at least partially in this region because I quickly get annoyed by the incoherences.
Of course people still know what is a vampire. We're not that far removed from all those cringy vampire movies and series. Why did they always went back to high school? Nevermind.
If it's true, that the concept of the "eternal sl00t" what is being played out, then it is somewhat huge. Even a few years back any implications of this would have meant instant deplatforming. Or just as you mentioned his prior film, it was allowed as a feminist power fantasy. You go Girl!
I'm much more interested in your stories in the forest/mountains. It is a magical place isn't it. I wrote about likewise stuff previously in the Lake of Lerna substack. He does like these para stuff.
If I get synchronised with my slavic self (and why wouldn't I be) I would say that the black one was the "Chort" (or the "black one"...I know...very abstract huehuehue). If he didn't bring you with him then congrats...you're not worthy of hell (or was not worthy at that point).
I'm almost completely sure that the second one was the "Leshy" (the forest spirit). They are not malevolent, they are a force of nature so more like chaotic natural. He does have a mischievous side of him. You don't want to get on his bad side though. He liked you so all good. (he is often depicted as a shepherd tending to his flock).
Yeah I know...It was probably a wild boar or bear cub. You did good with going back the same way you came. That's the best you can do if you have no weapon with you(well...even if you do have a rifle it is the best course of action.
For the second one...people tend to underestimate the mountain people. I had a mountain guide once who was almost 90 and were going up and down quicker and steadier on the slopes than the guys in their 20s. He could have easily made it home in 5 minutes and already downed his first shot of palincă.
'Of course people still know what is a vampire. We're not that far removed from all those cringy vampire movies and series. Why did they always went back to high school? Nevermind.'
Yeah you're right--twilight and so on are still recent enough. It wasn't one of my stronger points.
'Or just as you mentioned his prior film, it was allowed as a feminist power fantasy. You go Girl!'
I can't see any other way to understand it than that Eggers accepts the necessity of patriarchy for civilisation and acknowledges the destructive power of the sl00t. I just can't bring myself to believe that even a simp could mean the witch to be taken as a gogirl message. Beating up big strong men is one thing, matricide is quite another. Or maybe he has some midpoint position that I can't see.
Your assigning of supernatual identities to entities makes a great deal of sense; I had no idea (I confess I didn't check) that the things I'd seen would fit so readily into E Euro folklore. Black shape wasn't a bear--I was in the lowlands far from the hills and with Bucharest intervening--and it wasn't a boar. I've seen both animals in the wild multiple times and was once chased by a boar (luckily it gave up), so I know what they look like. For reasons I won't go into I considered the possibility of shapeshifting but chort fits (I'm not completely evil). I was armed, by the way, but only lightly.
On leshy: you're right about the vitality of shepherds but he and his flock *just can't* have disappeared so quickly by natural means (and where would they have gone?!). If you'd been there you would agree.
Oh...that sounded more belligerent from me than I intended to. What I wanted to add here that with every cultural mania, there is a small resurgence after 10-15 years. The vampire thing was HUGE back then but the kids first grew out of it and now they feel a little bit nostalgic. In the past everything was better. Although this doesn't seem like that. I didn't see the movie but it fails to reproduce at least some of ths cringier aspects of the originals.
I was not familiaf of Eggers' body of work, in fact I just looked it up. The historical fiction genre is a funny one in this aspect. You find a lot of liberal directors trying to make a point then see them renege on them at least somewhat. Almost like they have the relevation that, "okay...there might have been a point there with the old system". And unwittingly they make works making points for the patriarchy etc. (Pick your poison)
That's why GRR Martin can't finish The song of ice and fire. He wanted to make a point, but by now he knows that it's impossible. (And that's why Rowling couldn't destroy Slytherin, despite that would have been the most logical step)
And you know...there is sympathy for the evil out there. Many people can't help themselves and force some awesome explanation why someone utterly terrible was actually good and wholesome chungus. In the age of liberalism it is forbidden to declare someone inept, moronic, retarded or evil. There must be some explanation there and must have a tragic backstory why they became like that. (Except the nazis and Hitler. Even if Hitler was really beaten by his father. But every worldview needs an antagonist.)
Interesting about the Chort. I believe you but also during the night the forest can mess with your perception. Not long ago I was out in the forest and I took a few photos but they don't really give back that ambience. At dusk or dawn (so not complete darkness but still pretty dark) the woods are working perfectly to break up the shapes and continouity of movements. And yes...wild boars are nasty mfs. People don't know it anymore (and there was an outrage when some got in the city and were shot) that they can really f you up.
For the shepherd. Isn't it better if we just say that it was the Leshy? I like that explanation without anything added. Reenchanting the world and stuff you know. But I believe you. I'm too somewhat often out in the nature by myself and the uncanny encounters do fit the old folklore many times. Alone because people are morons and don't care when I say to tread softly and the nature will reveal herself. And that is my personal magical world.
Shepherd was a leshy for sure. I have no doubt about it.
The reenchantment stuff...eh. If it's in ya it's in ya. The would-be reenchanters have too democratic a view. *Many* children (not all) and still fewer adults are capable of perceiving it. The idea that all premodern people saw the world as enchanted is wrong.
'Oh...that sounded more belligerent from me than I intended to.'
Not at all; you made a pertinent point.
'You find a lot of liberal directors trying to make a point then see them renege on them at least somewhat. Almost like they have the relevation that, "okay...there might have been a point there with the old system". And unwittingly they make works making points for the patriarchy etc. (Pick your poison)'
Yes this happens a lot and maybe it's what happened with Eggers. But then there's this quote (you might have seen it elsewhere):
“This sounds super uber-precious, but I think it’s hard to do this kind of creative work in a modern secular society because it becomes all about your ego and yourself,” Eggers said. “And I am envious — this is the horrible part — I’m envious of medieval craftsmen who are doing the work for God. And that becomes a way to … you get to be creative to celebrate something else. And also, you’re censoring yourself because it’s not about like me, me, me, me, me, me. So you say, ‘Oh, I got to rein that back because that’s not what this altar piece needs to be.’ Any worldview where everything around them is full of meaning is exciting to me, because we live in such a tiresome, lame, commercial culture now.”
So I don't know. But who cares? It's a good film.
'And you know...there is sympathy for the evil out there. Many people can't help themselves and force some awesome explanation why someone utterly terrible was actually good and wholesome chungus. In the age of liberalism it is forbidden to declare someone inept, moronic, retarded or evil. There must be some explanation there and must have a tragic backstory why they became like that. (Except the nazis and Hitler. Even if Hitler was really beaten by his father. But every worldview needs an antagonist.)'
I must make a small folkloric correction: solomonari were originally called zgrimințeși and were more or less the local equivalent of the Odinic Grey Wanderer. They became (renamed) evil devilish lowstatusdysgenicis only in later myths, i strongly suspect due to church influence
it's not really your fault, only online sources i found were dodgy blogs, what I'm saying is from older untranslated folklore anthologies that would be kind of hard to find if you're not a native Romanian speaker
If Eggers doesn't have black people in unbelievable roles he's certainly bucking the system in that regard.
That may be one reason he makes these types of movies. On the other hand, he needs to placate the establishment by creating StrongWomenCharacters™ and moronically violent white men, like The Northman, and in this case supernaturally evil – with zero redeeming qualities.
A totally evil vampire is reasonable though--right? Coppola's characterisation was a noble exception and required a lot of backstory that Eggers didn't bother with.
Bitch in the witch I think he intended as objectively malign, maybe with added tension because unaccommodating colonialist patriarchy or whatever but nonetheless she is evil and destructive *in effect*.
On the other hand female lead sl00t in nosferatu is a complete trooper--she does her best--and there's no anti-patriarchy angle I can make out.
Now that I think about it a vampire is a parasite and a count would be "entitled" to bite people. But nobility has obligations (if nothing else, good manners) whereas modern parasites do not, although they are born into their entitlement as victims. Hmmm. Food for thought, eh?
Orlok (Dracula) violates bonds of hospitality, an aspect of noblesse oblige, by...well...drinking Hutter's (Harker's) blood. He then steals and kills his wife--and this in Hutter's own hometown.
Hutter, the petit-bourgeois Modern man, a chaser after mere money and meritocratic position, is beneath contempt and stands outside the nexus within which the old hierarchy of obligations were discharged. He's unworthy of Orlok's consideration.
I get what you mean but I can't figure out where noblesse oblige--ideally protection in exchange for service--comes into vampire films. He sucks their blood; they die or become vampires themselves or whatever. It's a one-way transaction, without obligation on his part.
There's Polanski's Fearless Vampire Killers (1967). Sharon Tate. It has a memorable gay vampire portrayed by Iain Quarrier as the son of Count Dracula. It's meant to be a comedy. This was made before gays became part of the sacred victim, entitled parasite culture. That culture didn't exist yet, or rather only included black people. Nor was there the strong woman character.
Pop culture has various takes on Dracula through the years. It's the women characters that have changed. Or rather the hero has changed. Dracula has remained more or less pure evil, as you say, but I doubt Dracula will ever be portrayed by a sacred victim. There's only one oppressor group.
Yes he will never be a victim--to white, too male, way too aristocratic--but this is A GOOD THING. Dracula's redeeming quality, if this it be, is that he dgaf. Imagine a whiny vampire...
Perhaps you will resist, but I humbly suggest that you take the time to cover more of the intricate histories of Romania, especially from this angle. What angle? That of direct story telling. Damn. You are good. Could you do some journalism, as in, chase down interesting individuals for stories? I am certain such material would find readers.
No this is truly a great idea. When you get them in the right circumstances Romanians are naturally v gregarious, will take any opportunity to talk about their lives and often have strange tales to impart. I will try it. I might be able to get funding from the cursed EU for 'preserving oral HIsToRiES'.
No... I didn't see it and probably won't see it. I hate watching american films set at least partially in this region because I quickly get annoyed by the incoherences.
Of course people still know what is a vampire. We're not that far removed from all those cringy vampire movies and series. Why did they always went back to high school? Nevermind.
If it's true, that the concept of the "eternal sl00t" what is being played out, then it is somewhat huge. Even a few years back any implications of this would have meant instant deplatforming. Or just as you mentioned his prior film, it was allowed as a feminist power fantasy. You go Girl!
I'm much more interested in your stories in the forest/mountains. It is a magical place isn't it. I wrote about likewise stuff previously in the Lake of Lerna substack. He does like these para stuff.
If I get synchronised with my slavic self (and why wouldn't I be) I would say that the black one was the "Chort" (or the "black one"...I know...very abstract huehuehue). If he didn't bring you with him then congrats...you're not worthy of hell (or was not worthy at that point).
I'm almost completely sure that the second one was the "Leshy" (the forest spirit). They are not malevolent, they are a force of nature so more like chaotic natural. He does have a mischievous side of him. You don't want to get on his bad side though. He liked you so all good. (he is often depicted as a shepherd tending to his flock).
Yeah I know...It was probably a wild boar or bear cub. You did good with going back the same way you came. That's the best you can do if you have no weapon with you(well...even if you do have a rifle it is the best course of action.
For the second one...people tend to underestimate the mountain people. I had a mountain guide once who was almost 90 and were going up and down quicker and steadier on the slopes than the guys in their 20s. He could have easily made it home in 5 minutes and already downed his first shot of palincă.
Great comment--thanks
'Of course people still know what is a vampire. We're not that far removed from all those cringy vampire movies and series. Why did they always went back to high school? Nevermind.'
Yeah you're right--twilight and so on are still recent enough. It wasn't one of my stronger points.
'Or just as you mentioned his prior film, it was allowed as a feminist power fantasy. You go Girl!'
I can't see any other way to understand it than that Eggers accepts the necessity of patriarchy for civilisation and acknowledges the destructive power of the sl00t. I just can't bring myself to believe that even a simp could mean the witch to be taken as a gogirl message. Beating up big strong men is one thing, matricide is quite another. Or maybe he has some midpoint position that I can't see.
Your assigning of supernatual identities to entities makes a great deal of sense; I had no idea (I confess I didn't check) that the things I'd seen would fit so readily into E Euro folklore. Black shape wasn't a bear--I was in the lowlands far from the hills and with Bucharest intervening--and it wasn't a boar. I've seen both animals in the wild multiple times and was once chased by a boar (luckily it gave up), so I know what they look like. For reasons I won't go into I considered the possibility of shapeshifting but chort fits (I'm not completely evil). I was armed, by the way, but only lightly.
On leshy: you're right about the vitality of shepherds but he and his flock *just can't* have disappeared so quickly by natural means (and where would they have gone?!). If you'd been there you would agree.
Oh...that sounded more belligerent from me than I intended to. What I wanted to add here that with every cultural mania, there is a small resurgence after 10-15 years. The vampire thing was HUGE back then but the kids first grew out of it and now they feel a little bit nostalgic. In the past everything was better. Although this doesn't seem like that. I didn't see the movie but it fails to reproduce at least some of ths cringier aspects of the originals.
I was not familiaf of Eggers' body of work, in fact I just looked it up. The historical fiction genre is a funny one in this aspect. You find a lot of liberal directors trying to make a point then see them renege on them at least somewhat. Almost like they have the relevation that, "okay...there might have been a point there with the old system". And unwittingly they make works making points for the patriarchy etc. (Pick your poison)
That's why GRR Martin can't finish The song of ice and fire. He wanted to make a point, but by now he knows that it's impossible. (And that's why Rowling couldn't destroy Slytherin, despite that would have been the most logical step)
And you know...there is sympathy for the evil out there. Many people can't help themselves and force some awesome explanation why someone utterly terrible was actually good and wholesome chungus. In the age of liberalism it is forbidden to declare someone inept, moronic, retarded or evil. There must be some explanation there and must have a tragic backstory why they became like that. (Except the nazis and Hitler. Even if Hitler was really beaten by his father. But every worldview needs an antagonist.)
Interesting about the Chort. I believe you but also during the night the forest can mess with your perception. Not long ago I was out in the forest and I took a few photos but they don't really give back that ambience. At dusk or dawn (so not complete darkness but still pretty dark) the woods are working perfectly to break up the shapes and continouity of movements. And yes...wild boars are nasty mfs. People don't know it anymore (and there was an outrage when some got in the city and were shot) that they can really f you up.
For the shepherd. Isn't it better if we just say that it was the Leshy? I like that explanation without anything added. Reenchanting the world and stuff you know. But I believe you. I'm too somewhat often out in the nature by myself and the uncanny encounters do fit the old folklore many times. Alone because people are morons and don't care when I say to tread softly and the nature will reveal herself. And that is my personal magical world.
Shepherd was a leshy for sure. I have no doubt about it.
The reenchantment stuff...eh. If it's in ya it's in ya. The would-be reenchanters have too democratic a view. *Many* children (not all) and still fewer adults are capable of perceiving it. The idea that all premodern people saw the world as enchanted is wrong.
'Oh...that sounded more belligerent from me than I intended to.'
Not at all; you made a pertinent point.
'You find a lot of liberal directors trying to make a point then see them renege on them at least somewhat. Almost like they have the relevation that, "okay...there might have been a point there with the old system". And unwittingly they make works making points for the patriarchy etc. (Pick your poison)'
Yes this happens a lot and maybe it's what happened with Eggers. But then there's this quote (you might have seen it elsewhere):
“This sounds super uber-precious, but I think it’s hard to do this kind of creative work in a modern secular society because it becomes all about your ego and yourself,” Eggers said. “And I am envious — this is the horrible part — I’m envious of medieval craftsmen who are doing the work for God. And that becomes a way to … you get to be creative to celebrate something else. And also, you’re censoring yourself because it’s not about like me, me, me, me, me, me. So you say, ‘Oh, I got to rein that back because that’s not what this altar piece needs to be.’ Any worldview where everything around them is full of meaning is exciting to me, because we live in such a tiresome, lame, commercial culture now.”
So I don't know. But who cares? It's a good film.
'And you know...there is sympathy for the evil out there. Many people can't help themselves and force some awesome explanation why someone utterly terrible was actually good and wholesome chungus. In the age of liberalism it is forbidden to declare someone inept, moronic, retarded or evil. There must be some explanation there and must have a tragic backstory why they became like that. (Except the nazis and Hitler. Even if Hitler was really beaten by his father. But every worldview needs an antagonist.)'
100%
I must make a small folkloric correction: solomonari were originally called zgrimințeși and were more or less the local equivalent of the Odinic Grey Wanderer. They became (renamed) evil devilish lowstatusdysgenicis only in later myths, i strongly suspect due to church influence
Otherwise great article as usual
Aha alright--I appreciate it. I will add your correction and acknowledge.
I should have looked a bit deeper than wikipedia (yeah criticising wikipedia as a SOURCE is midwit; I consider myself an *upper* midwit).
it's not really your fault, only online sources i found were dodgy blogs, what I'm saying is from older untranslated folklore anthologies that would be kind of hard to find if you're not a native Romanian speaker
Much recommend, very yes?
It's worth seeing yah
If Eggers doesn't have black people in unbelievable roles he's certainly bucking the system in that regard.
That may be one reason he makes these types of movies. On the other hand, he needs to placate the establishment by creating StrongWomenCharacters™ and moronically violent white men, like The Northman, and in this case supernaturally evil – with zero redeeming qualities.
True
A totally evil vampire is reasonable though--right? Coppola's characterisation was a noble exception and required a lot of backstory that Eggers didn't bother with.
Bitch in the witch I think he intended as objectively malign, maybe with added tension because unaccommodating colonialist patriarchy or whatever but nonetheless she is evil and destructive *in effect*.
On the other hand female lead sl00t in nosferatu is a complete trooper--she does her best--and there's no anti-patriarchy angle I can make out.
Now that I think about it a vampire is a parasite and a count would be "entitled" to bite people. But nobility has obligations (if nothing else, good manners) whereas modern parasites do not, although they are born into their entitlement as victims. Hmmm. Food for thought, eh?
Yes yes now I see it all...
Orlok (Dracula) violates bonds of hospitality, an aspect of noblesse oblige, by...well...drinking Hutter's (Harker's) blood. He then steals and kills his wife--and this in Hutter's own hometown.
Hutter, the petit-bourgeois Modern man, a chaser after mere money and meritocratic position, is beneath contempt and stands outside the nexus within which the old hierarchy of obligations were discharged. He's unworthy of Orlok's consideration.
I get what you mean but I can't figure out where noblesse oblige--ideally protection in exchange for service--comes into vampire films. He sucks their blood; they die or become vampires themselves or whatever. It's a one-way transaction, without obligation on his part.
There's Polanski's Fearless Vampire Killers (1967). Sharon Tate. It has a memorable gay vampire portrayed by Iain Quarrier as the son of Count Dracula. It's meant to be a comedy. This was made before gays became part of the sacred victim, entitled parasite culture. That culture didn't exist yet, or rather only included black people. Nor was there the strong woman character.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061655/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0_tt_4_nm_0_in_0_q_fearless%2520vampire%2520killers
Louis Jourdan was in Count Dracula, a made-for-TV movie. Not bad.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075882/?ref_=nm_flmg_job_1_cdt_t_18
Pop culture has various takes on Dracula through the years. It's the women characters that have changed. Or rather the hero has changed. Dracula has remained more or less pure evil, as you say, but I doubt Dracula will ever be portrayed by a sacred victim. There's only one oppressor group.
Yes he will never be a victim--to white, too male, way too aristocratic--but this is A GOOD THING. Dracula's redeeming quality, if this it be, is that he dgaf. Imagine a whiny vampire...