in defense of vampires?

in her presentation on bathory erszébet yesterday, daphne tossed out a rather provocative idea: the possibility that, unlike bathory, who might well be classified as a serial killer, the classic vampires of fiction and film [like dracula] deserve our sympathy if not our outright approval: they, like any other predators of the animal kingdom, must feed on their prey to survive. like a lion or a tiger, they are simply doing what it is their 'nature' to do, and, as such, ought not to inspire revulsion -- much less be hunted or destroyed.

so: any responses to this?

neil jordan's INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE [1994]

here, as promised, is a blog post where you can [via the comment function] add your reflections on jordan's INTERVIEW. as we have said in class, i'm particularly interested in your responses to the following:

1. how does the movie size up as movie? i.e. how well does it 'stand on its own two feet'?

2. how well does it rate as a filmization of the anne rice novel?

[of course your comments need by no means be limited to these questions alone.]

francis ford coppola's BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA [1992]

here, as promised, is a blog post where you can [via the comment function] add your reflections on coppola's DRACULA. as we have said in class, i'm particularly interested in your responses to the following:

1. how does the movie size up as movie? i.e. how well does it 'stand on its own two feet'?

2. how well does it rate as a filmization of the stoker novel?

[of course your comments need by no means be limited to these questions alone.]