Near Dark

Made in the late 80’s, ‘Near Dark’ (1987) came about during a time of ‘re-articulation’ in cinema. Popular entertainment was undergoing massive re-categorisation as films began targeting small, specific audiences. Genre films were considered a safe bet as they were known to continually attract a specific crowd, therefore Bigelow’s play on the genre theme opened a new door to both the concept of genre itself, and more specifically that of the horror/vampire genre. In ‘Near Dark’ Bigelow uses the Western as a template for a vampire movie. Of all the genres to adopt, the Western is a particularly interesting choice as it is a genre that is rarely manipulated (except perhaps for comedy use) and therefore provides an original backdrop to Bigelow’s vampire world. As Sara Gwellian Jones notes:

‘The sunlit and solid world of the western is not where one expects to find vampires. Just as the western belongs to America’s geographical west, so do vampires and gothic horror belong to the ancient landscapes of central and Eastern Europe.’ i

As a genre, the Western is closely associated with American history and culture which is why Andrew Tudor expresses a similar surprise in the choice of genre combination:

‘..of all film genres, gothic horror is perhaps the one that has the least connection with American culture and tradition’. ii

The Western structure Bigelow uses can be seen in the iconography and settings she adopts, as well as her style of shooting. The vast open stretches of land, the roadside bar and the country home are all icons of a traditional western setting, whilst her use of ‘wipes’ to take the viewer from shot to shot is also common of many Westerns. Narratively, the vampire family are the invaders of the frontier, while the Colton family fulfil the stereotypical white, middle class farming family (although there is no mother present which reflects some of the parental complications that are seen later in the vampire ‘family’). Of specific interest is the way Bigelow uses Western symbols in context with those of traditional vampirism. For example, Severen (Bill Paxton) uses the spur on his boot as a weapon to slice open the barman’s throat in the violent bar massacre scene, altering the iconographic role of the spur and changing it into a more horrific symbol. The emblem of the West itself - the horse - is presented in conjunction with the traditional concept of the vampire/animal connection. It is Caleb’s (Adrian Pasdar) horse which indicates Mae’s (Jenny Wright) ‘difference’, rearing and shying at her presence, to which she simply replies, ‘horses just don’t like me’. Gwellian Jones articulates:

‘…the emblematic animal of the western [is] unsettled by the presence of the emblematic beast of gothic horror.’1

These ‘beast[s] of gothic horror’ are portrayed in ‘Near Dark’ differently from their ‘traditional’ gothic counterparts. Bigelow’s vampires seem to display only the most popular characteristics; they burn in sunlight, drink blood, and are unnaturally strong. There are no religious references, no stakes or fangs and psychological or metamorphosing powers seem to be lacking. By not including many of these common features, Bigelow allows her vampires to be less fantastical and more human, recognising the ‘alien other’ as embedded in American society. Indeed, Bigelow commented on this, saying:

‘In an effort to sort of modernize the material, to update it and make it contemporary, we got rid of all the gothic aspects of the vampire mythology… we just kept the more salient aspects.’i

This emphasises just how easy it is to play with elements of the genre and to personalise it. Bigelow chose the features of vampirism she found to be important and singled them out, abandoning those she deemed unnecessary. This would not work nearly as easily (nor be accepted as such) in other genres, like the romantic comedy for example. 1

What is also fascinating about Bigelow’s generic manipulation is how, despite the dominance of the Western setting, practically the entire film is shot in darkness. Some scenes are so dark it’s hard to make out what is happening. This is extremely effective, as it is the first vampire movie to fully endorse one of the most famous vampire traits - that sunlight kills them. So, despite minimising many other minor vampire characteristics, she balances it out by enveloping the whole film in a strong vampire theme. The iconographic symbols of the Western are therefore saturated in darkness, displaying the dominance that the horror genre has over them. Indeed, the places where many of the vampiric events occur are in these iconic places, which are completely at the mercy of this generic alteration.

‘Near Dark’s’ role reversal of genders and the portrayal of sexual relations within the nocturnal family is another original aspect of the movie. Unlike ‘Nosferatu’ (1922) and the Hammer Horror ‘Dracula’s’ where the gender stereotypes remain enforced, later vampire films like ‘Near Dark’ deliberately play with and confuse these boundaries.

Before it is obvious that Mae is a vampire, she appears, waif like out of the shadows, delicately eating an ice cream cone. Although her attire is more like that of a boy, she uses her femininity to capture the interest of the male onlookers. Caleb is confident and takes up the typical male role. It is only when he lassos her and discovers her hidden strength that the viewer realises, she is the one in control. Consequently, it is she that turns Caleb, causing him to be dependent on her for life, as he must drink from her having refuted killing. She therefore serves as a mother figure as well as a protector, defending him against the rest of the family who at first do not accept him. The way their relationship evolves displays strong sexual ambiguities. The fact Mae and Caleb are lovers is the equivalent of incest as she is technically his mother. The lack of a mother in his own life (an explanation of which is left unaddressed) makes his dependency on her even more symbolic. When she meets him after he has tried to leave his new family, he crawls up to her, hugging her thighs and drinking from her wrist. Here she is mother and provider, but more overtly lover, as this act has been referred to as the vampiric equivalent of cunnilingus. iii

These relative ambiguities, as well as the perversity of Caleb’s new family - the old vampire trapped in a young boy’s body (Homer played by Joshua John Miller), the new sadistic father (Jesse played by Lance Henriksen), and somewhat psychotic brother (Severen) - is brilliant in providing contrast to the archetypical American family expected in a Western. Indeed, the titles of ‘mother’, ‘father’ and ‘brother’ are incredibly loose, as Schneider discusses extensively in his article ‘Suck…don’t suck’: Framing Ideology in Kathryn Bigelow’s Near Dark’i. He notes how Jesse is not the real father figure in Caleb’s life but really it is Homer, the vampire boy who turned Mae. The intricacies of the family are inexplicable, because vampire’s reproduce a-sexually, technically, Caleb has no ‘father’ in terms of gender, the closest father would again be Mae as she sired him.

What this complex family tree serves to emphasise is the family structure that Caleb left behind. It is interesting to note that there are no scenes of Caleb interacting with his family before his meeting with Mae and his transformation into a vampire. Our first encounter with Caleb’s family is when Sarah (Marcie Leeds) sees him stumbling over the ground towards the house the following day. The most attention his father can give him is to mumble ‘about time he came home’, without even looking up from what he is doing. Despite the search the Loy (Tim Thomerson) and Sarah carry out in an attempt to find Caleb, it remains clear that Loy is far from a father figure and has contributed little to his son’s life. Considering this, and with the lack of a mother, it is almost ironic that he is handed the family that he is – father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, lover etc.

The way in which Bigelow has merged genre boundaries and selected her own conventions serves to display an awareness of the genre itself. The ability for vampires to return to human form is a good demonstration of this. This concept provides ‘a light at the end of the tunnel’ aspect to what is also, in this case, a love story. Obviously, the whole experience leaves Mae and Caleb mentally scarred but it does provide a somewhat different ending to the conventional vampire movies. The technicalities of the return to human form could have been clearer, and the fact it rounds the film of with a Hollywood happy ending are details I believe can be overlooked when considering the broader picture. Bigelow’s manipulation of family and the horrific twist given to the patriarchal landscape of America is a recreation of the vampire myth which deserves acknowledgement in itself.

Among other things, ‘Near Dark’ shows the ever-evolving nature of the vampire genre. Rarely is one film like another, as they often re-interpret themselves. This has been true from the very beginning, where other genres have altered only due to their social and cultural context; the vampire genre (whilst encompassing these events) needs no reason to re-invent itself. Therefore the ‘mythology’ of such a genre is not pinpointed like others through constraining rules, but through the lack of these rules, or more appropriately, the willingness to break them. The blend of both the horror and western genres displayed in ‘Near Dark’, as well as the underlying romantic narrative, make it one of the most interesting subjects of genre hybridity today.

Watch

Country: USA
Budget: £2,560,000
Length: 94mins

Bibliography:
i: Schneider, S. J. (2003) “’Suck…Don’t Suck”: Framing Ideology in Kathryn Bigelow’s Near Dark’, in Deborah Jermyn and Sean Redmond (eds) Hollywood Transgressor: The Cinema of Kathryn Bigelow, London and New York: Wallflower Press.
ii: Tudor. A. (1989) 'Monsters and mad scientists: a cultural history of the horror movie', Oxford, England: New York: B. Blackwell.
iii: Powell, a. (1994) ‘Blood on the Borders – Near Dark and Blue Steel’, Screen 35, no.2 (Summer).

Filmography:
‘Nosferatu’, 1922, F.W. Murnau, Jofa-Atelier Berlin-Johannisthal

Footnotes:
1: Indeed, in the recent rom com ‘The Break-Up’ (2006) with Jennifer Aniston, the end saw the couple remain separated. This is an unusual way to leave a romantic comedy and for this reason many viewers felt disappointed or let down by the film as it didn’t seem sure of its own identity.
2: Previous films have avoided this by filming many scenes indoors where artificial light is present. However, some have blurred the boundaries completely. Indeed, in the hit television series ‘Ange’l (1999-2004), despite the protagonist being unable to walk in daylight, many of the scenes shot in his office have a considerable amount of daylight coming through the shutters in the windows, confusing the vampiric rule.

Pub/2008

More like this:
The Reptile, 1966, directed by John Gilling
Blood for Dracula, 1975, directed by Paul Morrissey
Bloody Moon, 1981, directed by Jesus Franco