Politics and Zombies vs Vampires
Nov. 10th, 2008 11:11 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
xiphiasSeveral people on my friendslist have linked to this article, which notes a correspondence between zombie movies and conservative US administrations, and vampire movies and liberal US administrations.
In order to see if this is true, someone would have to do a lot more digging to determine, first, IF this statistically holds true under examination, and then, to try to figure out if it's just a coincidence. But the correlation seems to hold true in my limited memory.
Then, of course, you would want to figure out, if there IS a cause to the correlation, what that cause is.
Well, naturally, this is only fun if we assume that there is a correlation, and that the correlation has a cause.
Having gotten THOSE disclaimers out of the way, I'm now going to go into baseless, irresponsible speculation.
Historically, of course, there's no real distinction between "vampire" and "zombie". They're both dead bodies, animated by evil, that go around eating the living. But in modern American media culture, we've separated the two types of ghoul.
Both vampires and zombies:
1. Are dead people, raised by magic/science/Secrets Man Was Not Meant To Know
2. Want to eat the living.
3. Can infect the living to make them into more ghouls
4. Are harder to destroy than normal living people would be
But:
Vampires are:
1. Intelligent
2. A solitary threat, largely. If they attack in groups, it's because there's one "master vampire" leading them.
3. In some modern settings, they can be attractive.
4. Even if the OFFICIAL rules say that they're just pure evil, there's often a chance that there is a redeemable one out there.
Zombies are:
1. Mindless
2. Only a threat in large groups. A single zombie is only a threat because it may infect others, creating a swarm.
3. Never attractive.
4. Never redeemable.
What fears do these play to?
Vampires hit a fear of an oligarch, a powerful, secretive, elite manipulator who controls from behind the scenes. Zombies hit a fear of the mob, a fear of lawlessness, a total social breakdown.
A vampire attack is usually a more personal horror; a zombie attack signifies the breakdown of all society.
Of course, I can't see where to do from there in the argument. Both liberals and conservatives fear the idea of powerful individuals controlling things behind the scenes, and both liberals and conservatives fear the idea of all social order breaking down.
I'm going to have to keep poking at this in order to come up with something clever.
ETA: Maybe we should be looking at who the HEROES of such movies are? A vampire hunter is an elite, from van Helsing on down -- if they don't actually have superpowers, like Buffy or Blade, they are at least a well-educated upper-class professor sort. While zombie-movie heroes are Everyday Joes Thrust Into A Horrific Situation Doing The Best They Can.
Maybe there's something there?
In order to see if this is true, someone would have to do a lot more digging to determine, first, IF this statistically holds true under examination, and then, to try to figure out if it's just a coincidence. But the correlation seems to hold true in my limited memory.
Then, of course, you would want to figure out, if there IS a cause to the correlation, what that cause is.
Well, naturally, this is only fun if we assume that there is a correlation, and that the correlation has a cause.
Having gotten THOSE disclaimers out of the way, I'm now going to go into baseless, irresponsible speculation.
Historically, of course, there's no real distinction between "vampire" and "zombie". They're both dead bodies, animated by evil, that go around eating the living. But in modern American media culture, we've separated the two types of ghoul.
Both vampires and zombies:
1. Are dead people, raised by magic/science/Secrets Man Was Not Meant To Know
2. Want to eat the living.
3. Can infect the living to make them into more ghouls
4. Are harder to destroy than normal living people would be
But:
Vampires are:
1. Intelligent
2. A solitary threat, largely. If they attack in groups, it's because there's one "master vampire" leading them.
3. In some modern settings, they can be attractive.
4. Even if the OFFICIAL rules say that they're just pure evil, there's often a chance that there is a redeemable one out there.
Zombies are:
1. Mindless
2. Only a threat in large groups. A single zombie is only a threat because it may infect others, creating a swarm.
3. Never attractive.
4. Never redeemable.
What fears do these play to?
Vampires hit a fear of an oligarch, a powerful, secretive, elite manipulator who controls from behind the scenes. Zombies hit a fear of the mob, a fear of lawlessness, a total social breakdown.
A vampire attack is usually a more personal horror; a zombie attack signifies the breakdown of all society.
Of course, I can't see where to do from there in the argument. Both liberals and conservatives fear the idea of powerful individuals controlling things behind the scenes, and both liberals and conservatives fear the idea of all social order breaking down.
I'm going to have to keep poking at this in order to come up with something clever.
ETA: Maybe we should be looking at who the HEROES of such movies are? A vampire hunter is an elite, from van Helsing on down -- if they don't actually have superpowers, like Buffy or Blade, they are at least a well-educated upper-class professor sort. While zombie-movie heroes are Everyday Joes Thrust Into A Horrific Situation Doing The Best They Can.
Maybe there's something there?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-10 04:18 pm (UTC)Zombies are all turned unwillingly, but as being turned means that they lose intelligence, memories, and sense of themselves as individuals (they are truly the animate dead, where vampires are more like in a kind of animate stasis, caught between one heartbeat and the next), they can't really be sympathetic.
There was a wretched SciFi zombie movie starring Dean Cain that attempted to make him into a sympathetic zombie, but it didn't work all that well. There are some things that the genre just doesn't support.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-10 08:42 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-10 04:21 pm (UTC)Vampires are elitist, snappy dressers, and live in luxury. They are often highly sexual, or are a metaphor for something sexual. They also are sexually ambiguous-- see "The Hunger" and its bisexual vampire babes. They're very picky eaters.
Zombies are everyman and don't care how they're dressed. They live in squalor. They eat offal. And nobody in their right mind would want to, you know, do it with a zombie.
Thus, Democrats are sexy but have weird eating habits. Republicans don't get any and want to make sure nobody else gets any either, while eating stuff that vampires wouldn't consider food.
I dunno, I think it holds up. 8)
(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-10 04:37 pm (UTC)Liberals will raise your taxes to give your money (lifeblood) to someone who isn't nearly as deserving as you.
Conservatives will enrage the mobs and consume your independence.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-10 04:38 pm (UTC)Interesting
(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-10 08:52 pm (UTC)In a vampire setting, you have one predator (or a small group of predators) and the humans form a LARGE group of prey. In a zombie setting, you have a large group of predators, and the humans form a small group of prey.
ROT-13 spoilers for "I Am Legend"/Omega Man, all versions:
"V Nz Yrtraq" naq gur zbivrf znqr sebz vg ner nobhg n fvghngvba jurer gur cebgntbavfg GUVAXF ur'f gur ureb va n mbzovr frggvat, ohg gur gjvfg vf gung ur qvfpbiref gung ur'f gur ivyyvna va n inzcver frggvat.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-11 12:57 am (UTC)