 |
| Images copyright REBELLION. Cover art by CHRIS WESTON |
REBELLION (publishers of 2000 A.D.) are releasing some great reprint volumes at the moment. I've got The LEOPARD From LIME STREET, MARNIE The FOX, FACEACHE, and now also The DRACULA FILE volume. I've already got all 15 issues of SCREAM! plus all the Holiday Specials, but there's something about having the stories in a handy single edition to browse through whenever I want.
Take a look at the page below though. The writer obviously didn't know his vampire lore, as he has Dracula casting a reflection. Everybody and his dog knows that ol' Vlad doesn't cast a reflection (well, everybody, that is, except the director of ABBOTT & COSTELLO Meet FRANKENSTEIN), so how the error managed to sneak past the editor back in the day is a mystery. (Especially as an earlier story in the weekly adheres to the principle, though this one is from a Special. Different editors maybe?) Dracula does cast a shadow (as far as I remember) so I'd have made that the giveaway of his presence in this particular tale.
Anyway, The Dracula File contains some great art by ERIC BRADBURY (I lettered his work at least once for 2000 A.D.), so pop along to your nearest comics shop or bookstore and snap up your copy today.
 |
| I think the artist here is KEITH PAGE, but I'm not 100% sure |
10 comments:
In Universal's Son of Dracula, the vampire turns into a bat and flies down a hallway, and you can see its reflection as it passes by a mirror. In both that scene and the one in A&C Meet Frankenstein, the error could have easily been avoided, simply by not having the mirror in that particular location.
In Hammer's Dracula Has Risen From the Grave, a victim realizes Dracula is behind him when he sees Christopher Lee's reflection in a pool of water. I don't know if it was a mistake, or if the director just decided to sacrifice technical accuracy for dramatic effect.
For that matter, I don't recall offhand if the Hammer series ever mentioned whether vampires cast shadows or reflections.
I suspect that Hammer ignored that aspect of the legend (established by Bram Stoker himself) due to the difficulties in ensuring the Dracula never reflected in a window pane or mirror, etc., but I couldn't swear to it, TC. In SOD (hee hee) and A&CMF, there's really no excuse for it, as they were made by Universal who made the first Lugosi movie.
You're confusing me, Kid. I was going to do a piece on Scream and Scream, and you're already here again.
TC - it could be argued that the reflection in water is proper.
There's a school of thought that says vampires don't reflect in mirrors or show up in photographs due to silver. Mirrors used to be lined with silver, and silver nitrate was a heavy component of photo stock.
Of course, that means in the modern world vampires would be harder to detect.
Yeah, but I don't think they reflect in window panes either, 3, which, as far as I know, don't have silver in them. Isn't it something to do with them not being alive, but not being quite dead (hence the term 'undead'), or something like that? I really must read the book again one day.
Aye, but that school of thought says that vampire reflections can be seen in glass, water, polished gold, etc.,.
And that the silver specific nature of the most common reflective surface led to the general "No Reflections" perception. Of course, it's not quite like debating the details of a comic book world/universe/character. There's no specific sources to go to for definitive answers when dealing with folklore that precedes our written accounts. Varied and conflicting written accounts.
Yes, but we're not talking about just any ol' vampire here, we're talking about Dracula as created by Bram Stoker. And if Bram Stoker said that Dracula (and other vampires) doesn't cast a reflection (and the author provides no list of exceptions), then he doesn't. Therefore, the writer of that particular Scream! tale got it wrong. I think it was also Stoker who said vampires can't bear religious symbols, so it seems a bit odd that this aspect is usually always adopted by other authors, but not the reflection bit. Interestingly, Stoker does have Dracula appearing in daylight (in a weakened condition), so the idea that vampires can't move around during the day (with limitations) doesn't seem to be one entirely endorsed by Stoker. Having said that however, I'd have to reread the novel to remind myself of the exact details concerning the subject.
Ah, yes. You're right.
I was thinking "vampire lore" not "Dracula lore" - a very distinct difference.
I'd have to read the novel again, too. It's been far too long for me to discern what came from Stoker and what's accumulated over the decades since.
I've just realised that it's around 46 years or thereabouts since I read the book, despite having a copy of it tucked away in a cupboard somewhere. 46 years - that's scary.
My reply of how i generally just round off to "Over half a century", and how that number both feels smaller and yet offers greater scariness at the same time made more sense before you realized you weren't quite that old and corrected.
(email note on new version popped up while i was typing this)
I think 'under half a century' is just as scary though. Sometimes I don't believe I'm as old as I am, other times I feel twice as old. I wish they'd hurry up with that elixir of youth.
Post a Comment