Tags
Anita Sarkesian, Dracula, Dracula Untold, Luke Evans, Medieval Europe, Mehmet II, Ottoman Empire, Sarah Gadon, Vlad Tepes, Vlad the Impaler
There have been lots of Dracula movies over the years, and with the current fad for vampire stuff, it was only a question of time until some studio went back to that particular well. Dracula Untold (2014, dir. Gary Shore) is a mediocre example of a vampire flick. It’s neither especially good nor especially bad. It has a lot of the same problems that recent vampire films like Underworld: Rise of the Lycans have: medieval characters wearing improbably silly armor, sunlight and clouds that come and go largely on the whims of the plot, medieval architecture that makes little sense, and people who spend lots of time running around at night because that makes them vulnerable to vampires (who knew that the Turkish army mostly traveled at night, and—I kid not–blindfolded?). It’s basically a fantasy action film. But it sticks its toe in the waters of history (and generally decides that these waters are too chilly for it), so I felt like I ought to review it here.
Spoiler Alert: I discuss a couple fairly major plot points, so if you want to see this movie, you shouldn’t read further. However, for reasons I’ll explain later, I don’t think you should go see this movie. So I’d encourage you to just keep reading.
The Film’s Vlad Dracula
The film deals with the life of Vlad Dracula (Luke Evans). Vlad was given as tribute to the Ottoman Sultan as a boy. He was trained to fight as a Janissary and served the Sultan so ruthlessly he became known as ‘the Impaler’. Eventually he was made prince of Transylvania, although it’s not clear (at least to me) whether he inherited the position or was given it by the Sultan.
At the start of the film, which is set in the 1440s, a messenger arrives from the Sultan Mehmed II (Dominic Cooper, playing a distinctly non-Turkish looking Turk), demanding tribute in silver and 1000 boys to be raised as Janissaries (the film incorrectly depicts this as a practice that was terminated prior to the 1440s, when in fact the Janissaries were an import element in the Turkish military down into the 18th century, and weren’t disbanded until 1826). To save his son from this, Vlad tracks down a vampire and asks for help in defeating Mehmed. The vampire agrees to temporarily turn him into a vampire for three days, warning him that if he drinks human blood during that period, he will become a vampire forever. I think you can already guess where this is going.
Luke Evans as Vlad Dracula; note the silly plate armor
The film depicts Vlad as a good ruler, a man who deeply loves his wife and son and who is well-liked by his people. He also, inexplicably, has no army, which is why he needs to seek help from a vampire. He admits to having once impaled thousands of peasants while serving Mehmed, but he is nicer than that now. Later, he returns to his impaling ways after he slaughters a bunch of Turks. But basically he’s a loving family man even after he’s become an inhuman monster. At least he doesn’t sparkle.
The Real Vlad Dracula vs. The Cinematic Vlad Dracula
It’s hard to sort out fact from fiction with the historical Vlad the Impaler, because the best sources for his life were written after his death. There are a number of German pamphlets that describe him as a horrible person, and a number of Russian pamphlets that are pro-Vlad (although they still mention his unsavory habit of impaling people and torturing small animals). And there’s Romanian folk tales about him to add to the confusion; they both revile him for his cruelty and celebrate him from his supposed hostility to German merchants. So there aren’t a lot of good, reliable, unbiased sources out there about him. And I’ll readily admit that Eastern European history isn’t my strong suit. But there’s a fairly clear core of fact we can discuss. So here goes.
Vlad’s father, Vlad II, was the Voivode (Duke) of Wallachia. He was inducted by Emperor Sigismund of the Holy Roman Empire into the Order of the Dragon, a military order created specifically to oppose the Ottoman Empire, which was in the process of pushing up into the Balkans. Because of this Vlad II was known as Vlad Dracul (Romanian for “the dragon”). His son was therefore known as Dracula (“son of the Dragon”).
When he was 13, Vlad and his younger brother Radu were given to Sultan Murad II, not to be raised as Janissaries (since Janissaries were slaves) but rather to serve as hostages for their father’s good behavior. As a result he was raised with the future Mehmet II (this fact the film gets right). Vlad became jealous of the attention his better-looking brother received at court (Radu was nicknamed “the Handsome”).
Probably the most historical image of Vlad the Impaler
In 1448, with Turkish support, Vlad succeeded his father as Voivode of Wallachia. He was quickly ousted, but returned to power in 1456. But he soon defied a request for tribute and young boys to serve as Janissaries, probably because paying it would mean acknowledging that Wallachia was part of the Ottoman Empire. So instead, he had the turbans of the Turkish emissaries nailed to their heads. (In Vlad’s defense, he wasn’t the only Eastern European ruler to indulge this sartorial fancy.)
When the Turks invaded, Vlad ambushed a large group of cavalry and defeated them. He ordered them impaled on spikes, with the commander getting the highest spike. In 1462, when Mehmet showed up at Targoviste, he discovered 15-20,000 of his troops impaled on spikes; sickened, he retreated briefly. As a result of this the Turks called him ‘Lord Impaler’. His Romanian nickname Tepes (“the Impaler”) seems to have been bestowed on him in the mid-16th century, and was not a term used at the time.
However, Dracula wasn’t just impaling his Turkish enemies. Vlad seems to have used impaling and other forms of cruelty as a tactic to dominate the boyars of Wallachia (the land-owning aristocracy) and to encourage obedience. The boyars had conspired against Vlad II, so when Dracula came to power, he invited many of them to a feast, impaled those responsible for his father’s death, and enslaved the rest for a construction project. He reportedly impaled the merchants and boyars of the city of Brasov on St. Bartholemew’s Day, 1459.
Vlad having a snack
Various stories circulate about his other cruelties, such as impaling adulterous women, unchaste widows, thieves, and dishonest merchants. Nor was he just into impaling; sometimes he reportedly indulged in other forms of unpleasantness, such as flaying people and cutting off women’s breasts. When his concubine claimed that she was pregnant, he reportedly cut her open to find out the truth. However, given the nature of the sources about Vlad, it’s hard to know how much truth there is behind these stories. It’s clear Vlad Dracula was a pretty nasty guy, but just how nasty is hard to say.
Ultimately though, Mehmet sent in Vlad’s brother Radu, backed with enough troops to exhaust Vlad’s forces. They captured Poenari Castle, his stronghold, which the film inaccurately calls ‘Castle Dracula’. In the film, it’s not surprising this castle gets captured; it’s built in the middle of a plain instead of on a mountain cliff. (In general, the architecture in this film makes little sense, and the first castle we see in the film, when the Turkish emissary comes demanding tribute, would have been a much stronger defensible position to take a stand at. But apparently that didn’t serve the needs of the action scenes very well.) Vlad’s wife reportedly leapt to her death rather than be captured, and Vlad was arrested by the king of Hungary, for reasons that are still unclear.
Some time later, however, the king patched things up with Vlad, let him out of prison, and let him marry his cousin Ilona (not ‘Mirena’ as this movie would have it). He returned to power in 1475, and died late the next year; stories about how he died vary—a Turkish ambush, betrayed by the boyars, or in an accident. He was buried, perhaps at Comana (not at Snagov, as 19th century tradition would have it, or in Naples, as recent crappy scholarship claims).
Also, as a minor note, Vlad Dracula did not kill Mehmet, who died in 1481 of natural causes. At the time of the movie, Mehmet II was in his mid-teens. He was a major figure in Turkish history, so killing him in the 1440s is sort of like killing Elizabeth I in the late 1550s not long after she has started her reign.
So the film is, to say the least, not particularly historical. But it’s a film about how a historical figure became a vampire, so you probably knew that already. It’s a bit perverse to make one of the most infamously cruel figures in history a romantic hero, as others have already pointed out. But I suppose in 600 years, we can look forward to seeing a rom-com about Pol Pot or Josef Stalin, in which our hero has a meet-cute with some dewy ingénue and then has to keep his genocidal schemes from her in order to win her love, with wacky consequences.
It’s also sad that the film decided to omit Vlad’s brother Radu. The two of them seem to have had a powerful rivalry, and making Radu one of the central bad guys would have given the plot more…um…bite. But I suppose we’ll just have to save that for a better movie.
So Why Shouldn’t I Go See It?
The film is not particularly good history, but it’s not historically offensive either, unlike, for example, Braveheart. My objection to it has little to do with my role as a historian. My objection to this film is entirely about my role as a decent human being who thinks women deserve to be treated better in film.
The movie is neither particularly feminist nor anti-feminist for the most part. Mirena (Sarah Gadon) is a generic cinematic wife. She gets one moment of being commanding, but is otherwise just there to give Dracula a motive to do anything to fight the Turks. She and his essentially pointless son are mostly just the triggers for all the manpain modern cinematic heroes are required to experience.
Sarah Gadon as Mirena
But then, as the film approaches its climax, it suddenly veers into one of the most horrifically misogynistic tropes developed by the video game industry. Mirena falls off a high balcony of a monastery (why did these monks build a pointless balcony over a high cliff and forget to include a railing?) and Dracula is unable to catch her in time. As she lies dying (having been tough enough to actually not die instantly from the long fall), she begs Dracula to kill her by drinking her blood, knowing that this will transform him permanently into a vampire and give him the power to defeat Mehmet. Dracula does as she asks and thereby gains vengeance on Mehmet.
As Anita Sarkesian has pointed out, the trope of the Damsel in Distress begging the hero to kill her has become a common story-telling device in video games. But the ‘Euthanized Damsel’, as she terms this sub-trope, is a deeply misogynistic idea, in which women beg their loved ones to kill them and then thank them for engaging in violence against them. As Sarkesian puts it, “These women are asking for it, quite literally.” Given that Dracula immediately runs off and starts making vampires of his other dying followers, the film never explains why he doesn’t just do the same to Mirena (we can hypothesize that he can’t make other vampires because he hasn’t yet drunk human blood and therefore doesn’t have that ability, but the film never clearly says this), so there is no objective reason why Mirena has to die, except that Vlad’s unhappiness is incomplete without him having to kill his beloved wife. In this particular example, all of Dracula’s immortal unending manpain is due to Mirena begging him to become an evil monster to avenge her and defeat the Turks. So Dracula is just a good guy who gets to suffer an eternity of torment because he loves his wife and kills her just like she asks him to. Some women are just never satisfied.
Here’s the video in which Sarkesian lays out her critique. Give it a watch; it’s disturbing to realize how widespread this trope is in video games. I enjoy video games, and I’ve played my share of them over the years. So I’m not hostile to video games or even video game violence. But I am hostile to the sort of misogyny that Sarkesian is calling out.
So why do I think you shouldn’t go see this film? Because you’d be giving money to a movie that has decided to embrace one of the most disturbingly misogynist tropes in modern storytelling, and in so doing, you’d be rewarding Hollywood for sinking to this level and encouraging the use of this device in more films. Hollywood obsessively reproduces whatever sells, and if this film sells well, it will encourage more Hollywood movies to delve into video game misogyny. There is, of course, already talk of a sequel; the studio seems to be hoping for a franchise. Avoiding this film would be a small gesture, but honestly, this movie isn’t good enough on its merits to justify your money anyway. Wait until it comes to Netflix, and then watch something else instead.
Want to Know More?
Don’t see this movie. Read the book instead; it’s much better. Here’s the Kindle edition of Dracula
Stefan Pascu has written a couple histories of Transylvania, so if you want to learn about the region, you might try his A History of Transylvania. However, I haven’t read it, so I can’t really vouch for it.
I
An Historian Goes to the Movies 
Excellent article. I wasn’t aware there was quite so much history there with the Turks. My audience was laughing by the time the first battle ended. I personally lost it when the Turks get his son safely from the cliff tower to the valley in less time than it takes him to fly to his wife as a cloud of superbats. It was just a terrible movie, but I still think I hate 300 the Second a little bit more.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, I noticed that time glitch with the son as well. Another issue for me was the fight at the end. It’s cloudy enough outside for the vampires and yet sunny in Mehmet’s tent, and even though Drac is stronger than 100 men, he’s not stronger than Mehmed. Drac suffers from serious Plot-Induced Weakness
LikeLiked by 1 person
Certain comments about the historical stuff you mention (although generally speaking you get it right):
Targiste = Targoviste, capital of Wallachia until Vlad changed it to Bucharest (supposedly 1456)
“Vlad was arrested by the king of Hungary, for reasons that are still unclear.” – Vlad had executed a large number of German merchants in Transylvania (he had crossed the border to do so, the equivalent of the US president today ordering executions in, say, Mexico?) because they were harbouring a rival pretender to the throne. For similar reasons, he revoked their special rights to trade in Wallachia (throughout the times, the German merchants of Brasov had special rights to trade in Wallachia and Moldova, which I believe granted them discounts in fees and taxes). They obviously didn’t like him much as a result of that, so the stories you mentioned at the beginning of the article came to light. Matthias Corvinus used those stories to arrest Vlad. It is said that he did so because he had received a lot of money from the Papacy to help Vlad fight the Turks, but had spent it on other things instead so he justified his lack of help by painting Vlad as a murderer and unworthy of being supported.
“Some time later, however, the king patched things up with Vlad, let him out of prison, and let him marry his daughter Ilona” – Ilona was Matthias’ cousin, not his daughter. To my knowledge, Matthias had no children – definitely no legitimate ones 🙂
“He was succeeded by his son Vlad IV” – He was succeeded by Laiota Basarab, who was a rival claimant from a different branch of the family. Laiota initially maintained Vlad’s policies of fighting the Turks, which was why he was assisted by Vlad’s supporters, but soon turned to paying tribute and basically submitting the country as an Ottoman vassal, which is a situation that continued up to 1877, as most of the rulers after him decided it was too difficult to keep the ongoing fight and the ones who decided to fight saw their life expectancy seriously reduced by that particular decision. Vlad in Romania is seen as a bit of a hero, since he was the last truly independent ruler of Wallachia.
The only son of Vlad the Impaler’s to rule was Mihnea “the Evil” who ruled 1508-1509, about 30 years after his death.
Just nitpicking, hope you don’t mind 🙂
LikeLike
As I admit, I’m definitely not an expert on Eastern Europe. So thanks for the response.
1) thanks for catching that typo.
2) you’re right–upon a deeper look, most of the secondary sources call her a cousin. Change made.
3) that’s the fourth explanation I’ve seen for his arrest. I’m not familiar enough with the sources to judge the best answer. So I’m sticking with my original statement that the reason is unclear.
4) I think you’re right. Trying to track down the answer on this issue is very confusing. I need to do more research, so perhaps I’ll just cut that reference out.
Again, thank you.
LikeLike
Would very much like to point out another, albeit small, mistake.
“…to be raised as Janissaries (since Janissaries were slaves)…”. I’m afraid that this statement is incorrect, the janissaries were all christian citizens of the countries controlled by Turkey at the time (including Romania). It didn’t matter if a person was a prince or a slave, at that time they were chosen mostly at random.
Interesting fact: The janissaries were actually a very elite guild and most of the grand veziers in the divan (ministers in the turkish government) were actually high ranking janissaries. I said that they chose people at random at this certain time period because as time passed people actually started bribing the turks in an attempt to get their children into the janissary guild. Some actual turkish muslims pretended that they were christians with the same aspiration.
P.S. For me the armor and weapons depicted in the movies were laughable, no connection to reality at all.
LikeLike
While I am not an expert on Ottoman history, all the information that I’ve been able to find confirms that the Janissaries corps did function as slaves. Military slaves are actually a fairly common thing in medieval Islamic cultures, the most famous example being the Egyptian Mamluks. The Janissary system was based on the devshirme, a mandatory tribute of young Christian boys who, not being Muslims, could therefore be enslaved before being converted to Islam. The fact that they possessed substantial influence with the Turkish government did not preclude their slavery, and in fact one term for them was ‘slaves of the Porte’ (the Ottoman government). The devshirme system was only abolished in the later 17th century. Certainly many people wanted to become Janissaries because of their various legal privileges, but that doesn’t mean that genuine Janissaries were not, at their core, slaves.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your comment, “…it suddenly veers into one of the most horrifically misogynistic tropes developed by the video game industry.” and the remainder of the post mystify me. It is as if Dracula Untold and all the other terrible films like it are some how the fault of pasty-white game playing single men who live in their mother’s basement. I wonder… did misogynistic damsels not exist before Pong? I understand that video games have a problem with how they depict women, but as you’ve pointed out in almost all of the movies you’ve reviewed – so does the film industry. This trope is not simply a video game, movie, or book issue, it its a human issue. By ignoring this fact this post is nothing more than a hit piece that relies on its own tropes to propagate fallacies and be just as destructive as the “…horrifically misogynistic tropes developed by the video game industry.” you rail against.
LikeLike
My point is that while Damsels in Distress are a staple of modern film and video games, the Euthanatized Damsel is, as far as I can think of it, a fairly new development, and one that it much more prevalent in video games than film. I am struggling to think of another example of a film in which the hero has to kill his wife/girlfriend/lover because she begs him to do it. Perhaps there are one or two examples in horror films I haven’t seen, but I can’t think of one. So it seems to me likely that this is a trope that the film borrowed from video games. However, even if I am wrong and this is an independent development in cinema, my basic point still stands. It’s a horrifically misogynist idea and I think people should avoid the film because of it.
“This trope is not simply a video game, movie, or book issue, it its a human issue” I’m confused. Where in regular human existence do women beg their husbands or boy friends to kill them so that the husband/bf can get vengeance on someone else? The trope acts to normalize and valorize domestic abuse, but it doesn’t actually reproduce an actual situation that normal men and women find themselves in.
LikeLike
I think we both agree that the trope is rarely appropriate. As far as films, X-Men 3: The Last Stand came to mind for me… Wolverine kills Phoenix/Jean Gray at her insistence. I searched for other examples and found a few, but had either not seen the film or it had been sometime since I’d seen it so I didn’t feel justified in using them as examples. My main point is that your post seemed to focus on video games as the impetus for misogyny alone which I was trying to point out in my poorly written second paragraph is a human issue – not simply the Euthanatized Damsels misogynist trope part of it. The content of Video Games, TV, Movies, and Books are symptomatic of our humanity, so to call one out as some sort of cause ignores the larger picture and does little to move the debate to the true source – it just divides people into their camps and distracts from the more important issue “Don’t go see Dracula Untold”
LikeLike
You’re right about X-Men 3–I’d forgotten that example (although I think that was mostly a solution to the problem of the massive changes they made to the Phoenix Saga in the comics, which handled Jean Grey’s death in a much better fashion).
I’m certainly not trying to suggest that video games are the source of all misogyny. Hollywood was doing a perfectly good job of that long before video games even existed. Certainly the tendency to turn the spectacle of female terror into entertainment is a major problem in film-making since the 80s. But given that the Euthanized Damsel is more common in video games than films, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest that video games might have had an influence on the story of the film. There’s a good deal of cross-pollination between film, tv, books, and now video games, with them trading tropes and story ideas the way bacteria swap DNA.
And even if I am wrong, and there is no cross-pollination here, I think that Sarkesian’s video does a good job of explaining how the trope works and what’s problematic about it.
Finally, I want to repeat, I’m not attacking video games as a form of activity. I certainly enjoy them when I have the time to play, and I enjoy a good first-person shooter as much as a resource management game. I just find that particular trope in videos to be a problem worth discussing.
LikeLike
uh… It’s a f..kin movie!! Not a history lesson nor a political statement, get over yourself and quit projecting your own bs!!
LikeLike
As ive said, there’s no such thing as ‘just a movie’ when so much of our culture is revelving around films.
LikeLike
Dude, this blog is specifically about an historian reviewing movies for historical content. If you don’t want that, go elsewhere.
LikeLike
Now I am trying to imagine what a historically accurate (excuse me “an historically accurate) “Dracula is a vampire” film would look like. I mean, Vlad was, even in the best light, a terrifying and ruthless man, even by the somewhat lax standards of the 15th C, so one could see him embracing hideous blood-drinking unlife just for the entertainment value, but you think he would have spent more of his centuries messing the the Ottoman and Holy Roman Empires. What stopped him?
PS, I really can’t imagine watching this film. The trailer made it look like Wrath of the Titans — stitched together cut scenes from a video game, which might be fun to play but somewhat less fun to just watch. And now you tell me its worse than that….
LikeLiked by 1 person
What makes you think Dracula -didn’t-spend time messing with the Ottomans and the HRE? Maybe he’s the reason both gradually declined into impotence.
LikeLike
Headcanon accepted!
By the way I really liked the movie. It is silly but tells a good story in my opinion.
I agree with you that Radu would be better choice of antagonist, that dynamic was already there, just name was different, but since Mehmet is probably more famous…
As for mysoginistic Euthanized Damsel, I am female and I had no issue with that. Yeah, it would be better if they spelled out why he did not turn her – be it technicalities or him not wishing to bestow such terrible fate upon her, when she is destined to heaven, or something else. It did not happen and that is pity, but pretty minor one in my opinion. It might be an act of violence, but not an act of hostility, punishment or oppression. She asks him while already dying (ridiculous conditions of fall aside). He can’t possibly make her worse and she does not cause him more grief by this request than certain soldier already did by causing her fall. She actually gives him opportunity to save last family he still has – their son. “So Dracula is just a good guy who gets to suffer an eternity of torment because he loves his wife and kills her just like she asks him to. Some women are just never satisfied.” did not cross my mind at all. I saw a last gift and assurement, that he needed. Her status as plot device rather than character might be of issue, but this scene in itself is hardly of greater offense.
But let’s say, she would die imediatelly, like reality demands and he would drink her blood after that, without any directions from her. Would that be ok?
LikeLike
Well it’s nothing new, The Turks are always made out to be an evil meanwhile the bad guy’s are the hero’s….
See:
Lawrence of Arabia
Speed train
midnight Express
Atilla
and some anti muslim movies…
LikeLike
Yusuf, I would agree. Comparatively few Western movies have treated Turks as anything other than villains. As I recall, there’s a decent Turk in the Bond film From Russia with Love, but he’s a fairly minor figure. I haven’t seen Atilla, but that would be a full 1000 years too early for Turks.
LikeLike
Anita Sarkeesian.
..really?
LikeLike
Yup. Sarkeesian does an excellent job of explaining the problem with this trope, so I think it’s reasonable to reference her explanation.
LikeLike
No, she does not. She’s a fraud, and I can explain for ages to you why. Heck, just look at Thunderf00ts videos on the matter.
LikeLike
This is a blog about movies, so I’m not especially interested in digressing into a debate about video games. Even if Sarkeesian’s analysis doesn’t hold up for video games (I think it does, but let’s conjecture), her analysis of the trope can still be accurate for films, so whether her ideas hold up in regards to games is not entirely relevant. My argument in the post is that Mirena’s death is an example of Sarkeesian’s Euthanized Damsel trope, and that the trope in question is misogynistic. So tell me why that argument is wrong. Is Mirena’s death not an example of the Euthanized Damsel? Is that trope not misogynistic?
Also, calling Sarkesian a ‘fraud’ is an ad hominem attack that in no way affects the truth (or lack thereof) of her argument. Stick to critiquing her ideas, please.
LikeLike
Would you have been alright with it if it was a man who fell, and then asked him to kill him? I mean, c’mon. Who cares? It’s a movie about a man who loses everything to save his people, and people are getting a hissyfit over the fact that his wife asked him to feed on her?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not sure that would have made it a better movie, but it would have made it a much less misogynistic one.
What you’re overlooking here is that Dracula Untold doesn’t exist within a vacuum. It exists within a long, firmly entrenched tradition of films in which women are kidnapped, raped, or killed in order to provide the hero with the pain that becomes his motivation for violence. In this film, Mirena’s character exists entirely to die; she has no other function in the story. In a vacuum, that doesn’t mean much, but in the context of a long line of films, tv shows, and video games that do the same thing, it’s misogynistic. Patterns mean something, and in this case, the pattern is that women’s lives are meaningless and expendable for male entertainment.
You say that no one cares. Obviously that’s not true. You care, or you wouldn’t be arguing that this trope is acceptable. The fact that you want to defend this trope, as so many other guys on the internet do, says that you see something at stake here. I don’t know what you see as the stake, but lots of other guys clearly feel threatened by the idea that there is something wrong with enjoying the spectacle of female fear, suffering and death.
Mirena doesn’t “ask” Dracula “to feed on her”. She begs him to kill her. She literally asks him to engage in the ultimate act of violence against someone. Given that a lot of male on female violence is justified by claims that the victim was “asking for it”, this film is very problematically showing violence against women as being a positive thing and suggesting that men become stronger for doing so. After all, Dracula gets eternal inhuman power and the ability to punish the bad guys by killing his wife, and she wants him to do it.
There’s no such thing as “just a movie”. If movies didn’t matter, Hollywood wouldn’t spend so much money on these films, people wouldn’t drop so much money to see them, and our media and culture wouldn’t spend so much time celebrating them. Films teach their audiences things. They teach the audience about the past, about the present, about how men and women should act and interact, and about good and evil. So it matters a great deal when a big-budget film teaches its audience that male lives matter more than female lives, and that male violence against women is sometimes morally justified, especially when the woman asks for it.
LikeLike
Well, if you actually watched the movie, it is implied that she wants him to do so, so that he can save his son and get revenge on the people who wronged him and his people.
People aren’t just gonna go outside and start beating on women to become stronger just because they saw this one scene in a fictional fucking movie with -vampires-.
He could’ve gotten the same damn strength if he fed on a man.
LikeLike
Yes, in the film she does ask him to do it. (And, for the record, I don’t review films I haven’t watched.) That’s part of the problem. Mirena’s not a real person, so the screenwriter could have given her any dialog, experiences, and motives he wanted to, because he wasn’t bound by any historical facts (not that that seems to have troubled him anywhere else in the film). But he chose to write her as a woman who asks her husband to kill her. This is the point that Sarkesian in making in her video–when the people who script movies and video games get to women, they choose to write women as victims more than heroes; they choose to write women literally asking the hero to kill them for the greater good. This film situates Dracula’s killing of his wife as a heroic sacrifice, without bothering to consider that it’s telling the audience that there are situations in which a man killing his wife is the right choice.
You’re right. One movie is not going to make a guy go out and kill a woman. But repeated exposure to the idea that killing women can be heroic, especially when women “ask for it” may help a man justify that sort of violence, because seeing it in movies or playing through it in video games helps normalize it and make it seem less bad.
Yes, Dracula could have gotten the same strength from feeding on a man. So why didn’t the screenwriter write the story that way? Why did he choose to depict Dracula killing his wife, instead of his son, his best friend, or his gay lover? Why did the screenwriter choose to tell the story the way he did?
My argument is that he made that choice because other films and video games have made similar choices in the past, so they’ve laid down a cultural ‘groove’ that a man killing his wife/gf is an acceptable and heroic in some situations. By showing these ideas, films help normalize them and make them seem acceptable.
LikeLike
At the time, what choice was there in the movie? Did you really think he was just oging to say; “Sorry, I can’t bite you or the SJW will get me, we’ll just sit here and die and let our son become a slave for the turks, that’s great.” The sun was rising, they were out of time.
Films aren’t normalizing anything, it’s just a cliché thing in movies. I’m not sure about you, but I’m 100% people don’t go; “I’m going to beat my wife to gain heroic powers because the movie made it seem acceptable!” No, that doesn’t happen. If a man kills a woman, it’s because he’s crazy, not because he watched a movie. Are you the type of person that believes movies and video games are the cause of some violence in this world?
LikeLike
Youre not acknowledging that the screenwriter can write whatever story he wants. DU is essentially new ground in Dracula stories, so the writer was free to make up ANYTHING he wanted. He didnt have to have Mirena as a character at all, much less have her fall off a balcony. The writer actively chose to tell a stiry in Dracula killing his wife was a heroic thing to do. So the writer bears full responsibility for the morality of the story he chose to tell. You cant justify misogyny by saying Dracula had to kill Mirena because she was dying when she doesnt have to die, fall, or even exist at all. You keep trying to say that movies dont matter, that they don’t influence anyone. But the fact that you’re arguing so persistently makes it clear that this movie HAS influenced you. If it hadn’t influenced you, you wouldn’t care that I’ve pointed out something negative about it. And if the film has influenced you, it can influence other people. By asserting that only crazy people do bad things like kill women, you’ve made a classic mistake that I warn my history students not to make. When you say someone is crazy, you don’t have to figure out why they did what they did, because ceazy people don’t need reasons. But the study of the past teaches us that people do things for reasons. They get their ideas somewhere, from something in their culture. Misogynistic films encourage misogyny; they don’t cause it, but they make it seem more reasonable. So yes, a film like thus helps normalize misogyny. Again, there’s no such thing as ‘just a movie’ when such a huge section of our culture and economy revolve around film.
LikeLike
I have to argue because what I’m reading here is just so infuriating.
The movie was not even that good, honestly.
I just despise the argument; “media causes violence!!!111111”
LikeLike
If that’s why you’re arguing, you’re not reading my argument, because I have never said that movies cause violence. I’ve said that the media are a factor in violence, which is quite a different thing.
As I tell my students, monocausal answers are always wrong. Anything major always has multiple causes and multiple factors that shape it. It would be absurd to say that any one thing causes violence. Violence existed long before the modern media, so I’d be an idiot to make a simple direct causal argument. What you’re essentially arguing is that nothing causes violence–it must just happen without anything influence how and why it happens.
As a scholar, my current research project is looking at why students at the university of Oxford were so violent (14th century Oxford appears to have had a homicide rate only comparable to the most violent slums of South America). My conclusions at this point in my research are that student violence was caused by numerous factors, including the age of students (14-25 year olds are consistently throughout time far more violent than any other segment of the population), easy access to weapons and alcohol, poor supervision, a legal environment in which they were unlikely to be punished seriously for violence, economic disputes with the non-student portion of the town, and group identities that encouraged them to engage in violence against those outside the group. So there were lots of factors.
And I’m arguing that when modern violence happens, cinematic violence plays a role not in causing the violence, but in shaping it. When a man decides to be violent, who does he decide to be violent against, and why? Why do some guys decide to kill their wives, while others kill their coworkers, or police, or ethnic minorities? Violent men make choices and those choices are affected by their ideas about the world and how it works. Their ideas about how the world works are partly shaped by the media, but also by religion, economics, politics, and other factors.
LikeLike
You wanna know the reason? It’s because they are -fucking- crazy.
LikeLike
Even if only crazy people commit violence, which is a shallow argument, especially in the face of the massive violence of the 20th century, that doesn’t explain why violent people choose the targets theh choose. I’ve already explained why that argument is flawed.
However, I’ve explained my position to you, and i’ve given you reasons for my positions. Your only response has basically been to say ‘no’, without offering any attempt to refute my analysis or offer any evidence or explanation. You’ve fundimentally mischaracterized my argument and failed to actually think about anything I’ve said. If this were a paper by one of my students, I’d give you an F, because making an unsupported assertion repeatedly isn’t actually an argument. So at this point I’m going to wrap up the discussion and say ‘have a nice day!’
LikeLike
I’d like to add, that they choose her as victim, because it was tragic. It is not heroic moment, it is tragic moment. It would be hard to come up with more fateful and sad scenario. Also, because there is a tradition of sort since that Coppola film, that wife falling from tower was his start of darkness. She was conventional choice not because she is woman and that is what is done to women, but because she has most potential for emotional impact. I do not think that intended or unintended message is that women are expendable and fit for harming. Rather that it is really grievous, that if there is something worth of starting a rampage, it is harm to your beloved partner and child.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow, I have to say I didn’t expect a “discussion” like this here. Maybe on YouTube. While I haven’t seen the movie, or played any video games that would be considered misogynistic (mostly I play World of Warcraft and the Sly Cooper series), I would definitely agree that video games, movies and television greatly influence what we think and feel, both positively and negatively. How much more difficult would it be for say the gay rights movement, if so many shows didn’t help people see they’re people, not freaks (though to be honest, video games are not really helping that particular movement). So I can definitely see where this trope could affect society’s feelings toward violence against women if it continues to be used as much as it seems to be. Just my two cents.
P.S. After reading your review, I will probably not bother to see Dracula. I wasn’t that interested in it before, now even less so.
LikeLike
Pingback: Why There Is No Such Thing As “Just a Movie” | An Historian Goes to the Movies
Pingback: Things I Have Learned from This Blog | An Historian Goes to the Movies
Instead of reading what critics say everyone… Why don’t you just do your own resource on Vlad the I. If we had a man like this in power then there would be no crimes, or law breaking or anything that is wrong… He was a hero in some ways by punishing those who done wrong or even those that are rich and would not help the poor…Hell I think we need another VLAD in the world today where everyone that thinks they know everything about everyone and is critics when they wasn’t in that time period. I just think we would know more about VLAD or lived in that time in order to be a critic about Vlad. Sorry I’m a critic of critics & I love history & I even made my History teachers feel stupid as well because I knew more than they thought they did. But again opinions are like everyone having a butt hole because everyone has one… lol
LikeLike
Pingback: Dracula Untold: Why Vlad Dracula Wasn’t A Vampire | An Historian Goes to the Movies
oooo westert people and your fake heros, since dracula is not real, then all what they talk about ottoman is also not real! all your life is fake, fake heros fake histories fake religion fake faka fake!
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is a reason they call it ….historical fiction. My only inclination is that something got under your skin and rubbed you the wrong way. If that’s all you got say about the movie….I encourage everyone to see it. As for me I don’t let other individuals opinions suade me as most don’t have the mental capacity to realize the underlining nuances of great fill making.
Peace
LikeLike
It’s definitely historical fiction, but that doesn’t make it good. It’s filled with showy bits that look cool in the surface–armies marching at night and blindfolded! Parapets over huge chasms! Castles in the middle of flat plains!–that upon a moment’s reflection are revealed to be nonsensical. And, as I’ve said, it’s revoltingly sexist in its use of the Euthanized Damsel trope.
As for the mental capacity of others to judge film-making, you’re not the only one who can assert that.
LikeLike
I think ”Dracula” comes from the Knight Order Vlad belonged to, Order of the Dragon, “drakons” aka ‘dragons’, of Hungarian origin and founded by Sigismund around 1408. As Wallachia was subject territory to the Hungarian Court Vlad had to be part of tis order…’drac’ means devil/demon in Romanian so it was believed for a long time his name Vlad Dracul refers to his devilish habits but it just meant he belonged to that specific Knights Order (sorry to spoil the fun :)…also,in terms of violence, European history is filled with it and I’m not even sure we want to read about it… In terms of myth and vampires there is a creature in Romanian folklore called ‘moroi’ something like a spirit that haunts the living which can only be stopped by piercing te heart of the body wit a wooden spike…last time I heard of this was a few years ago, in Wallachia, done by a priest in a village in Dolj county
LikeLike
Yes, I explain that point about ‘Dracula’ in the post.
LikeLike
I recently watched the movie, and I wish I hadn’t. It was bad, and so inaccurate. The only good thing I could say about it is that it rekindle the fire to re-read my copy of Dracula.
Anyways, you did pretty well with the historical facts. And you are in luck, I just so happen to study dear old Vlad’s bloodline and history.
Did you know, Vlad himself is a younger brother? Vlad II had numerous mistresses and several illegitimate children, two of which were named, Vlad Călugărul (born 1425) and Mircea. But he did have three legitimate children, another son named Mircea II with his first wife, Vlad III, and Radu.
Mircea II of Wallachia was born 1428. He would have been 2-3 when Vlad III was born Nov. 14 1431. Radu was born 1435. Mircea II ascended to the throne in 1442, as Vlad Dracul was in the Ottoman court negotiating for support from the Ottomans in an effort to better defend his rule against John Hunyadi, the voivode of Transylvania. Following the battle of Marosszentimre (Romanian Sântimbru) in 1442, Hunyadi forcefully entered Wallachia and forced Dracul to submit.[2] In 1443, Mircea II was ousted from the throne by an invading army led by Hunyadi, and was forced to flee. Hunyadi placed Basarab II, son to Dan II, on the throne. However, Basarab II held the throne for only a short time, losing it within a year to Vlad Dracul, supported by armies of the Ottoman Empire. Vlad Dracul had made a treaty with the Ottomans insuring that he would give them annual tribute, as well as sending Wallachian boys to them yearly to be trained for service in their armies. He also had left his two sons, Vlad Tepes and Radu the Handsome, with the Ottomans.
(Mircea II would have been 13-14 years old when he ruled. Vlad III would have been 10-11 when he was used as a hostage. Radu 6-7.)
(Since Varna was mentioned in the movie, I thought I should add this here too): In 1443, the new King of Hungary, Ulaszlo I (also King of Poland as Władysław III Warneńczyk), launched the Varna campaign against the Ottoman Empire, under the command of Hunyadi, in an effort to drive the Turks out of Europe. Hunyadi demanded that Vlad II fulfill his oath as a member of the Order of the Dragon and a vassal of Hungary: Vlad was commanded to join the campaign but declined.
Pope Eugene IV absolved Dracul of his promise, but demanded that he send his son Mircea II instead (it is likely that Vlad II had originally denied the request in an effort to prevent his sons from being convoked). The Christian army was destroyed in the Battle of Varna; Hunyadi escaped the scene, and was blamed by many, including Mircea II and his father. This started the hostilities between Hunyadi and Vlad II and Mircea II. (Mircea would have been 14-16 at the time since the Battle of Varna didn’t end until 1444. Vlad III 11-13. Radu 7-9)
(On the Ottoman’s side: Mehmet II did not lead the Battle of Varna. No, it was his predecessor/father who did.: After failed expeditions in 1440–2 against Belgrade and Transylvania, and the defeats of the “long campaign” of Hunyadi in 1442–3, the Ottoman sultan Murad II signed a ten-year truce with Hungary. After he had made peace with the Karaman Emirate in Anatolia in August 1444, he resigned the throne to his twelve-year-old son Mehmed II.
Anticipating an Ottoman invasion encouraged by the young and inexperienced new Ottoman sultan, Hungary co-operated with Venice and Pope Eugene IV to organize a new crusader army led by Hunyadi and Władysław III. On receipt of this news, Mehmet II understood that he was too young and inexperienced to successfully fight the coalition. He recalled Murad II to the throne to lead the army into battle, but Murad II refused. Angry at his father, who had long since retired to a contemplative life in southwestern Anatolia, Mehmed II wrote, “If you are the Sultan, come and lead your armies. If I am the Sultan I hereby order you to come and lead my armies.” It was only after receiving this letter that Murad II agreed to lead the Ottoman army.)
Mircea II supported his father, but did not support his politics with the Ottoman Empire. Mircea II led Wallachian forces in a successful campaign against the Ottomans with the full knowledge of his father, but with neither support nor opposition from him. An able military commander, Mircea II successfully recaptured the fortress of Giurgiu in 1445. However, in yet another treaty with the Ottomans, his father allowed the Ottomans to again have control of the fortress in an effort to retain their support of his having the throne, and in an effort to keep his two captive sons safe.
(Mircea II would have been 16-17. Vlad III 13-14. Radu 9-10)
In 1447, Hunyadi launched yet another attack against Wallachia, once more defeating the armies supporting Vlad Dracul and Mircea II, forcing Vlad Dracul to flee. Mircea II, however, was captured by boyars from Târgoviște, tortured and was blinded with a red-hot poker, then buried alive. Shortly after, on December 2, 1447 in the marshes near Balteni, Vlad II was killed by boyars. (Mircea would have been 18-19 when he died. Vlad 16. Radu 11 or 12.)
In 1457, the townsfolk of Târgoviște were punished by Vlad III Dracula for their involvement in the assassination of his brother: the elite of city was killed, while the young people were sent to work at his Poenari Castle.
Vlad III had three sons. The first, Mihnea I, was born through either a mistress or his first wife. (No document has been found to provide evidence of a first marriage.) He had two sons with his wife, Ilona (Jusztina) Szilágyi. Vlad whom Vlad III called “Tepelus” (Little Impaler), and Mircea (disputed name).
Mihnea did not rule right after Vlad. In fact, it was Vlad’s older brother, Vlad Călugărul. After Vlad III’s death, Basarab Laiotă cel Bătrân was restored to the throne, only to be pushed off by Basarab Ţepeluş cel Tânăr in November, 1477. Vlad C. first took the throne in 1481, losing it shortly afterward to Basarab Ţepeluş cel Tânăr, with Vlad regaining the throne in 1482, after which he would reign until 1495. In 1495, he helped build St. Nicholas Church, in Braşov, Transylvania. There is nothing historically that suggests his death that same year was anything other than natural. His fairly long reign by comparison to those before him was due in part to his having the support of Stephen III of Moldavia. He was succeeded by his son, Radu cel Mare, who would reign until 1508, when he was ousted by his nephew Mihnea cel Rău, son of Vlad III.
Mihnea was Voivode (Prince) of Wallachia from 1508 to 1509, having replaced his first cousin Radu cel Mare. During his reign, he ruled alongside his son Mircea III Dracul in the year 1509. Unpopular among the boyars, he was overthrown with Ottoman assistance, prompting him to take refuge in Transylvania. After he fled Wallachia in 1510 while being pursued by the Craiovescu faction, he was finally cornered in the Roman Catholic Church of Sibiu where he was attending Mass. As he was leaving the service, he was stabbed by hired assassin Dimitrije Iaxici, a Serbian partisan of the Craiovescu faction. Mihnea is buried in this church and can still be visited today.
Historical documents reveal the two women whom Mihnea married. His first wife, Smaranda, died before 1485. His second, Voica, was widowed by Mihnea’s assassination. She raised their two sons, Miloș and Mircea III Dracul , and their daughter Ruxandra, and continued to reside in Sibiu, Transylvania. It is known that Mihnea had taken a preference to his younger son Mircea III Dracul, whom he named after his great-grandfather Mircea cel Bătrân.
His daughter Ruxandra later married Moldavian Prince Bogdan III cel Orb.
He was rumored to have had a second son, Morsus Atrum, born in 1508, at the beginning of his father’s reign.
Mihnea was dubbed “Cel Rău” meaning “the Bad” or “the Evil One” by Vlad’s enemies, the Craiovești faction of boyars. One of Mihnea’s most vocal enemies was a monk named Gavril Protul who was an abbot and chronicler of this time period. He described Mihnea’s actions as follows: “As soon as Mihnea began to rule he at once abandoned his sheep’s clothing and plugged up his ears like an asp…. He took all the greater boyars captive, worked them hard, cruelly confiscated their property, and even slept with their wives in their presence. He cut off the noses and lips of some, others he hanged, and still others drowned.” Mihnea retaliated by resorting to his father’s terror tactics, but did not reach proportions of his father due to time and opportunity.
His son, Mircea III. It is known that Mircea was a physically strong and brutal man since he had caught some of the boyars involved in his father’s assassination, and killed them with his bare hands. He also tried to erase Mircea II’s name and use the title (Mircea II) as his own. He was married to Maria Despina and was the father of Alexandru II Mircea and Peter the Lame. (I don’t remember exactly, but I think I read somewhere that he was poisoned.)
As said, I have a real interest in Vlad’s history. I apologize if I talked your ears off, but it bugs me a bit that people forget Vlad’s entire family. This movie really bugged me with that. If you are going to do a movie based on a historical figure, they should really do their damn research.
LikeLike
Thanks for good summaarization.
LikeLike
I thoroughly enjoyed the movie… ive seen most cinematic vampire dracula esque movies ever made.. and have read Bram Stoker’s Dracula… the beginning.. a fictional tale i believe… so historically not lived… but your history lesson was great… a lot i was unaware of… but i believe the movie set out to give a beginning to Bram Stoker’s character… a romantic vampire who found love for Mina Harker… and so on… so as for this movie… the somewhat confused historical depiction of a vampire… or his possible real life counterpart… we as the viewers that love vampire or dracula stories KNOW its fantasy… and enjoy the feature as it is intended… to entertain… as for say joining the dots… the past as explained in Francis Ford Copellas movie… about the religious and human side of Dracula.. i think the movie hit the spot…
I once worked with an historian… her gripe was with Gladiator…. apparently the tent scene in Germania were civil war tents from america…. and as i pointed out to her… it doesnt detract from a good movie…
As for the mysoginist look to Mirena’s death… in all stories of Dracula… his love does fall to her death?? So is it a misogynistic view from 200 years ago that the issue is with
did you know historically Bram wrote 12 novels…
There is this comic i once read on how Bram found his story… he came across this cave with a staked corpse in it… he pulled the stake… and alas dracula risen… can we debate this one next
LikeLike
“In all stories of Dracula, his love does fall to her death”. Nope. Only in this one. It’s totally made up for this movie, so there is no tradition the film needs to follow. It’s raw misogyny.
LikeLike
Okay, in fairness, that happens in the prologue to Francis Ford Coppola’s Bram Stoker’s Dracula, where Dracula’s wife, believing him to be killed in battle, jumps to her death (which is ultimately what motivates Dracula to become a vampire). She’s played by Winona Ryder in that film, who also plays Mina Harker, implied to be his wife reincarnated, which provides Dracula’s motivation for going after Mina–which is also what happens in the epilogue to this film.
So yeah, not saying it isn’t misogynistic. It is, but Coppola also takes a bit of the blame here.
LikeLike
Yes. This is a good example of how movies slowly shape a ‘canon’ for their characters. It’s the same with the addition of a black Muslim character to the Robin Hood corpus
LikeLike
Such Movies leads to misguidance, Wrong message is sent to the community and the whole world. If however, they make such movies, they must inform that it is fi is fictional video and has nothing to do with the living or non living beings. Otherwise such men have no rights to show wrong and insensible history through their stage acting.
LikeLike
I think Radu must have been included in some early draft of the script before his character was combined with Mehmet’s. That’s the only real explanation I can think of for how often they mention that the two were “like brothers.”
LikeLike
That’s a plausible reading. Or maybe they just wanted to try a milk a little extra unearned drama out of the central conflict
LikeLike
Eh, maybe it’s just wishful thinking on my part. I naively hoped going into this movie that it would make some attempt to build on the historical background of Vlad III in a more robust way. The rivalry between Vlad and Radu would make for a great film.
LikeLike
Seeing movie about rivalry between Vlad and Radu would be amazing. It is my fancy to imagine, that in Untold it is Radu and not Mehmet. I too hoped for a bit more accurate portrayal, but I think that what I got instead is not that bad either. In my opinion part of my fondness for the film is that I sense the potential it tapped into, some started, but unbuilt motions combined with good and bad ideas and halfsatysfied but unfulfilled I yearn for more. Tantalizing, that is what this movie is. And basicaly middle-ages batman.
LikeLike
Also, love the part about Stalin movie 600 years from now. Deliciously triggering idea and you have got a point there. 😀
LikeLike
If you are interested in a slightly more accurate film based on Vlad’s life I recommend the tv movie “Dark Prince: The True Story of Dracula” from 2000. Even though at the end it succumbs to temptation and more or less says Vlad ended up a vampire, before that it does stay pretty true to a coherent version of the historical records of his reign over Wallachia. Radu is a major character in the drama and Vlad’s wife is named Lidia.
Ironically the same year “Dark Prince” aired on tv, the actor (Rudolf Martin) who played Vlad showed up on the show “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” as ‘Count Dracula’. Also Vlad made an appearance in another history skirting tv series “Da Vinci’s Demons”, where they claimed he was struck by lightning and had a spider web scare on his face.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your stupid this whole blog was stupid and I hope you die white a spear I Impaled through your ass
LikeLike
Do you normally plan to murder total strangers for minor irritations?
LikeLiked by 1 person
With all due respect, but you are far from the history of the Balkans. This film is a sad metaphor. Don’t look for realism in a fantasy story. But keep a few things in mind. He told you about Vlad, based on the pamphlets and slanders of the affected foreign traders. You have not made a historical reference to the punishments imposed at that time in the rest of Europe and in the Ottoman Empire. And most importantly, many men in this part of Europe at the time had to make impossible choices … To kill their children and their wives to save them from abuse, rape and slow death; or to refuse to become murderers, but to witness the listed abuses … 😦
LikeLike