Ahem. Ok this is a bit tricky, so run with me when I get ….vague….and ask questions where ever you feel necessary.

Ok, Freud 101 here, very basic. The human mind consists of three areas. The Id, the ego and the super ego. The Id consists of all your desires, unrestrained. Your desire for gratification. Freud split this into 2 separate entities, Eros the love drive and pleasure principle (sex, food, warmth etc) and Thanatos, the death drive (violent thoughts.) Newborn babies are Id alone. They soon however develop an Ego. This is in response to the realisation that you are an individual, not a part of the amorphous mass before you, and being incapable of obtaining instant gratification. It supplies defence from the Id by re-routing it, deceiving (sublimation and delayed gratification etc.) Over time a child develops a super ego. This again is in two parts. The conscience, the morality installed in you by your upbringing (parents, school, TV, the ideological state apparatus.) And the Ego-ideal, your perfect image of yourself that you judge your actions against. Very basic, but the gist of the beast, now its time to run with me…..

Ok. The first vampires. The folk tale monsters were merely beasts that drank the blood of the living. They were in essence, Id alone. Dealing only with the instant gratification of the vampire, with no sense of it as an individual person. Most monsters are, at core a representation of unrelenting Id (Mr. Hyde anyone?) and the more violent beasties are clearly Thanatos alone, with little trace of Eros.

Now once the poets got hold of vampires they changed. The literary vampire, while still remaining a monster, had an Ego. They were individuals, with names and they displayed the ability to delay gratification. Dracula fell in love with Mina at the sight of her picture and had to wait until he arrived in England. However these early vamps were monsters. They killed without concern and their morality was not explored. They are in essence, devoid of a super ego. Essentially children (see where I’m going?)

The modern vampire has developed a super ego. Vampires are split into two groups. Those who kill humans and those who don’t. Evil vampires and good vampires. Ones without morality and those with. Louis and Angel are obvious examples of your good vampire, but most vampire films follow the ‘protagonist or friend gets nipped and they don’t wanna be evil so they go ‘a huntin’ for blood sucker.’ They have a conscience that doesn’t allow for the death of humans, and will punish with guilt and their ego ideal is the humanity that they have lost.

All three of these Vampire Types exist in modern cinema, the earlier ones generally in a lazy absence of characterisation. But the myth of the Vampire has evolved, and their character has developed like that of a human mind. This is amazing, and such a wonderful statement of the strength of the myth.

There are however problems. Modern vampires are flawed. Something has gone wrong and the modern vampire is, in a sense mentally ill.

The super ego is that of a human. In order to relate the stories protagonist to the audience, they give it the audiences morality and ego ideal. (the ‘what would you do in that situation?’ idea) A super ego that denies them their highly developed Thanatos nature. In order to evolve, to outgrow the hideous stereotypes that today bog down the sub genre the vampire must be seen ON FILM to reject the morality and ego ideal of humanity and to develop its own. One that allows them to display their nature whilst truly understanding and appreciating it. The procreative act of the vampire is a violent one, a symbolic rape. Their Thanatos acts as our Eros does. In other words they must be seen to appreciate destruction the way we see creation. As beautiful and artistic.

This is no mean feat. It denies some major conventions of cinema, firstly it involves an audience to think, secondly its protagonists would, in human terms be morally corrupt, and so the film would need to involve the audience in a way that all but a few are able to do.

The film must also recognise the history of the vampire myth, in order to show its evolution, to pay homage to and be respectful of the classic vampires in our cultural texts while decimating those that strangle the current vampire. This is post modernism in essence, to apply what has gone before to effect the present.

This is largely what the script I am struggling to write is about. As you can see I have a bit of a mission on my hands, but I’ve done quite a bit of the foot work, I’m hammering out narratives right now.
Ok, well, I’ve read through all that a few times. It’s a bit bare bones in comparison to the full theory but in the interest of remaining readable I’ll stick with it. As I say, gets a little sketchy at times so please ask or argue any points you see or any ideas you have. I would be most appreciative of any and all thoughts.

Hmm. Development of vampire myth as a metaphor for society on the pattern of individual human development. Nice foundation there. If you can build good story on it, you're set!

Ai, there's the rub. The narrative is key and so vital it becomes a sunnofabitch to get all the aims into workable plot.

Why do you say it is socially metaphorical? True it follows human development behaviour but not social patterns. In order to be an effective allegory it would need to suggest human super egos were fatally flawed.

I’m not disagreeing with you, I’m just curious. I hadn’t really pitted it at social issues, but filmic, vampiric and psychological development issues. Have I done it unintentionally?

Well, since your narrative will be the main propagation of the plot, you'r going to have a very meaningfull screenplay. I see a large flaw in the fundamentals of the plot though, considering the super ego of the vampiric nature is a very daunting task. It's been an Idea I've been thinking about for some time, as a plot line. You could do what I was thinking of, and create a 'human' vampire, or a roleplayer to be introduced into the mythical vampire realm. This would give the viewers a more related character, and able to see the morality of the vampire, and the morality of the humans.

Great ambition, but I'm thinking of having a more concentrated idea or topic, instead of the whole super ego, which is what it seems like your after.

the plan is to introduce the majority of vampiric characters (I want to avoid humans altogether if possible) as this flawed vampire. Able to subsist, but not well, not biologically dying but dwindling into a grey obscurity. Then introduce a personification of the id. A vampire with no ego or super ego. (Best idea on this front is a fella whos been buried under a crossroads for a period of time, al in order to survive he has had to regress to base form) Who becomes a symbol to some of the vampires, who are sublimating their id in various ways, of the way they once were and should be. And then to introduce a personification of the punishment systems of the super ego, the section of the modern vampire that is at fault as a sort of, I dunno, a vampiric police force I guess. Who are imposing this id denial upon the civilisation. And these two opposing forces will, in essence be in conflict for the psyche of a single character who evolves over the course of the story from the contemporary vampire into the fully rounded vampire. Again this is a very basic outline, but you can see the point. Its all a bit metaphorical, and obviously is somewhat flawed in logic, but as I say, a work very much in progress.

Sound's like it, of course, to be viewed and written are too entirely different measures. You have to also have it flow well into each scene, since some will be vastly more important than other scenes, such as the punishment of the super ego in the metaphorical sense. Thing is, most viewers will not relate to a strange individual on the screen as a main character, that's why I suggested a human to give a varying degree of the id and ego's for it. Lofty goal, involving lots of thought, best to think this ahead for a long time.

The problem with introducing a human character, particularly as the protagonist means that vampiricism becomes a metaphor for a human condition, be it viral, addiction or puberty. It does however make vampires easier to place as monsters, but ones with very little characterisation.
The major argument for including them was to show the opposing nature of Eros and Thanatos from the two species respective positions, but the Eros is less of an interest to me. Its too easy to pin down, Thanatos is something that Freud himself struggled with. This makes me fascinated.

I don’t want there to be any ‘turning’ either, not because it doesn’t happen. I think it is important to remain rather vague on the details of the vampire, in order that they potential include as many different views of vampires as possible. Both born and turned. I only intend to include extended canines on the basis that it will make identification easier. I intend to let the audience draw its own conclusions as to the vampire myth particulars, rather than stuff my preferences down there throats.

Good, but my idea was to have a 'fake' human vampire wannabe in the story I was thinking of. Disgusted by the way of the vampires, he/she would eventually break down. Although, not everything has to be a metaphor...

I think I understand everything here. I've never heard of this Heros and Thanatos and so on thing. Well, I have in videogames..er, ok.

Anyways, there's just one thing I'm not so sure about. You said that the vampire becomes mentally ill. Do you associate this with his appreciation and devotion to tormenting people and destruction? On behalf of the vampire? That seems to have always been there, so if that's not what you meant, I'm a bit confused.

But that’s a great theory, although I’m really not familiar with the three aspects of the mind you spoke of at first…see, I can’t even word it. But this alone should be proof that there’s no such thing as vampires..k, off topic, but yeah.

Eros and Thanatos are Greek gods, mors and athena (?) in roman mythology. Freud used them to give names to the separate entities within the Id.

When someone becomes mentally ill it is often traced to a problem with the superego. Anorexia for example is thought largely to be a problem with ones ego ideal, the persons perfect image of themselves, that they seek to obtain. In vampire stories of current times the vampire protagonists are punished by the superego for, essentially being a vampire. Their morality is that of a human, that doesn’t allow them to kill.

Anzat:

I see, interesting thought, but I think, given that is their brush with human morality that is killing them they would avoid it. As I say though, interesting idea.

And the problem with some parts not being metaphor is that , as predominantly the films elements are, those that are not, people will assume are. Adding their own interpretations. I have no problem with that per say, I’m just eager to control the meanings as far as possible.

*Laughs!* Ah, ok I get it. A vampire is considered not so healthy in the mind once he adopts human morals. Well I sure won't deny that..O_o

That's the thing with some films, you can interpert all you want and try to conform your own definition, but someone with a different view on the matter will spread it, and soon a lot more will hold it also. Now you have a cult following who believe something abstractly different with the film, you never intended to make.

It will be a hard feat in itself to create differences in the id without voiceover's. With that, even though you try to conform the film, it's going to be very open ended.