vampires
I read in trivia and there are some mention of vampires in the movie?
How dooes it fit in the story??
[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > The Informers (2009) Discussion > vampires
I don't know if anyone else picked up on this, but I'm pretty sure that Dirk, the guy who comes to pick up "the package" from Brad Renfro's place is intended to be a vampire in the film version. The way it's played in the scene where Dirk barges into the house could very well implicate that he's not simply a pedophile, but that he's got plans to devour the child much like the vampire wives do to the baby in Bram Stoker's Dracula. It's pretty subtle, but if you think about the scene in that context, it makes it far, far creepier.
In the book, Dirk is completely different, and some of his dialogue from the novel has been repurposed into Graham's in the film version, essentially removing the necessity of the Dirk character from the movie. All we really know about Dirk in the film is that he buys drugs from Graham, and it seems Graham is rather subservient to him, as he goes out of his way to deliver those drugs, which we never see. Later, another night, we see Dirk come to collect his purchased goods, which Mickey Rourke's character has exlained as "some people in West LA will pay thousands for a package like that" and later refers to those people as "dangerous", saying "you don't know what they'll do to us" or something like that, causing the trio to flee.
To me, that suggests vampires, especially because Dirk was rather preppy, and not some drugged out psycho gang member or something. It would totally fit Bret Easton Ellis' vision of a 1980's Los Angeleno vampire. What do you guys think?
Could very well be a hint thrown in by the writers to the vampires involvement even though the story line was dropped (probably by the producers). It's interesting you mention how Dirk was in the scene, it was ages ago I seen the film so I'll have to look a bit closer next time at that part.
To look into the vampire stuff in the novel a bit more, I agree with "Maxnero" that it was more metaphorical, very much like the Bateman 'killings' in American Psycho. The part in the book that pretty much confirmed this for me [SPOILER!] was where Jamie turned into a vampire and 'bit' one of his victims necks and she had some sort of drug in her system which caused him to collapse and pass out, then the next day when he recovered she had gone but left a note saying something like 'Had a blast' along with her name and number. So from this it's pretty obvious that he didn't really turn but was perhaps seriously agressive with her and added the vampire fantasy. Also agree with another earlier poster it's really annoying this stuff wasn't included in the film! Would've been really interesting to see how they did it as it would be really tough to nail the satirical tone of the chapter.
Finished reading the book a few days ago thought it was awesome, if you're thinking about giving it a go I'd definitely recommend it. I'm kinda undecided on the film I've only seen it once, thought it was OK at the time but after reading the book I'll have to watch it again. Can't help but think The Informers would've worked so much better as like a 10-part TV series, with each segment done proper justice. It's not a huge book by any stretch but theres still far too much to get into one film.
I like your idea for the mini-series. Maybe it could be re-adapted some day as that's a great way to do it. Perhaps as an HBO show or someplace where the sex, drugs and violence don't have to be toned down. As the novel is just a bunch of loosely connected short stories, that would be a fantastic way to bring it to the screen.
As for the vampires, I completely agree Ellis intended it to be ambiguous, as he's fond of the unreliable narrator and the vampire fantasy more than likely just a projection of a mentally disturbed/medicated young man. But it doesn't mean that those characters couldn't be considered "dangerous" or act in reality as if they were going to harm a young child for the purposes of drinking blood. To me, it's far scarier an implication this way, especially if they're not actually vampires in reality, just a bunch of creepy rich dudes who think they are.
A more sensible explanation for how Dirk is portrayed in the movie, as you say, was a hint to their involvement... I think it's more a situation of the producers decided to axe that storyline (though apparently Brandon Routh had already been cast as Jamie) so the director and writers decided to color Dirk's scenes with that implication so as to give the readers of the novel a vague nod to the subplot. Or, Dirk's character and the little boy's subplot was more substantially connected to Jamie's unfilmed story. We may never know, but it's interesting to think about.
...but I'm pretty sure that Dirk, the guy who comes to pick up "the package" from Brad Renfro's place is intended to be a vampire in the film version. The way it's played in the scene where Dirk barges into the house could very well implicate that he's not simply a pedophile, but that he's got plans to devour the child much like the vampire wives do to the baby in Bram Stoker's Dracula. It's pretty subtle, but if you think about the scene in that context, it makes it far, far creepier.
wow had not thought about that scene that way, good point
IT DOESNT MATTER WHAT YOU THINK...
yeah i agree it seems the whole kidnapping part of the movie seems like the other half to the vampire subplot that wasnt in the movie.took a second viewing to get that vibe but it seems to fit.
spectre can
suck it.
The "vampire" thing is mostly symbolic..
"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'
[deleted]