Category Archives: culture

Cultural observations.

Vampira and Subversion: From Outsider to Icon

Vampira and Me Documentary
Vampira and Me Documentary

The 2012 documentary VAMPIRA AND ME documents the blink-and-you-might-have-missed-it unlikely rise and unfortunate fall of Maila Nurmi — a.k.a. Vampira — a b-movie television hostess in 1950’s California that may well have been the inspiration for countless goth girls that have come after her. Best remembered for all of the wrong reasons — from her performance-under-protest work for Ed Wood in PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE to her failed law suits thirty years with the far-more-successful horror host Cassandra Peterson (a.k.a. Elvira)  — Vampira is much more than caricature, costume, or campy comedienne. She is, in many ways, a dark subversive reflection of the seemingly perfect America of the 1950’s, and as such, a figure that should not only be trotted out for Halloween, but be named among breakthrough stars the likes of Lucille Ball (to whom Nurmi oddly enough lost a daytime Emmy).

The documentary tells all, was well reviewed, and is highly recommended. But only hinted at in its exploration of everything from the vagaries of the Hollywood system to the dark side of stalker fans is the suggestion that — with Nurmi’s beatnik roots firmly in place — Vampira was quite a subversive figure for television in 1954 and ’55. Yes, as the documentary makes clear — as does Scott Poole’s biography Vampira: Dark Goddess of Horror (2014) —Vampira, on her velvet sofa, sipping a bubbling cocktail that was “one jigger formaldehyde and two jiggers vulture blood”, was the antithesis of every June Cleaver housewife that had a gin and tonic ready for her husband as he returned from work. But she was much more sinister than that.

Vampira enjoying a cocktail
Vampira’s cocktail was “one jigger formaldehyde and two jiggers vulture blood.”

Nurmi’s Vampira was not the cheesecake model nor pinup-girl-next-door; those were acceptable images for red-blooded American men to ogle. Instead, she was part of a tradition that, for Nurmi, had its roots in the work of Charles Addams, and, for many a cultural commentator, was part of a long tradition of the vamp in twentieth century culture. She was an outsider, and a potential threat to masculinity.

Count Mora and Luna in Mark of the Vampire (1935)
Count Mora and Luna in Mark of the Vampire (1935)

Long has the male vampire’s victim been a part of the horror movie tradition. In addition to Morticia Addams, Nurmi may have borrowed from the brides in DRACULA (1931). Or perhaps Carrol Borland, the actress who portrayed Luna — the female companion / co-conspirator of Bela Lugosi’s Count Mora in 1935’s MARK OF THE VAMPIRE. But these women are tied to men: the brides, a lover. Morticia, a husband; and Luna, a father.* It’s the makeup. The pose. The presence of these women. The men who helped define them. That was the foundation.

But Vampira was all her own. Though Nurmi was married (her husband had curiously enough come up with the name of the character), Vampira had no male companion. She was the first “vamp” to step off the page or screen and be seen driven about Los Angeles, greeting fans. She would show up as a guest on other television shows, but never as seductress. Always something alien. She was sexy, certainly. But the sex seemed dangerous.

Vampira
Vampira

Men were portrayed as scared of her — not attracted to her. A surviving bit of footage from the George Goebel Show has Goebel running away when a date with the strange Vampira (and her literal smoking sofa) starts getting a little too weird for his tastes. A joke, to be sure, but one that has at is base a fear of any woman that doesn’t fit the mold of the ideal, all-american girl. Nurmi’s voice is never flirtatious. Her movements never demure. She is, in fact, threatening, best known for saying “screaming relaxes me” after an ear-piercing shriek that started her every show. Is it a scream of terror? Or ecstasy?

Unlike the over-sexualized Elvira that would follow her years later, Vampira never appeared to be so much an object of desire as one of disturbance to men. Except for her anemic (and silent) turn in Ed Wood’s terrible PLAN 9, Vampira’s presence in footage that has survived always seems to present her as something alien. Whereas men desire Elvira, men are threatened by Vampira. Why? To Vampira, men would appear to be unnecessary.

Cruel then that the surviving image most of us have of Vampira — whether we know the character or not — is that the makeup, clothing and other trappings of the character are labeled “sexy” this and “hot” that on the packaging of many a halloween costume today. It’s almost as if what was once dangerous has been tamed and made to be just another commodity in the 21st century.

Perhaps this cultural appropriation of the character of Vampira into what is now the fun and fantasy of Halloween is, in some way, exactly what the character should embody: a fantasy, yes, but also nothing out of the ordinary. Subversion succeeds not when it’s on the fringes, but in the homes of millions of otherwise “normal” people. She may be a pose only acceptable on one day a year, but Vampira has found her way into more American homes now than her small Los Angeles television show could ever accomplish in the 1950’s.

She has outlived the June Cleavers of the world.

She survives not as an outsider, but as an icon.

 

*Dracula’s own daughter, played by Gloria Holden in Universal’s first real sequel in 1936, looked nothing like Vampira, Luna, Morticia or Lily Munster for that matter. DRACULA’S DAUGHTER rightfully deserves its own post about the female monster with no need for men. Possibly the first Lesbian vampire — long before any adaptations of Le Fanu’s Carmilla — Countess Marya Zaleska is more an exercise in psychiatry than it is in vampirism.

 

More (or Less) Human: Gynoids and Realdoll AI

Real Doll’s first “robotic head system”

Sex doll manufacturer Realdoll has recently announced that its silicone companions will soon have limited artificial intelligence. The company’s “first robotic head systems” (no pun intended, I’m sure) will roll out later this year, featuring eye and mouth movement that will simulate facial expression and deliver vocal responses that actually play off of — and learn from — its owner’s conversational cues.

Just as much of what we take for granted today on the internet — from streaming video to e-commerce — was pioneered by the porn industry, so too it would seem that advances in AI (and VR for that matter) will owe their development to humankind’s baser instincts. Predicted in many works of science fiction — such as Maria, the gynoid, in Fritz Lang’s silent masterpiece Metropolis (1927) [set in the not too distant future of 2026] or the “basic pleasure model” replicant Pris in Ridley Scott’s genre-defining Blade Runner (1982) [set in the even sooner future of 2019] — the android as sex slave has been the dream of many a horny lonely nerd. And the idea that machines could simulate human action? Centuries’ old.

The earliest documented attempts at creating an artificial human —referred to early on as “automaton” — dates to both Albertus Magnus and Roger Bacon in the 13th century. But it wasn’t until the nineteenth century that the term “android” found its way into the lexicon (the term appears in US patents as early as 1863 in reference to miniature human-like toys), with “robot” oddly enough following it early in the twentieth century. Coined by playwright Josef Čapek in R.U.R. the word “robot” is derived from the old Slavic ‘rabota’, meaning “servitude” or the more modern “rabu” meaning “slave.”

Indeed, the robot or android as slave is a a theme in much science fiction. And what if society’s robotic slave labor could understand its condition? Awareness of the meaning of their existence as being nothing more than servitude would be an existential nightmare.  “Quite an experience to live in fear,” says replicant (android) Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer) in Blade Runner. “That’s what it is to be a slave.”

It’s a very real ethical dilemma for futurists.

In a 2013 essay for the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, futurist and transhumanist Hank Pellissier reduces the roles of robots to three basic tasks: work, kill, sex. “Robot obeys. Robot does what human Master wants. Robot is Slave,” writes Pellissier, adding “we’ll want them gleaming gorgeously and functioning smoothly as they perform their functions for us – laboring, battling, copulating.”

Gorgeous and functioning, um, smoothly (pun definitely intended), is certainly the directive of the RealDoll. Having no will, it will simply bend to suit its master’s desires.

Of course, there’s always the fear that the slaves will turn on their masters. Physicist Stephen Hawking, for example, in an interview with Larry King, once said “artificial intelligence has the potential to evolve faster than the human race” adding that “once machines reach a critical stage of being able to evolve themselves we cannot predict whether their goals will be the same as ours.” Is it so outlandish to think that limited AI as being pioneered by McMullen could decades from now be seen as the first generation of androids that will, indeed, be able to pass for human and think freely? It is after all, only a sex doll.

RealDoll’s founder and CEO Matt McMullen makes no pretension to such lofty goals for his doll that will set you back $10,000. In an interview with vice.com, he says “We’re not trying to fool you into thinking, ‘Is this a real person?’ We’re trying to make the experience something you’ll enjoy.”

Enjoyment. Pleasure. Companionship. It may be simulacrum, but the RealDoll doesn’t judge. It doesn’t make demands. And like a doll, it can be put away and taken out only when its owner wants to play.

What this will do to social interaction and human behavior remains to be seen. Should the price drop and RealDoll becomes as ubiquitous as the mobile phones that suck our attention and keep us from making true human contact with the person right next to us at Starbucks, we may face a future where it is the human that becomes more and more like the cold machine. Distanced from other human beings and closer to the machines that fulfill our needs. Then the lines will really blur as the science fiction of our time predicts with shows like Westworld and Humans.

In a 1994 issue of Scientific American, Marvin Minsky, a cognitive scientist and co-founder of MIT’s AI laboratory wrote “Will robots inherit the earth? Yes, but they will be our children.” Two decades later, artists and engineers like McMullen have skipped that paradigm. Robots will not be our children. They will be our wives, girlfriends, boyfriends, lovers.

What’s the next step in Realldoll’s development? McMullen is calling the next stage “Realbotix” — an attempt to animate the whole doll so that it may more realistically respond to the physical stimulus that is its owner. One can only imagine the possibilities. And therein lies the rub (literally and figuratively speaking). For it is imagination that fuels the future.

How beauteous machinekind is! (Will it be a) depraved new world that has such beings in it?

Click here to watch a short interview with McMullen and a demonstration of the Realdoll AI courtesy of Fusion.