'Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter' denies origin and legacy of slavery

The film wishes away responsibility for America’s most horrific events, because no one is to blame for these tragedies but vampires. America should examine its appetite for this fantasy, when Hollywood transforms the most eloquent statesmen into an axe-wielding action hero.

Alan Markfield/20th Century Fox/AP/File
Anthony Mackie portrays Will Johnson, left, and Benjamin Walker portrays Abraham Lincoln in a scene from "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter." Op-ed contributor Jackie Hogan says the film 'may not have been designed to teach us much about history, but it reveals uncomfortable truths about the present state of our nation – its smack-down politics...its unwillingness to tackle issues too complex to be solved by a silver bullet.'

Reviews of the would-be summer blockbuster “Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter” have been as chilly as a vampire’s embrace. While most criticisms focus on the film’s humorless, disjointed script, its over-the-top computer-generated effects, its patchy production values, and its fetishized carnage, there has been little discussion of the film’s narrative substance.

At first glance, the film’s central premise – that Honest Abe was actually our nation’s foremost slayer of the undead – appears merely silly, harmless, maybe even clever. Certainly Seth Grahame-Smith’s novel and script weave fact and fantasy together in inventive and entertaining ways. But on closer inspection, the film’s themes are more deeply disturbing than its slow-mo decapitations and blood-soaked action sequences.

At its heart, the film wishes away responsibility for some of America’s most tragic and horrific chapters – the frontier slaughter of Native Americans, the abomination of slavery, the anguished violence of the Civil War. In the alternative reality created by the filmmakers, no one is to blame for these horrors – at least no human is to blame – because vampires actually orchestrated all of these bloody episodes and more.

In this imaginative reworking of history, the Civil War isn’t about abolishing slavery or preserving the union or even states’ rights. Rather, it is Lincoln’s heroic effort to prevent slave-trading vampires from turning America into an empire of the undead. And when the 16th president signs the Emancipation Proclamation, it is not so much to set an enslaved people free as it is to deprive the Confederate vampire soldiers of their sustenance, the blood of their captives. Slavery is only a secondary injustice here, a convenient, if unfortunate, means to the vampires’ more sinister ends.

Let me say that I realize that “Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter” is a work of fantastical fiction, and we aren’t meant to take it literally. Yet fiction is so powerful precisely because it taps into our deepest desires and fears. So what does it say about us, as an audience, as a nation, that we have an appetite for films that deny both the origins of slavery and its enduring legacy? What does it say when our popular culture trivializes the brutal trade in human flesh? (“We’re all slaves to something,” as Lincoln’s vampire nemesis reminds us.)

What does it say about society that Hollywood transforms one of the most eloquent statesmen in our nation’s history into a brawny, axe-wielding action hero with kung fu moves to rival Bruce Lee’s? And what does it say that such a film has grossed more than $36.8 million?

“Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter” may not have been designed to teach us much about history, but it reveals uncomfortable truths about the present state of our nation – its smack-down politics, its embrace of bellicosity, its impatience with measured argument, and its unwillingness to tackle issues too complex to be solved by a silver bullet.

Jackie Hogan is chair of the sociology department at Bradley University in Peoria, Ill. and author of “Lincoln, Inc.: Selling the Sixteenth President in Contemporary America.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.