The mythical figure of vampire has always had a great appeal to the public. Exploded in the narrative of the late 1800s with the Dracula by Bram Stoker, the creature of the night who feeds on human blood, between the 90s and 2000s, was a permanent presence in the cinema, on TV and as in books. Although he has lost some of his dark aura, he remains a “mythological” character who fits very well in any narrative context. And it proves it Vampire Academy, the American series of the Peacock streaming network, which from 11 November is available in Italy on Sky and Nowtv with the episodes of the first season (10 in all). A series which combines magic, love, superstition but also contemporaneity and social satire. It works if you look at it as a pure series entertainment but, for sure, it’s not the best of the genre.
It bears the signature of Julie Plec, screenwriter and director, famous for bringing the myth of the Vampire Diaries and all of its spin-offs. Here is the difficult task of adapting for the small screen a complex story, with many nuances, many characters, and in constant balance between fantasy and teen drama. Inspired by a saga of the same name consisting of six novels, Vampire Academy is a sumptuous and captivating representation on the world of vampires. It works in its staging, but it is poor in content and now we will explain why.
Magic, deception and court intrigues
For a long time, humans and vampires have lived together peacefully. Each of them with their own laws and their own institutional apparatus. Supernatural creatures, for example, are divided into three categories: the Dhamphirs, the Moroi and the Strigoi. The Moroi are ordinary vampires who are protected by guards with great fighting power: the Dhampir. The Moroi are peaceful, so much so that they feed on human volunteers. The Strigoi are instead the most dangerous category of vampires, because without humanity and with a desire for revenge. The story focuses on Rose, a Dhamphir for generations, and Lissa, a member of the royal family. During the queen’s hundredth birthday party, the young Lissa loses her parents and, consequently, finds herself alone in a transitional moment for the kingdom. He returns to the vampire academy, hoping to be safe from those who want to try to subvert the order of things. When the Queen elects Lissa as her heir to the throne, she ends up in a spiral of secrets, mysteries and reversals of fortune.
Vampire academy is the series that chases Bridgerton
The first episode has a charm dazzling. The public, from the first minute, is catapulted into a magical world where nothing is what it seems. The series is not the classic bildungsroman, but it also talks about politics, notoriety, money, love, madness and social classes. It’s a well-crafted blend that, at least initially, is captivating and intriguing. The rest, unfortunately, is a sequence of situations that seem to have already been seen and repeat themselves relentlessly, going to replicate an already abused plot. The vampires of Vampire Academy they’re handsome, they’re affable, they’re regal, and they dream of a world where they can escape their rights and their own obligations. It’s a series that tries to tell how difficult it can be to be a person with skills out of the ordinary and which focuses on the discomfort of a young woman who finds herself, in spite of herself, catapulted into the world of adults. She is cloying, perhaps even too much, and “chases” Bridegerton in trying to outline a constantly changing social context where only duties and never pleasure prevail.
There is nothing more than entertainment
We were saying that it is an intriguing series, which has an excellent one food for thought but that his good intentions run out almost immediately. In fact, Vampire Academy falls victim to all those classic clichés of stories for the youngest, in which tormented and complex stories of love triangles, betrayals and vain promises take shape. Thus, the narrative archetype that is based on class struggle between good and bad he gets lost in a story that is too little incisive, effectively distorting his good intentions.
Why watch the TV series?
There would be little or nothing to add about Vampire acedemy. The series does not shine in quality and originality, but it is attractive to an undemanding audience who are looking for a series that is not at all committed. It will appeal to those who want to get lost in a story Fantasy with a touch of romanticism, and it is worth seeing if only to understand how the very figure of the vampire has changed over time.
The charm of the vampire, an overused myth
Bram Stoker in his Dracula he had painted a cruel and petty vampire, willing to sail the seas and oceans to find his beloved. Annie Rice with Interview with the Vampire he recounted the discomfort of diversity through the figure of Least. Stephanie Meyer with the saga of Twilight hinted that even i vampires they have a heart. As we can see, the fascination of the vampire has always attracted the attention of the public with unique and original stories. Today that is no longer the case. Cinema, like TV, has abused his figure far too much, distorting its potential. Long gone are the times of Buffyfrom Angelfrom True Blood and of the Vampire Diaries.
Before the TV series there was the saga of Richelle Mead
There are six of them books which inspired the series that is available on Sky. In turn, in 2014, a film has already been made about the former novel but it was a real disaster in terms of critics and box office. Now the impossible is being attempted with this television adaptation. The series, however, does not follow the publication of the books. In the sense that it mixes things up a bit, drawing from many sides. The main difference is the character of Rose which was created specifically for TV.