Nosferatu (1922)

 

“Nosferatu” (1922)

Very likely, this is the Greatest Vampire Movie Ever Made.

It was the first of many score of adaptations of Bram Stoker’s novel “Dracula” (1897) and until the somewhat obscure BBC version starring Louis Jordan (1977 and quite excellent) it is the one which displayed greatest fidelity to the original text. This is ironic because … well … that’s a long story.because many of the themes were almost in opposition of Stoker’s vision. More ironic still, because it tried (vainly) to pretend it wasn’t an adaptation at all.

The novel is about horrors emerging from the cracks in British rationalism and sexual repression. Slasher movie style, Stoker’s response to the recognition to reality of repression was to shift blame onto the wantoness of the (more often than not) female victim. Consistent with this pathology (which is recognizable most of his literary output) after Stoker allowed Mina to be is as smart as the male characters (she assembles a fair amount of the mystery on her own) he then makes her and her friend Lucy victims of own sexuality who must be saved from their lusts by honorable male subjugation. It is a novel where a woman has only one choice, between subjugation to either evil or virtue. It’s very, very, Victorian.

This film, though set in a period earlier (so presumably less modern) than the novel, gives us a somewhat less oppressive sexual politics and, consistent with that, abandons the almost all the Christian iconography. It is more directly influenced by archaic folklore than then contemporary societal neurosis, and oddly, it made the work seem somewhat more modern. Both book and film fetishizes both death and seduction, but this film clearly prioritizes death, abandoning all rationalism most moralism in the process. It drops the male authority figure Van Helsing and several other characters, and also almost completely excises Lucy. Mini, initially marginal to the plot, by the end proves stronger and more decisive than in the book, and becomes the prime mover in the defeat of the monster. She does this by taking charge of her sexuality, and though this dooms her to martyrdom, redeems all others, perhaps even the cursed monster himself. This maybe a result of this being a German film, geographically closer to the source of the folklore, it felt more comfortable than Stoker in a more morally amorphous, fairy-tale-like narrative. The title certainly suggests that.

 

It was the first, and unfortunately the last, project by the Prana Film studio. Though made on what was, even in its day, a tight budget, the studio managed to assemble a “Dream Team” in their Director, Screenwriter, Cinematographer, and Production Designer.

 

Even before being given this project, Director F.W. Murnau had proved his hand with the Fantastic with films like “Der Januskopf,” (1920, it is a lost film) loosely based on Robert Louis Stevenson’s novella “The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” (1886). A pioneer in German Expressionism, Murnau composed dramatic chiaroscuros and distorted angles created by lighting, set design, camera position, or some combination of the three. One critic credited him with being the first to understand the idea of "negative space," i.e., the space beyond the film frame, moving actors and objects in and out of the view, reminding us that we can only see part of this particular slice of this particular world. He demonstrated command over every facet of his film-making in a way that would be later be associated with Auteur Theory and Mentored Alfred Hitchcock. He extensively story-boarded each shot, and paced the action conscious of the intended musical score (the film is subtitled “A Symphony of Terror”) having the Actors adapt their actions to the rhythm of an on-stage metronome. Even so, until the last twelve pages or so, he mostly followed the script. I’ve read he had to Write those pages himself only because the original pages were missing.

 

The Scriptwriter was another veteran of the then embryotic Fantastic cinema, Henrik Galeen, who’d Written and co-Directed “Der Golem” (1915), “Der Student von Prague” and a second version “Der Golem” (both 1920). Galeen chose to maintain the multiple Character perspectives that Stoker employed in his Epistolary novel, inserting “texts” like letters, newspaper clippings, diary, and log book entries in addition to more conventional intertitles.

 

According to film Historians, the English language version of the intertitles alters several plot details and loses the stylistic elements Galeen’s originals. Lotte H. Eisner wrote the original employed “oddly-broken lines. prolific use of exclamation marks, words in capitals, and letter-spaced lower-case matter… [a] staccato rhythm with its incomplete sentences, clauses, phrases and idiosyncratic punctuation.”

 

Even so, beautiful phrases remain, like an excerpt from the “Book of Vampires” which Character Thomas Hutter (the equivalent of the novel’s Jonathan Harker, played by Gustav von Wangenheim) finds in his room at a country inn, “That name rings like the cry of a bird of prey. Never speak it aloud.” This book would prove all-important to the plot.

 

And intertitle that appears when Thomas is forced to trudge through the wilderness alone, “And when he had crossed the bridge, the shadows came to meet him."

 

And later Count Orlok (the equivalent of Dracula, played by Max Schreck), looking at a miniature of Thomas’ wife Ellen (the equivalent of Mina, played by Greta Schröder) that Thomas carries with him, “She has a lovely neck.”

 

As for the stage directions he provides, Galeen wrote in a direct, terse style that had been compared to “blank verse”:

 

"Ellen at the window. She wants to call for help. She staggers forward. She stops in front of Hutter. One last moment of indecision..."

 

The gifted Cinematographer, Fritz Arno Wagner, had been Galeen’s collaborator on the 1920 “Der Golem.” Because of budget restrictions, he used only one camera, meaning there was only one negative. After the film’s release, this would almost prove tragic.

 

The most memorable aspect of the film was the performance by, and makeup applied to, the lead Actor Shreck. Production Designer Albin Grau is largely responsible for the look, making Shrek’s angular features exaggerated and rat-like, he was made bald with protruding ears, exaggerated eyebrows, two fangs centered at the position of his central incisors as opposed to the now traditional fangs replacing cuspids. Tall and emaciated looking in his long, black, mandarin coat, Shrek moved with a spider-like gait, never relaxing his arms while they hung at his sides, but always had them somewhat twisted, to better display his unnaturally long finger nails.

 

Grau was an avid Occultist and believer in the reality of Vampires. He ignored the handsome, seductive Count of the Stoker novel, and gave us a creature more similar in appearance to the root folklore. He also incorporated Enochian, Hermetic, and Alchemical symbols into the set and prop design.

 

Despite its tight budget, the films abounds with technical innovations and bold production choices. Murnau came up with an idea of the coach driven by Character Orlok coach traveling through a "white forest" accomplished simply by using a negative print, but even in the white-for-black reversal, Orlok still appears black as if a demonstration of his powers over nature. In this and a few other scenes, the other-naturalness of Orlok’s motions were achieved by a laborious application of stop-motion animation to full-sized carriages, props, and the live Actor himself.

 

There is also the beautiful location footage for scenes of the Transylvanian countryside (in reality, Germany’s Tara mountains) and Orlok’s castle (in reality, Oravasky Podzámok castle). Location footage was a rarity in German cinema of that era, and served a goal reflected in much of Murnau’s work, a fluid mixture of Expressionism and Realism.

 

The exposition of shadows is justly famous. There are moving shadows seeming cast by no one that open doors. Orlock’s distorted shadow rising the stairs, claw-like hand extended before him, may be the single most emblematic image in the whole of Silent Cinema.

 

The sequence on the doomed ship carrying Orlok’s coffins (a sequence in the novel that most film versions omit) is especially strong. Like the image of the back-lit death-ship at full sail. Or the frightful bit as a crew member who suspects the truth going down below to inspect the cargo: He opens a coffin and finds it full of rats, then Orlok rises from another coffin unnaturally stiff as he swings up from prone to attention (this simple effect has been imitated hundreds, if not thousands, of times).

 

As Thomas and Orlok both race to the city where Ellen waits, she scans the horizon on a beach littered with black crosses. On the intertitles Ellen states, “He’s coming. I must go out to meet him.” Who ‘he’ is remains ambiguous.

 

While Stoker’s novel titillated, it was also puritanically hostile to a woman’s sexuality being unleashed. This film eschewed sexual issues for most of its length (Orlok’s/Dracula’s wanton brides do not appear to seduce Thomas/Johnathan) but when it does, the ideas are nowhere near as puritanical as Stoker’s. These appear towards the end of the film, so the sections Director Murnau ended up writing, and I can’t help but suspect the plot changes were influenced by the fact that Murnau was a homosexual, subject to extortion and/or imprisonment under German law. (Murnau fled to the United States a decade before most of the other famous German film makers, largely because he faced official persecution long before men like Fritz Lang did.)

 

In “The Book of the Vampires” Ellen finds a passage describing the only way to defeat the evil is that untainted woman offers herself to the Vampire, distracting him from the threat of the rising sun. This climatic scene where Ellen sacrifices herself is beautifully staged, featuring the memorable image of her heart (and breast) as the Vampire's shadow falls across it. Sex equals death again, but not as punitively as in the book, as sexual surrender is also equated with virtue and redemption.

 

The change of era, location, and character names between novel and film was a futile attempt to escape charges of Copyright Infringement, because the Prana Film never bothered obtaining the rights to the book. This was common enough in its day (the Lipow Co. was guilty of the same with “Der Januskopf”) but usually, the producers got away with it. In this case, the film got international distribution and was warmly received by painters and experimental poets (more conventional critics had mixed responses) and its growing notoriety made it impossible to hide. Author Stoker’s widow sued, and not surprisingly won. Prana went bankrupt, and the negative and all existing prints of “Nosferatu” were ordered destroyed.

 

The international distribution which doomed the film also saved it, allowing for second generation copies to survive, forgotten in archives. The search for more complete prints of the film became an obsession among Film Historians, and the are no less than six in current distribution, varying in length from 65 to 92 minutes long.

 

Its influence is tremendous, and it is endlessly referenced by other film makers, especial the image of Orlok’s shadow climbing the stair. In the TV mini-series adaptation of Stephen King’s novel “Salem’s Lot” (book 1975, TV 1979) the producer chose to have the Vampire’s appearance reflect that of Orlok, as opposed to the suaver Dracula-type in the novel.

 

Director Werner Herzog made a wholly bizarre remake “Nosferatu” (also 1979, with Klaus Kinski in the title role). It is far more a deeply admiring spoof than conventional remake, and well worth watching.

 

Much legend surrounded the film. The last name of the Actor playing the Vampire, Shrek, means “fright.” This seems to have inspired the fiction that Max Shrek was a mysterious figure of which nothing is known and he never appeared in another film and perhaps wasn’t, well, Human. (Actually, he was reasonably famous in his day, you can read his biography online, and he starred in at least 40 other films, some of which you can watch free online). Inspired by the myth, screenwriter Steven Katz and director Elias Merhige gave us “Shadow of the Vampire” (2000) a Fantasy about the making of “Nosferatu” in which a Megalomaniacal Director (a fictional fusion of Murnau and Grau, played by John Malkovich) employs a real Vampire (William Defoe) to give the film greater realism. Defoe was nominated for an Oscar, and this admiring spoof of the movie that plagiarized “Dracula” won a Bram Stoker Award.

 

Finally, there was another remake, “Nosferatu” (2022), a much straighter Horror film than the Herzog version. It is much admired, but I haven’t seen it.

 

Trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxlJxDr26mM

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens (2015)

Escape From New York (1981)

Fail Safe (1964)