Hey Izzy here!

We watched the fantastic 1922 Nosferatu this time, so I knew I had to get some words from that movie’s number one fan, Tyler.

Tyler:

Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror

There has never been a movie monster to inspire such feelings of horror as that of the vampire. Nigh-immortal, blood sucking, pale, and with an air of malice about them, they glide through the night preying on any unlucky enough to come across them. Stories of vampires (or the precursors thereof) have existed for thousands of years, across many civilizations throughout history, though the modern vampire rose to dominance in the eighteenth century, beginning with poetry and then prose in the nineteenth century, notably John Polidori’s “The Vampyre” in 1819,
and then appearing in numerous penny dreadfuls throughout the 1800s, giving rise to the most celebrated vampire novel in human history: Bram Stoker’s “Dracula” in 1897.
With the rise of cinema at the turn of the twentieth century, there was of course attempts to turn this legendary novel into film, the first of these being by F.W. Murnau, whose utter neglect in
getting the proper rights to the novel caused Stoker’s widow, Florence Balcombe, to sue. While this didn’t stop Murnau from adapting the essential story anyway, it did drive him to make a few
essential changes to the story and characters, creating the first vampire story put to film, the legendary “Nosferatu,” released in 1922.
While the major story beats were similar to that of its source material, “Nosferatu” differed in many ways from the novel. Dracula was now Count Orlok and indeed, all the characters’ names
were changed entirely, and the notorious vampire slayer Van Helsing was completely removed. There was an addition of rats carrying the plague to a German town that didn’t appear in the novel,
and sunlight being deadly to his ilk was introduced to the mythos here, but the most important change was to the vampire, the “noferatu” himself.
Modern depictions of Dracula are now largely inspired by that of Bela Lugosi’s depiction, with slicked back hair, a long cloak, and quite possibly the most expressive browline on any actor who ever lived. In stark contrast, Count Orlok was inhuman in his visage, with long ears like a bat,
ratlike teeth and fingers like slender knives. He wasn’t the suave, debonair vampire of today, but like a creature ripped straight from Hell.
The movie was—and in my opinion still is—an excellent horror film, though not at all conventional by today’s standards. Not present are the musical stings that seem to scream at you “be afraid!” in today’s films, absent are the jumpscares that serve to shock you rather than scare
you. Max Schreck’s Count Orlok is a spectre, a figure that lurks behind every door in his castle, a being whose very shadow seeks to disturb, to build in you a creeping terror that leaves you on the
edge of your seat. In fact, except for one single scene, he never even blinks, just stares in a way that pierces your very soul.
The film was considered frightening enough that, for fifty years thereafter, it was banned in Sweden for, “excessive horror.” It warped the existing vampire mythos that, even over a century
after its release, still shape the genre today. It was remade once, in 1979, by Werner Herzog—“Nosferatu the Vampire,” a faithful remake, though it reverted character names back to Dracula, Renfield, Harker, et. Al., and then in 2000, a fictionalized retelling of the making of
“Nosferatu” where Max Schrek is, indeed, a real vampire, was made: “Shadow of the Vampire,” starring Willem Dafoe as the nosferatu himself.

The movie’s influence is far-reaching. The image of Nosferatu inspired the portrayal of Kurt Barlow in the 1979 miniseries “’Salem’s Lot,” an adaptation of the Stephen King novel. More recently, we see the face of Dracula in “Last Voyage of the Demeter” bears striking resemblance to
Count Orlok, albeit one that heavily employs the use of CGI. The rock band, Blue Öyster Cult, my personal favorite band, wrote a song revolving around Graf Orlok himself. The movie currently holds an impressive 97% percent on Rotten Tomatoes, indicative of its
legendary status and cementing the hold that this century-old movie still has on us. There are many vampires in film today, many that bite or creep or suck or terrify—or “sparkle,” ugh—but there can
be only one Count Orlok, only one “Nosferatu.”

Thanks Tyler!

Ok so this was my first time watching this film, it is one of the classics I totally missed. I enjoyed it, the effects really hold up and I like how it is recognizable as a version of the Dracula story while doing its own thing. I mean I was confused why they used a Hyena for his wolf form but overall it was a great time. And it was really interesting that Catholicism didn’t “save the day”, which is a huge trope in Dracula, and honestly how little religious imagery was in this film at all was really surprising to me as a big vampire fan. I don’t know enough to know if that was just the creators personal views or him just adapting this story for a very odd time in German history (between the world wars) but it changes the story a lot. I do know that this movie gets criticized quite a bit for Olaf looking anti-sematic, esp. given where and when this was released but from what I can find that was not due to the views of the creator who was outspoken in defense of the Jewish people. I think it is just telling how some features become associated with horror over time.

Question time! Lauren what was your first interact with this movie like?

A: The last time I watched Nosferatu (1922) starring Max Schreck was way back in highschool, say 15 years ago, so this was a big refresher for me. I recalled that Count Orlok brought me to mind of Bram Stoker’s initial description of the vampire: a lean, frightening countenanced, elderly man. My first exposure to Stoker’s villian was, in fact, the 1931 film Dracula starring Bela Lugosi. I remember borrowing the VHS from the local library some time in elementary school and rewinding it to rewatch several times before returning the tape. The sophisticate as a predator was a novel story to me at the time, and Lugosi’s suave and imperious monster seemed both romantic and frightening. I do believe Schreck’s somewhat alien appearance and demeanor gives the viewer the intended effect of knowing that the vampire is not one of us, and neither does he think himself so. However, it is easy to see why adaptations inspired by Lugosi’s tuxedoed Dracula lean toward a vampire with a tragic backstory chasing after a reincarnated lover similar to that of the Mummy, although such is not true of the novel.