Reviews Jun 11 2008 @ 08:02 pm
REVIEW: Nosferatu
Directed By: F. W. Murnau
Written By: Henrik Galeen
Starring: Max Schreck, Alexander Granach
Running Time: 63 minutes
Not Rated
If you’re a fan of silent horror flicks, odds are you’ve already seen F. W. Murnau’s Nosferatu. And if you’re not, odds are you don’t want to. Those who think they dislike horror movies because they grew up with Freddy and Jason, however, are advised to check it out and see how moody and beautiful horror can be. Nosferatu almost entirely lacks overt violence, instead using dramatic light and shadow (in addition to some impressive—but admittedly a little dated—special effects) to convey its terror. The result is, as the original German subtitle suggests, “A Symphony of Horror.”
The plot of Nosferatu is essentially a direct steal of Bram Stoker’s novel Dracula (to the point that Stoker’s widow actually sued to keep the film from being distributed), and English translations, in fact, often simply change the characters’ names back to those found in the novel. (It came out nine years before Universal’s iconic version, however, and thus lacks the cape and slicked-back hair that Bela Lugosi made synonymous with the character.) It stars Max Schreck as Count Orlok/Dracula, a Romanian count who decides to buy a home in Bremen, Germany. Everywhere he goes, a mysterious “plague” seems to attack the populace, who die with suspicious-looking bite marks on their throats. Gustav von Wangenheim costars as Thomas Hutter/Jonathon Harker, the realtor in the unfortunate position of making the aforementioned transaction, and Greta Schroeder appears as his wife Ellen Hutter/Mina Harker.
The real stars here, though, are the lighting and effects. This film is often cited as a prime example of German expressionism, a style exemplified by The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (see that one sometime and you’ll finally understand Rob Zombie’s music video for “Living Dead Girl”). Unlike Caligari, however, Nosferatu was filmed entirely on location, which gives its nightmare a chance to break out of the dream world and into reality. Seeing Orlok’s coffin magically build a horse cart around itself, or Orlok suddenly stand up in his coffin without moving his body is all the more disturbing when shown against a realistic backdrop. Murnau tracked down some fantastic-looking castles, inns, and creepy staircases in which to set the film.
One word of warning: the most common DVD of this film has it set to the most horribly inappropriate music you’re likely to ever hear. It’s not bad music per se (I noticed some Dvorak in there), but it has a tendency to be loud and ominous in the calm, relaxing scenes, and vice-versa. You might be better off buying a pipe organ and playing your own music (if, um, you’re into that sort of thing.)
In any case, Nosferatu goes out highly recommended if you’re a horror fan, or if you’re looking for something ironic to be playing on your TV during your next Halloween party. Enjoy.
on Jun 11 2008 @ 8:51 pm 1. Joseph said …
I watched this earlier this year and thought it was pretty good, though certain elements haven’t aged well. I think I prefer The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari to this.
For a second there I thought you were referring to Francis Ford Coppola’s adaptation, which IMO is far from iconic.
on Jun 11 2008 @ 10:25 pm 2. Luke Harrington said …
I think I agree about Dr. Caligari, though the tacked-on ending was unfortunate.
Yeah, to be honest, I still haven’t caught Coppola’s version. I’ll get around to it someday…
on Jun 12 2008 @ 9:57 am 3. Rachel said …
Thanks Luke. I’ve had a hankering (God, I am so from the South) to check this one out for a long time now, but just never got around to doing so. Into the Netflix Queue it shall go!
on Jun 12 2008 @ 2:14 pm 4. Craig Kennedy said …
Silent movies are a tough sell to most crowds, and I think it’s fair to say they exercise different parts of the brain than most people are used to working when they watch movies, but the rewards can be huge and Nosferatu is an example of that.
Some people would argue that it’s more pure cinema because it’s telling stories almost entirely through images. I wouldn’t go that far, but I do wish more people would watch more of the silents.
Have you watched Herzog’s remake? I think it holds up pretty well.
on Jun 12 2008 @ 2:59 pm 5. Luke Harrington said …
I haven’t gotten around to the Herzog version. It’s on my list. As far as the “more pure cinema” argument goes…I might agree with it to a certain extent. The problem with arguments like that, though, is that the terms are undefined (and, dare I say, undefinable). What makes cinema “pure”? We’re really talking about a cultural question there, and every culture that has cinema has answered it differently.
on Jun 12 2008 @ 3:49 pm 6. Evan Derrick said …
One of the best silents, certainly, eclipsed (in my mind) only be Metropolis. I agree with your sentiment, Craig - silent films do work a different part of your brain, and you have to physically and mentally prepare yourself to watch one. Otherwise, it’s pure torture. I still haven’t made it through Birth of a Nation for that very reason (by the way, Luke, did you ever get around to giving that disc a spin?).
on Jun 12 2008 @ 3:54 pm 7. Luke Harrington said …
Nope, still haven’t. Let me know if you’re up for a “racist movie viewing” sometime.
on Jun 12 2008 @ 4:09 pm 8. Evan Derrick said …
How about a triple header with Triumph of the Will and American History X? If that doesn’t scream “fun,” I don’t know what does.
on Jun 12 2008 @ 5:37 pm 9. Craig Kennedy said …
Yeah I don’t buy the pure argument completely either, but it emphasizes one element over the others which is interesting. But then I’m weird and I sometimes like to watch parts of familiar movies with the sound turned off just to see how they work visually.
As far as the rest of the silents go, I’ve had more luck with the later stuff. Griffith doesn’t do much for me. In a history of film technique sense, Birth of a Nation is pretty amazing, but as an entertainment I find it to be a bit of a slog. Intolerance is actually more interesting.
on Jun 12 2008 @ 6:37 pm 10. Colleen said …
I love Nosferatu, hell I love a lot of the Silent film that is floating around. The good stuff is about all that survives. The really bad silent stuff for the most part is gone.
I picked up a couple of box sets recently (50 Horror classics, 50 Sci-Fi Classic, and 50 Monstrous worlds. In amongst some of the horrific 60-80’s schlock are great silent pictures
Hunch back of notre dame (Lon Chaney), Phantom of the opera, Nosferatu,Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, Metropolis, Maciste in Hell, and Lost World.
More people should sit down and watch these films, they have some Iconic film moments in them.
Lon Chaney as the hunchback jumping on to the church bell… I have that image burnt into my mind, but intill recently had no idea were it had come from
anyways I’m rambing…
on Jun 14 2008 @ 12:27 am 11. Phillip Johnston said …
Luke, have you seen Shadow of the Vampire, the fictionalized account of the making of Nosferatu with Willem Defoe and John Malkovich. It’s a small, overlooked mini-masterpiece, IMO.
on Jun 14 2008 @ 5:18 am 12. Anil said …
Many people already mentioned Caligari, my favorite silent and therefore favorite German expressionist work. I love Nosferatu (actually my rating would be exactly same as that of your 4 1/2) but I can easily recommend Faust as a film superior to it and Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans as something equally good.
I had done a considerable research over german expressionism last year and I have an extensive DVD collection of old German expressionist silents. I haven’t seen some of them yet but Fritz Lang’s 5-hour epic Die Niebelungen sounds really really promising. The Golem is also recommended as an earlier example.
on Jun 14 2008 @ 9:05 am 13. Evan Derrick said …
Thanks for all the great suggestions, Anil. I admit my taste for silents comes and goes, but next time I get on a kick I’ll have to check some of those out. Die Niebelungen sounds particularly interesting, if a bit of a commitment.
on Jun 14 2008 @ 9:12 am 14. Matt Gamble said …
As much as I love Nosferatu, I <3 my Kino DVD soooo much, I was a bit surprised when earlier this year I sat down with Vampyr and found I enjoyed that film more. I am absolutely salivating over the Criterion release that will come out in a month or so. Once it does you should really check it out Luke. And everyone else for that matter.
on Jun 14 2008 @ 11:07 am 15. Phillip Johnston said …
Are you talking about Carl Th. Dreyer’s Vampyr, Matt. I’ve seen almost all of his available films except that one … I’m holding out for that Criterion for my first viewing.
on Jun 14 2008 @ 2:53 pm 16. Matt Gamble said …
Yeah, that is the one I am talking about. I watched a horrible transfer of it and I was amazed with how good it looked. If the Criterion transfer is even half way decent (how the hell could it not be?) the film should blow people away.
on Jun 15 2008 @ 11:20 am 17. Rick Olson said …
Hey, y’all … I’m a little late for this discussion, but as Craig said, I think Herzog’s version holds up, I actually like it better than Murnau’s, myself. And Phillip and Matt, I am awaiting the Criterion “Vampyr” with bated breath … I’m a Dreyer fan. Saw “Day of Wrath” the other day and it blew me away.
on Jun 15 2008 @ 1:19 pm 18. Phillip Johnston said …
Wait until you see Ordet…
on Nov 11 2008 @ 3:37 pm 19. JONATHON.H said …
IM GOING TO WATCH THIS MOVIE TO NIGHT AND LET YOU KNOW TOMOROW!!!
on Nov 11 2008 @ 4:33 pm 20. Luke Harrington said …
SOUNDS GOOD!!!