Nosferatu 2024 | 1979 | 1922 | A Controversial Comparison | Spoiler-free Review

Hello, horrorphiles. In this spoiler-free episode, we’ll review Robert Eggers’s Nosferatu, starring Bill Skarsgård, Lily Rose Depp, Willem Dafoe and Nicholas Hoult.

“A gothic tale of obsession between a haunted young woman and the terrifying vampire infatuated with her, causing untold horror in its wake,” according to The Internet Movie Database. 

This is Dissecting Horror: Examining the anatomy of fear in film, television and literature with Kelsey Zukowski and Steven Aguilera.

We hope you find it in your cold, black, withered hearts to join our Society of Grotesquery and Loathing and keep our podcast suffering onward:

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/dissectinghorror
PayPal one-time donation of any amount: https://paypal.me/dissectinghorror
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@dissectinghorror
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/dissectinghorror
Kelsey Zukowski: http://kelseyzukowski.com
Steven Aguilera: https://www.stevenaguilera.com

Photo credit: Slevin Mors

Transcript

0:03

Hello, horrorphiles. You're listening to Dissecting Horror. Examining the anatomy of fear in film, television and literature. In this spoiler-free episode, we'll review Robert Eggers’ Nosferatu starring Bill Skarsgard and Lily-Rose Depp. I'm writer and performer Kelsey Zukowski. I'm filmmaker Steven Aguilera. In our Society of Grotesquerie and Loathing, if you will. I will. And we hope you will subscribe for more, won't you? Nosferatu a gothic tale of obsession between a haunted young woman and the terrifying vampire infatuated with her, causing untold horror in its wake. According to the Internet Movie Database. The word Nosferatu stems from the archaic Romanian word nasu for ritual, which means the offensive one or the insufferable one, and is commonly used as a synonym for vampire. And so in the many film adaptations not ra2 is not the name of a character, but a term used to describe count or lux species. The 2024 remake of the 1922 classic Remains faithful to each story point, which were all quote adapted, unquote, from Bram Stoker's novel Dracula. This Nosferatu remake certainly makes the best of the original silent film, including its deviations from its hijacked Dracula story. in fact either version of Nosferatu renamed Dracula would otherwise remain the same story. Nosferatu presents a truly stunning facade, but one that proves to be meandering, convoluted and hollow, bringing more disconnect than Captivation. Eggers has stated it is one of his most personal films yet, as the original is so iconic and lasting. I can imagine how tackling this story came from a place of inspiration and dark fascination, but it manages to be one of the most soulless and impersonal depictions of the haunting, rich tale I have experienced. Sadly, Nosferatu solidifies my views of Eggers as a filmmaker of exquisite style, but one that has a block when it comes to fully fleshed out, thoughtful storytelling. He is masterful when it comes to visual artistry and commanding powerful performances among peak acting talent. Really, the reason I have been a non fan and still keep watching his films. But aside from The Northman, his only truly effective film in my opinion, I always leave his films feeling let down. I will give him the credit to say he does have a poetic writing style here, even managing to be provocative in moments. It has the roots for something more meaningful within it, but these are fleeting, unconnected moments that fail to flourish into something more impactful and cohesive. In the end, he is an abysmal storyteller. When you pull back the pretty mask and the good but unrealized potential. Which is a shame, since with a well-crafted, explorative script, this film could have been an exceptional entry in the Dracula cinematic timeline. Lily-Rose Depp, daughter of Johnny Depp. Plays Ellen Hutter, our lead. Her look and performance to me is iconic, and frankly, I'm shocked she wasn't even nominated for an Oscar. Perhaps it goes back to the industry not taking horror seriously enough unless it's about the makeup, visual effects, costumes, or production design. I agree that Lily-Rose Depp gave an evocative, raw performance worth commending, tackling complex, gritty emotions from the vulnerable to the malignant. Her emotion and intensity is there, but as the material became more messy and lackluster, I found my polling care for the character faltering to. The cast of the film was a major draw to see this, and particularly fans of Bill Skarsgard and Nicholas Hoult, both did well with the material they were given. How does wall showing fitting range from charisma and optimism to terror and desperation? Inappropriate moments? But there is just not enough for him to truly stand out. There are moments Scar's guards or lock offers a wonderful intensity through his eyes alone. He certainly disappears into the role, but it's a shame he wasn't really given a deeper character focus as his talents largely seem wasted here. Yes, he is in heavy makeup, which distills some features and potential to convey some emotional layers and subtlety. But as Pennywise, he was also in heavy makeup, and he completely brought that character alive and a chilling, enticing and wonderfully maniacal way that was both true to the source material while adding his own spin to it. The potential was here, but Eggers didn't truly give Orlock the space to be a multi-dimensional villain. The way Count Orlock was presented, very much shrouded in darkness or out of focus, or from afar, with his booming voice and raspy breathing, fills our imaginations with what he could look like and was very effective for me. I won't say much about his appearance beyond that, except to say there is no real resemblance to the original 1922 Count Orlok, or to Bill Skarsgard. In the original, as well as in 1979. Nosferatu. One of the key things that powers the films is the stirring mix of mystery, intrigue and impending dread tied into Count Orlok, while the introduction Eggers gives us to Orlok is promising and capturing this largely keeping him cloaked in shadows and mystery, only hearing the gruff, panting voice of a foreign dialect with a primitive edge. The mystery and complexities quickly fade, letting him fall into a completely unremarkable demon, one that could have the face or origins of any, and it would make no difference. I don't mind the look of Orlok, as it's both consistent with the features of the real life inspiration of Dracula. Vlad the Impaler, and the 1922 Nosferatu, sort of a hybrid of the two. Count Orlok is intentionally a far cry from the suave, witty, aristocratic vampire more associated with Dracula. He is abnormal, decrepit, un alluring and feral. What is missing here is the complexities of its predecessors, and really the core of what makes a vampire such an interesting subject matter. Being an entity that is part man and part monster, not fully void of either half the air of biting mystery, the instinctual desire, the power and the pull to humanity, while still being more of a complex enigma than simply a soulless monster. The longer the film goes on, the less mysterious and engaging Orlok becomes. That in itself marks a failure of this film. It is a marvel that Eggers managed to make such an inherently oddly captivating subject matter, played by Bill Skarsgard, no less so this interesting, bland and base level really, to make Skarsgard anything less than intriguing is a real feat, and something I didn't think I would ever experience. Wow. Loved it. The version I watched was the extended cut, which comically enough, turned out to be only four minutes longer. The pacing was certainly un rushed, but didn't particularly bother me, though I think I would have preferred the theatrical version. The last thing I want is for a slow burn to be extended any further. My happy zone is around an hour and a half or shorter, maybe an hour 35, unless I'm really into it. While this round two hours and 16 minutes. But again, I was plenty invested so not an issue for me. Though it seems the film slowness was a major issue for many. Kelsea, I know you're into long form content such as novels with multiple volumes and long running TV series. This series is. Do you prefer for your movies to be really long? Two. It's not really about the time. I would say it's investment. I know you express being invested in it and I wanted to be. There was like moments of intrigue, but especially the more as it went on, particularly with the characters. I felt less and less invested where I didn't really care and and letdown in a lot of ways. But yeah, it's not so much the length, but pacing is definitely. I think that's really dependent and on how much you're engaging and adding to the story. And of course, as viewers, we're all going to have different levels where something connects to us more or we're more limited. And on the edge of our seat. The first hour of the film, I actually found far more intriguing, heading most of the elements needed for story, even if not offering a new perspective of the last hour, is where it really became painstakingly slow for me, and it just had a way of feeling like an energy vampire was going in for a Super Serge feeding that would make even Colin Robinson envious. Within this, there are good moments, but it was lacking any cohesive exploration and true soul to connect or get me to care. It could have been a solid film if it was more in the 1 hour to 80 minute range, with some tweaks. I was thinking something like a prominent horror filmmakers tackle classic horror Stories anthology TV series. This could have been a tantalizing enough entry if reworked within this length. And cutting some things and diving into some of its half baked psychology a bit more. So in summation, not. I guess it depends what you do with that time, because there had definitely been just the first obvious example that comes to mind as a big Harry Potter film. Almost all the films are 2.5 hours, and I'm riveted and connected and deeply emotionally invested, and especially as a fan of the books where there's like Goblet of Fire, for example, a it's around. It's almost an 800 page book, and they had the same amount of running time to work with as previous films that were about 300 pages. So almost half of the contents, you know, had to be be cut. So again, I don't think it's the length. It's it's what you're crafting in the story. And whether you as a viewer are really connected to it. So sounds like you were was it the story and the characters you felt more connected with that made you more invested as Funny you should ask. I imagine if this film was not so superbly acted, shot, costumed, scored and directed, it would be quite dull if reliant on its plot and characters alone. As blasphemous as this may sound. I would venture to say that the weakest part of the film is the original story upon which it was based. If they could have channeled this level of quality horror filmmaking into a tale that was more fresh, interesting, and compelling, that matched the elevated quality of the rest of the production, they could have far surpassed what this film ended up being. This is an odd thing for me to criticize that they made it so good it exceeded the original material and so perhaps should have not used it. But the fact remains the 1922 Nosferatu is essentially a rip off of another work, a thinly veiled imitation of Dracula, and this remake is hampered by the limitations of that story, one which is also been told countless times already. for me. Willem Dafoe stole the show. In some ways, it's unfortunate. He was in the chapter of the film that was weaker and lost me more and more, but he did help offer some life and resonance to the dragging conclusion. He gives a good performance, but I think part of this is just due to Dafoe's immense talent and riveting energy. It is hard for him to not command your attention. While all the performances were good, they couldn't quite save the film for me. As much as the powerful, dynamic performances have done in other Eggers films, which was the one avenue I had the most belief in before watching this. While the film certainly works within the framework of the source material, actually most closely aligning story wise with Werner Herzog's Nosferatu the Vampire. it. Both suffers from not offering enough of a fresh voice and from becoming convoluted and messy, throwing in horror archetypes that don't fit and money the water. Rather than bringing anything unique to the table, the film throws in elements of the occult, demons, and possessions, and even refers to Count Orlok as both a ghost and death itself. At one point, this nature really wasn't portrayed at all. It was like every form of horror spook was thrown in here without any of the true nature of the spirit being showcased. The Northman led me to believe Eggers might be best when coming from the framework of a well-established, connective, classic story that he can explore. Stoker really did all the work for Eggers, already delivering a complex lore in nature, and still the storytelling greatly faltered. Aside from biting and hypnotizing power, it loses the vampire origins almost completely. I don't mind an exploration or altering definition of what a vampire can be, But these elements are sprinkled in haphazardly, without managing to connect or offer any unique viewpoints on themes and lore. I could also offer more leeway if this was an original vampire story, but it felt untrue to the Nosferatu Dracula legend, Particularly the possession in the cult presence just felt thrown in for some compelling horror imagery, which it offers, but at the cost of the story, it is almost more frustrating than it didn't feel like. It was simply meant to be all creepy horror entertainment without deeper, explorative intent behind it. There are a lot of good moments, and the beginnings of contemplative discussions and interesting themes, one being the questioning of evil within ourselves Elena? Does evil come from within us or beyond? Later, she seems to just reject this idea that she has any evil within her, and Franz states, we must know evil before we can face it. Intriguing ideas that could have added rich exploration, but mere sprinkles of ideas that are not given any time or real perspective. My favorite aspect of horror is its atmosphere. The mood, as with the deathly quality of a graveyard, dark attic or withering mansion. This film oozed atmosphere, and I ate it up the landscape and castle With the deterioration of it all and the feeling of cold where perfect. The ambiance, the fearful vibe is key to pulling off this story. And it certainly does. And chef's kiss to the outstanding sound work, which, shockingly, was not even nominated for an Oscar. Shot on photochemical film, most scenes were weakly lit. A daring move knowing people will inevitably struggle with seeing anything which they did. Yet the claustrophobic darkness adds greatly to the mood and is authentic to how things were actually lit back then, with a few lanterns or candles here and there. Sparse lighting is also just spookier. Casting sharp shadows and leaving areas of a room dark where anything could be hiding. It makes things feel unsafe and delightfully eerie. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't seem a little out of place that everyone's accents were English and a story taking place in Germany. Oh yeah. Absolutely. I guess that's the one thing consistent with every version, though. Well, I would think that the, relative harshness of the German accent would have lent itself well, material. But I also know that if not done just right, a German accent can sound a bit silly. Yeah, it almost would have been better if they could have used German actors or people from German descent, at least, because that is definitely one of the things that can most quickly rip you out of the realism of something. When you just have bad accents that can very easily ruin a film. So I, I guess I could see why they didn't want to. You know, they might have wanted the actors that they chose and didn't want that to be the thing that brought the film down. But there's all things bringing it down, so I don't even know. I do think that English accents marry very well with horror, maybe it's the old hammer horror films that I've watched growing up, but I love that accent and prefer it with a horror setting. the poster and, much of the tone of the film has a certain sensuality implied or sexuality even. And I wrote down the question which, based on your description thus far, myself. But I was morbidly curious. Kelsey, did you find Count Orlok in this film sexy? No, but not because of the make up. Because these just seem like such an uninteresting base level character. If they gave. I feel like if he had, if he was a little bit more interesting or just like even more focused, like there was just no there wasn't much on his mentality or who he was. It's they just kind of made him such a faceless, bland, overarching demon where we were in a way we didn't really get to know him as, yeah, like a fleshed out character. But in other and other scenarios probably would have. And yeah, it seems like the one, one of the big differences with this version is they did go with honing in on the sexual, predatory nature. And there is an element of that with other Nosferatu films and Dracula and even vampires as a whole, with the whole hypnotizing, alluring, can't resist nature where in most cases, victims aren't in their right mind to consent, I guess we'll say. So I, kind of can appreciate that focus and that in every way, he wasn't meant to be alluring there. It's, you know, old, decrepit and unappealing monster who is, since she was a child, was getting into her mind and preying on her in pretty much every conceivable way. And that that could be a really tantalizing, interesting kind of deep connection if you kind of explore that. But again, I feel like with everything it was, it was like the only the very beginnings of something interesting, enticing to depict. And it just, it just nothing's really given the time or focus here. Well, I wasn't sure the degree to which you would like or dislike this film, but I'm a bit surprised that you were, disappointed to the degree that you are I'm not disagreeing with you either. But, yeah, I would say the the characters, although they were painted really well, they really didn't really have much in the way of, a depth or complexity to them. They were just great presentations, style over substance, as you say. Yeah. And even, Ellen again, great performance from Lily-Rose Depp yeah, like there is an emotional layer. You can feel that. I mean, she's just so heavily, completely victimized. And yeah, you can say that there's moments of of strength and wanting to and this evil, you know, no matter what it takes. But, yeah, the I think she is you really isn't given much, much depth or agency as a character or even like her mindset, aside from being plagued and demonized. That's kind of like all there is to her character. I was going into this thinking it was a slam dunk being, of the caliber of filmmaking and with, Bill Skarsgard, I thought, well, especially, you being a fan of the genre vampires and, the anticipation of this film with one of our mutually favorite, horror actors. I was going into it with the assumption that you were just going to love this film. So, I'm pleasantly surprised that your integrity as a film fan will stand out above whatever preconceived notions that any of us may have, or yourself. You just are. You're just going to look at what's there and judge it for what it is. but, you surprised me at the same time, but it's a pleasant, surprising. But, I was hoping for me and you that this would turn out to be, like the movie of the decade. And we'd both revel in it. And I think in some ways, it does set a precedent for the the caliber of filmmaking I would like to see in terms of production value. But I would like to see something a little fresher, in the way of material. I agree with you there, like visually astounding, I think. I think I, I just want someone to give Eggers a great, fully fleshed out script, and he and he can make an incredible movie out of it. I just don't think he's a good screenwriter, to be honest. I'm surprised at the fact that when, let's say a James Cameron or, somebody of a high, filmmaking stature is given reins to make, let's say, a, a marvel film or something like that. There's a huge budget. Why the movies have to be so goddamn long? Why do they not look at it through the lens of budget and say, you know, we can make, quality film? Like, I'm always preferring quality over quantity. Why don't I great type film Yeah. A a half hour and 45 minutes, instead of, going to town and producing a two and a half, three hour, monstrosity, which can work, I understand. The one for the bomb. That went, up against Barbie Oh, Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer is supposed to be quite good, but it's very long. the one from Christopher Nolan about, Interstellar is Oh yeah. that's like three hours. I really want to see both of these films. but it's so daunting to think of sitting there for three hours, even if it's something I'm really looking forward to. Yeah. People need to, I don't know, pull the reins in on these, lengthy films. And I'm, I acknowledge I'm sensitive to these sorts of things. It's just my preference. no matter how much didn't work in this film for me, I absolutely will commend the visual design. One thing Eggers can do is deliver on peak gothic imagery. Nosferatu brings captivating, sweeping visuals, equally gritty and luminescent, cloaked with shadows, dreary fog drenched grays and deep, vibrant blues. It offers a striking gothic visual symphony, making its mix of vibrancy and murky shadow play the one area where it feels in tune with the original title, A Symphony of Horror, the cinematography is exhilarating, imaginative and transcendent, very much worthy of the Oscar nomination. While it's certainly spawned from the vision Eggers held for the film, ample credit goes to the cinematographer Sharon Blaschke. I think I said that right. The original 1922 silent film Nosferatu A Symphony of Horror, was directed by F.W. Murnau and starred Max Schreck as Count Orlok. An unauthorized adaptation of Bram Stoker's 1897 novel Dracula, the filmmakers sought to skirt copyright laws by modifying certain names and details. Indeed, the similarities between this and the original Bram Stoker story are quite clear. Watching the film nearly 100 years after the original release, it remains to be a masterful and captivating unofficial Dracula film. Wonderfully utilizing German Expressionist gothic intrigue, mystery and dread. While aspects of the big, overexaggerated acting may pull some out of it, it works as a reminder of a lost art of theatrical silent filmmaking and a representation of the all consuming, emotive nature of horror and the delight and terror of any good vampire story. It is interesting how back then, no one would have thought twice about watching such a presentation. With its extreme, ominous storytelling and exaggerated, melodramatic silent film acting. By today's standards, this would be considered very strange and even comically bad. If any actor performed that way now, they'd be laughed out of Hollywood. But this feature film is 103 years old. Let that sink in. To have survived that long at all is a miracle of luck, especially since every print was ordered destroyed by the courts after the filmmakers were sued by Bram Stoker's widow for having plagiarized his work. Yeah, there's something about it that is very lasting and still impactful, and that like that in itself is amazing that, you know, you can imagine what it might have been like to watch that at the time, I'm sure had a very different, different effects. But like, I can still watch it today and I feel like it's just as powerful in a way. Amazon Prime had this film available to stream, but in color. It should be noted that the original was also colorized, mostly through a painstaking, hand-painted process, though I'm sure this colorization I watched was done in more modern times. I can test the notion that a film from 1922, especially a horror, would benefit from colorization, since I feel black and white best enhances the creepy gothic feel. But to be fair, it was colorized on Amazon in a way that sort of looks consistent with how they would have had colorized the film frame by frame back then. But since there is nothing colorful about the story's mood, It perhaps should best be blood of color. blood of life enhancing its sensation of dread. Of course, if that were strictly true, the 2024 remake would have been produced in black and white as well. They also redid all the intertitles, replaced with clean and sharp text, which doesn't add to the feel or go with the rest of the film. If anything, they could have leaned more into the degraded look. There's something about aged, deteriorated film which adds an authentic feel or layer of oldness enhancing the experience with all its scratches and history of decay, giving it character like an old gravestone it otherwise feels too sterile and interfered with in a way that's distracting and out of step with the rest of the film, which is undeniably of an older style of filmmaking. Even a crackling sounding score in glorious mono adds to the feel of the score they did provide was quite good. Yeah, I watched, Restoration Version. It was kind of more like sepia tone. Was the one you watched was like full, vibrant color. Yeah. And, I know there was some colorization. I think it was just that kind of like, almost like the browning effect that they said was to differentiate night and day mostly for certain shots. And that's funny because, there were very obviously, intended to be night shots that were very obviously shot in the Oh, yeah. I think without that missing color grade of the the, warm hues, then you couldn't really distinguish between the two. Yeah, mean, I agree. You definitely have to have it gritty and have that aging look. Any really any vampire film almost, I feel, but definitely not one from 1922. It should be perfectly crisp. Feels more. Yeah, artificial and fake at that point. even with so much that has changed in filmmaking and storytelling, the film and how it presents its story is engrossing and feels universally understandable, managing to be far more stirring and lasting than many modern depictions of far greater budgets and technology, while holding the same essential story. The visual design, creepy and classic gothic atmosphere, and the artful use of making the shadows come alive is remarkable. And for this alone, it's worth revisiting and celebrating so many years later. I think being a silent film adds a sort of strange, distorted perception of reality. There's an otherworldly sensation I get from watching this far removed from my current place and time. I also know that every person and creature in it is now deceased, adding an additional layer of creepiness in the back of my mind and in this case, something about it being German in that time frame makes it extra offputting to me. This overall surreal look and feel surpasses the value of any intended filmmaking attempt itself. Its stature is further augmented by its incidental early historical placement and eroded esthetic elevating its significance further, all of which were frankly, unintended and unforeseen by its original makers. With all that, on Rotten Tomatoes, Nosferatu A Symphony of Horror is rated a stellar 97% critic score and 87% audience score, the highest among any Nosferatu film. It even surpasses 1930 one's Dracula, which stands at 94 and 82%. you get imperfections introduced into the edit where maybe there was, a place where the film broke and there's no where to fill it in with something from another copy. So there's just a weird cut or just the general decay of it. It adds so much to it, and it's just weirdly interesting to watch something from 103 years ago. historical haunting of sorts that has found new life. I tend to say this a lot, so maybe the problem is just me. But the pacing here suffers with very few story events stretched over 88 minutes or 94 minutes, depending on which edit of the film you end up with. I would say there are maybe five minutes of actual cool, creepy stuff in this film. It's really just a handful of shots that are iconic and capture the feeling of Nosferatu as we all think of it. Similarly, the beginning of the 1931 Dracula at the Castle is my favorite part, and it disappoints me that the entire movie doesn't carry that environment through. I'm sure there were many other story angles they could have explored, especially, you know, keeping in mind that it does, pull from the Dracula novel, which is quite long. And there have been so many different adaptations and re-envisioning ins that they could have, kind of tied into more. I guess in a way we could have used a little bit more. Orlock. As a subject matter or what his victims mindset was and that that kind of complex pool. But I think for me, the original film manages to stay enticing and captivating just because of the mystery and dread that I think it it establishes. And I just felt like as it goes on, I continually feel more drawn in and just enticed and eager to see where we go. But it still kind of keeps that horrifying, predatory nature. So I guess the, the tension, atmosphere and the feel of it kind of overpowered any, any simplicity with, with story or over-the-top acting in a way. You know, it's very much the style and product of its time. So I feel like in that aspect, it almost makes it more interesting versus if this was done in a non silent film. But just about over acted, it would be a very different experience. But in a way it kind of captures that kind of like intensity of horror in itself, that kind of and especially with the vampire character, from intense delight and satisfaction to terror and dread and desolation. There are many magnificent shots in this film, taking advantage of old, authentic architecture and grand landscape compositions, including scenes in the actual Carpathian Mountains of Romania, some quite cinematic shots by any standard. In fact, many of the film structures are still there today and look much the same. The likeness of Count Orlok here is as iconic a horror character as any other, and it's inspired look alikes in such works as The Babadook and What We Do in the shadows. the scariest interpretation to me is found in the 1979 mini series Salem's Lot. We all know how fond you are of rats, Kelsey, with this look being more rat like than bat like does count or like trigger a greater terror in, you know, I mean, I don't actually find him that route. Like I mean, the scenes with rats, I'm like, okay, it's getting a little excessive at times. More so in the 79 version, I think is where it's actually most prevalent. But honestly, after I still think, Cabinet of Curiosities is the most probably a revolting specific to my rat nightmares that you can get. So in a way, like I was watching, I'm like, okay, great. That's gross. Rats, you know, don't love it. But I wasn't like, I wasn't like really like heavily reacting or any, any physical scary actions or anything like that. And I don't know, I was kind of like I was fine, especially with, the newer film. I knew that there was going to be like heavy rats. And, and so, you know, I was kind of pacing myself for that. But I don't know, I guess that's probably a bad sign in itself. Like, I was so numb to everything, maybe didn't make an effect. That is interesting because I whenever I see a rat now, I think of you. Yeah, not because of a reflection of you, but so much as I know that you're the one that, is triggered by them more than anything, but, Yeah, the fact that such an easy trigger was not triggered by the the newest version means that they weren't engaging you on quite, quite a level there. So that's that's surprising. Nosferatu the vampire, released in 1979, was directed by Werner Herzog. Oddly enough, despite being based on the 1922 Nozpheratu, I'm not sure why they didn't just blatantly title it Dracula, since the titular character is blatantly referred to by that name. Other characters also include Renfield, Jonathan Harker, and Doctor Van Helsing, shedding the pretense that Nosferatu is anything but a retelling of Bram Stoker's novel. I think for for me, the main difference with Nosferatu is the depiction of the vampire that it's kind of rejecting that suave, cunning, alluring, handsome, even version of of the vampire that you might be taken with, and just making him as hideous, animalistic, kind of predatory, just as revolting, I guess, as one could be, and especially with the original. Again, brilliantly played, but looks like even the look alone. I think if you just saw that person in the street, you would there would be some shrieking or at least add like a creeping layer, you know? So I think that's like in terms of like, why not just make a Dracula film and just own that? This is what the story is? I think that's really the main point, I think, to, to tie in to a more brutal, unappealing nature. And then if you were that creature. Well, especially with this film, because I feel like it takes the subject matter and the mindset and, human versus monster complexities and dives into them and makes it more of a focus point, probably most out of all the Nosferatu films. So I think taking that element of Nosferatu and then exploring what that persona would be my understanding is that the original, 1922 version was modeled after rats, which were, associated with Jews back at the time. And so they were trying to make them more monstrous. And it was just the association was very negative and anti-Semitic. And so that's just where the mindset was of the German population between World War one and World War Oh, that's I didn't know that. That's actually cringing. But getting back to the Herzog version, this one really does showcase them rats. And, you know, they weren't CGI pale with their beady little red eyes. I have to give props to the lead actress in this one, Isabelle Adjani, for her bravery being right there in the middle of them all. And she was pretty hot, too, I have to say. And also, I'll just say it, I thought the actress in the 1922 original was a dude in a wig for quite some time. Their standards for filmmaking and beauty were quite different back then. I guess. I really did like Isabelle Adjani as well as Mina Harker. I found her wonderfully formidable foe to the count, easily the most multidimensional, capable, intuitive and strong heroine in any of the films. for those who thought the 2024 version was a slow boat to China, I invite you to sit through this 1979 slog. Despite being about a half an hour shorter. If anything, it feels at least that much longer. Every shot, every story moment is thoroughly drawn out. The simple arrival of a horse carriage, for example, takes one minute and 18 seconds of precious screen time. The overall edit would certainly be half its length if paced by today's standards. Exteriors and interiors are all photographed using wider shots and longer takes. authentic landscapes and architecture as much as they lend to the Gothic feel or showcase to the point of excess at the expense of telling a meaningful story. But dialog it has is stiff and unnatural, with the majority of it dubbed in. In post, the score repeats the same musical motif of 2 or 3 notes over and over for extended periods, usually against footage of clouds or mountains for way too long. All that isn't to say I disliked this film. Quite the contrary. However, it does test my patience with its crawling flow. No, I'm surprised that you love it. No. Yeah, actually the pacing I it's definitely more slow and meandering. I mean, Herzog kind of brings that melancholic and hammering feel with it in those sweeping movements, shadow play an eerie atmosphere, Creating a sense of unease and inevitable doom that allows you to feel this ancient Christian evil coming alive. even when he is not on screen. Overall, though, I think I just felt more engaged in the characters and subject matter that I was. I was kind of there for the even admittedly slow meandering, but everything still felt like it was kind of exploring the nature of this vampire and the power and allure that he was putting out there, and his own kind of struggles with isolationism and feeling a little bit of that human pull for connection while still holding on to the vicious, kind of sinister nature within him. Herzog's film lies in between the utter melodrama of the 1922 version and our current state of filmmaking maturity as seen in the 2024 film. Stylistically, these three pictures could not be more different, separated not so much by their artistic visions, but by the eras in which they were made, being essentially a retelling of the same story. Through these three films, we can observe here the evolution of filmmaking. I ponder what another version 50 years from now might look like. And I think the the 79 version has its own set of like, quirky weirdness or surreal vibe to it, like the 22 version, but it's like halfway in between that one modern filmmaking in it. it's got a weird 1970s vibe, I think the style back then just tended to be slower. It wasn't so breakneck speed like a fast and the furious film. Yeah, and I can see that especially like towards the end with some of the supporting actors. There are moments where they are playing it kind of like campy, quirky, weird, I guess. So I could see why that tone could see like a little off from the more explorative, dark, gothic melancholy of most of it. As far as the vampire's appearance here goes, although in keeping with the 1922 Max Shreck version of the three films, I found this one the least threatening, though the 2024 version is actually my least favorite visual depiction least favorite? I sound like you loved it. The new one, Yeah, No, no, I actually quite disliked it. Well, visuals specifically loved the the vibe of them and the voice and when they didn't show much of him. And your imagination can fill in like who's okay. breathing. But when you actually saw him, I don't want to give away Yeah. but it just, doesn't quite feel like. I mean, I could see how it works as a version of Orlok, and it may be more authentic somehow, but I was wanting to see the max Schreck version from 1922 updated to modern standards, more rat like and there was more of a, chilling vibe that I got when I watched Salem's Lot from 1970, whatever. But that was just it was too divorced from anything that I could have imagined a Dracula or Count Orlok looking like. And so it just didn't work for me, okay, I didn't I thought you were talking about, like, the the look of the film as a whole. but that makes sense. If it's just like the depiction of him and I. I agree like initially very intriguing. And it wasn't so much about the look but just what the character ended up being. I was more and more removed from it as it went on. And how did you feel about the Count's or Locked Dracula of the 1979 version? The 79 version is the only film to fully give the count the true forefront, allowing him pain, yearnings, and a plea to be free from his eternal isolation while still keeping his roots as a terrifying primal hunter the vampire here offers an existential dilemma, holding on to both the man and the monster that is a staple of any compelling vampire subject. there's just enough of an emotional, thoughtful edge without him bridging into the self-pitying brand of vampire that can so easily ruin a compelling vampire character. I like that they retain that Max Schreck look, but he felt a bit small and unthreatening to me as a villain, so I thought he didn't really deliver anything scary. He just seemed kind of creepy in, a pervert sense. And in a, general or European demeanor compared to what I'm used to here, that maybe added something, but I don't know if that was intentional. I just didn't find him, spine chilling, but I can see how he had more layers to him more developed as a character than probably, the 1922 or the 2024 version. Yeah. The look wasn't bad. It's not like if I were to, I don't know, think of the most enticing creepy vampire. Maybe that's not the one I would pick, but, yeah, I would say overall I think the 22 like visual of the vampire alone. That one's probably the most effective still. But yeah, I think it was more I guess getting a sense of his emotional, kind of complexities and yearnings and still having this core vampire predatory, dark, enticing can't be sort of almost like wanting connection, but can't fully gain it because he it's like, still, at the end of the day, he is he still is this instinctual base monster. On Rotten Tomatoes, Nosferatu the Vampire holds a 94% critic score and 83% audience score, much higher than I would have bestowed, Though for what it does achieve, it does have my respect, and it certainly does have its charms. Still, this is hard to reconcile, being exactly 10% higher in critics and audience scores over the 2024 version, which I feel is superior in every way. While the original is still my favorite version of the Nosferatu story, the 1979 version is a very worthy poetic reimagining, adding ample story exploration and a somber, reflective nature that is equally as powerful as the haunting, predatory tension it creates, even if in an understated way, There's one scene in particular where the vampires have in and half out of shadow against the more vibrant human target before him in terror, but with a vivacious life he is without. The use of black and whites, is both reminiscent of the Murnau's Nosferatu, and showcases the vampire being of a time past, an impossible thing that is. There's also a compelling conversation about how one finds the will to keep living life when such death, plague, and doom surrounds you, as well as an interesting conversation on belief for logic that tap into the roots of the vampire legend and how has changed and evolved throughout time. again, this was an interesting idea, only given the most bare bones and time in 2024 is Nosferatu bringing interesting elements of these altering perspectives, but not truly developing this in an impactful way. In the end, for a seemingly soulless being, Nosferatu the Vampire reigns and being the most profound examination of telling the vampire story with ample soul and terror in equal measure. I went into Robert Eggers Nosferatu with an open mind, but largely expected the themes and story to be underdeveloped and poorly executed, as is my experience with Eggers more often than not. But I also expected the rich talent and dark, compelling atmosphere and enticing, dreary mood to come alive with the hope it would honor the original story and bring some further exploration. While the visuals and cinematography were remarkable, fascinating and greatly added to the dreary, ominous setting as a whole, I was given a lesser experience than my low to moderate expectations setup. I understand many regard this film as a masterpiece visually, absolutely yes, but I think it also is a reminder of the importance of strong storytelling first and foremost, with fully developed, complex, evocative characters and thematic exploration, giving its voice, time and focus to really impact the viewer. The feelings of film leave you with, say, a lot, and I left this one feeling like it was a rather wasted potential mess, Even if it was a hauntingly striking, visually remarkable mess that came so close to something evocative only to falter. Now, I wasn't the biggest Eggers fan going into this, but what about you? Have you seen his other films before this? he did? The witch, right? Yes. I saw that one. I like the ending, as I recall, but I think it was a lot of build up that, took a bit longer to pay off at the end than I preferred, but I kind of like the, the desperate times of that, period that it was depicting. And, it had certain themes that I think were interesting, but, I don't know that I've seen anything else of his. He did The Lighthouse and The Northman, and then this is his fourth film. That's pretty much sadly, I know I'm not a fan, and I've seen every one of his movies. I've had the, lighthouse on my watch list for years, meaning to watch it, but I have not as of yet. It intrigues me, but I'm not sure if I'm going to dig it or not. I just like the cast. Yeah. So yeah, that was another one that I enjoyed most of it. I was intrigued, but I will say it's it's absolutely worth it for the acting because the acting is incredible and they just constantly feeding off each other. It is a very, very rich part where even with like even with the the film not really delivering for me, I very much appreciated that. Like and that was a case where and again great visuals, atmosphere like he knows how to compose a film. Well and again interesting ideas. So but that like that one, the acting is probably the most impressive part of it for me. I hated the ending, and it kind of wasn't so much the ending, it just didn't go anywhere interesting for me. I won't say too much because I don't want to said too much, expectations. But that's kind of largely been my experience with his work. I hated the witch, so that shocks me because I know you're into the witches and, the empowerment of women and messaging that, could be devoted into an entire movie like this, I figure this would be exactly up your alley. And I'm wondering if it's because of that and because of the perhaps expectations that, in this case of Nosferatu with, the budget Bill Skarsgard and all that, maybe these expectations were too high and you went into it and it would disappoint you no matter what the outcome was. But also, oh, I hated the witch so much. Again, I only have saw it when I first saw it, and I did see it with a friend who was like, you think I'm a witch fan? Like another level, like deeply studied witches of the time period and wrote his own film and, he hated it as well. Like with the witch. Again, I it's one that because it's so loved again, I'm. I think I'm maybe just not the biggest fan of Eggers as a storyteller. So I got it might be just a difference that I have with how other people perceive his films mean. Again, not not that I'm writer that right. You know, we're we're we all are in a subjective and are reviewing it different ways. But and again I like The Northman so it's not not like I won't ever give his, films a chance. But I think since the witch, I'm actually going in with lower expectations, cause I'm like, okay, I'm expecting good visuals, probably like some decent atmosphere, some interesting ideas and good acting, but I'm probably going to be disappointed with the storytelling and not realizing on the potential. In the end, I think, again, I might go back and give the witch another chance at some point. Not something I've been really excited or too eager to do, which is why I have not done it yet. But, it to me, it just didn't seem like it did anything, anything that something like The Crucible hasn't done better or any of any other number of things. So yes, there was some of the fear and hysteria and, especially fear of the other. But yeah, I didn't really think any themes really came across in any strong or unique fresh way. I, I, I felt very disconnected from absolutely everything in that movie, from the character's story. Even the setting didn't do that much for me. Very, very bored for sure. But, and it wasn't even the slow pacing. It was. almost alienating in a way, but like where? I don't think that was the intent. I think I think his storytelling just did not invoke anything in me. And as he writes, everything he directs. Unfortunately, yes. Okay. But you liked, she will. And that was, something to do with witches of that era with a similar sort of visual style, I would strong emotions and multi developed like characters with layers and relatable things. In my opinion. I know you weren't as big of a fan, but no, we did have an episode on that one. I think The Northman, what's different about that one? It, I mean, that one also takes a classic story. So like the the basis of the story was there, which is why it was actually a little bit more hopeful for Nosferatu because I'm like, well, maybe he just needs a good, solid story and he can kind of do his own thing off of that. But, it was a pretty simple story, but, it was compelling with like, the emotional resonance. I mean, it's essentially tragedy and revenge story, but it was I mean, great acting as well. And yeah, I think the emotional impacts and depth just kind of worked a little bit more then I feel like his other films have. Which one is this? The Northman? the Northman I, I've not seen that. I've heard that come up routinely since all these, people are talking about, Nosferatu. So they tend to go back to that one, and I'm like, I got to see this. Yeah. I mean, I'm not an Agatha fan, clearly. And that's the one. And the friend that I actually saw the witch with, I saw Northman with him, and we both agreed. Okay, now this is actually a good movie. I mean, some Viking, setting and Alexander Skarsgard, Anya, Anya Taylor-Joy is in it. They're both fantastic and even like, just that. There are some really impressive filmmaking feats in it. Like, even very like a very long, elaborate, a Viking war time sweeping shots. So yeah, there was I think I did watch a little, a short, little behind the scenes thing of one of them where it was something pretty impressive, like kind of like what, what they took on with the film. And again, a pretty simple story, but there was enough emotion and relatability behind it. I think that made you care. Well, I think it's funny how I always say, let's do something easy for the next one, because I don't have any time, and then we end up watching three movies reading War and Peace the next one. I don't know. At some point I feel like I was thinking, there is a lot of track, like. Not that we have to focus on every Dracula retelling ever, but I feel like we've captured a few, like, really bad ones. Like, we kind of need to cover, like, a good Dracula depiction at one point. And I did watch Dracula Untold. Well, I said a good one. Yeah. I meant to tell you that I did watch it on Netflix, I see what you mean. I actually enjoyed it on a weird level because of its, like, awfulness. It's sort of Van Helsing esque Yeah, levels of ridiculousness and over-the-top ness of the characters and stretching it into being more of an action piece that just, very, very little connection with the source material. But still, it's like what you can do with the same basic character and then make that into any movie you want. It's kind of interesting. In this case, it was more of a thriller or action, based piece. But yeah, it was it wasn't very deep, but because you expressed how bad it was, I went into it with such low expectations that it couldn't help but be, oh, it's not as bad as I thought it would be, but it was pretty darn bad. Yeah. I mean, just even the level of more morning whiny and taking Vlad the Impaler and, yes, I, I impaled and killed all those people and raped and pillaged for for the greater good. Like, I don't know, like you can, like, just just disregard that whole history if you don't want to acknowledge it. But that was I'm just like that was really at the point where it just got too ridiculous and, and again, seemed like they were trying to make Universal Monsters like, you know, Marvel, like make them the sympathetic anti-hero. I guess that's what they were going for. But yeah, it didn't work. But yeah, at some point, one of those. But, yeah, we'll talk, but I think you should just embrace that. We're going to go into some depth and maybe multiple movies or book. And so let's just do like a whole series and just, yeah, go deep with it. I think we've done plenty of vampire material that's like the majority of what we've done. I don't know why we landed that way, but it just for some reason, it is what it is and I'm not hating it, but, I know what I want to do next, but it's your turn. So, if you have any ideas or if anybody out there has any suggestions, Yeah. means, comment below as they say. If you would like to join our Society of Grotesquerie and Loathing, subscribe now and give this podcast a like. And be sure to comment your wretched thoughts below. Keep our podcast suffering on by finding it in your cold black, withered hearts. To support us on Patreon. A link to our PayPal is also below. For one time donations of any amount. It was nice knowing you.