Nosferatu (1922)
With creativity of German expressionist films we get one the iconic horror films of all time with Nosferatu. Directed by F.W. Murnau to be the first and only film produced by Prana Film, a production company that was to make films based on the occult and the supernatural. The film would set standards on production of horror films, as would be brought down by standards already set in the world.
The film was out to be produced as the first adaption of Bram Stroker's world famous novel Dracula, but with a new company just getting their feet wet they would be unable to purchase the right to make the adaptation. So they did the next best thing... Rip it off! The story basically parallels the classic plot of Dracula with name changes (i.e. vampire is now Nosferatu, Count Dracula is now Count Orlok, Jonathan Harker is Thomas Hutter... and so on) as well s some other minor changes. I'm not going to bother you with the plot, for you should have a good idea about it anyways (man visits the Count on business, man hears of strange things, man see strange things happen, man reads up on vampires, oh no the Count is a vampire, vampire kills people, vampire eventually dies.)
What makes this picture special is the overall creativity of the film. The cinematography, the effects, and the editing are all remarkable, and it makes the creature down right freaky. First off Max Schreck's depiction of Count Orlock is wonderful and actually very different from the Dracula character. In the novel the Count is a well mannered, attractive gentleman about town. Nosferatu is a bit different and his differences would actually contribute to how we would view vampires from then on. Unlike the sleek man that Dracula is Orlock is a slender, tall, rodent faced man with big pointy ears and large rodent teeth along with his long nails. Nothing at all says that this man would be able to go out on the town and blend in in any way. In fact he cannot go out in the sun (the very thing that would kill him in this film). For you see Dracula in the novel was able to be in the sun, and was seen as doing so at times, but it was from this very movie that we get the idea that vampires do not like the sun and can even be killed by the sun.
Apart from the appearance of Orlock, the way he was shot made him more menacing. The effect of him rising up from his coffin (perhaps the single most memorable shot for the picture) give you the feeling of his unworldly powers. What is even better is the use of shadows. the silhouette of Orlock moving along a wall seems far more frightening then seeing the creature himself (a device that works so well even to this day with many creatures in film). His silhouette is even recognizable, a feature important to timelessness of film characters. (Think about it. You can recognize many really memorable silhouettes. I.E. Mickey Mouse, Indiana Jones, Alfred Hitchcock, the list goes on.)
This is simple one of those silent films that though many people may not have seen, many can recognize parts of it, and it would influence people and many filmmakers. It even spawned a movie in 2000, Shadow of a Vampire, a fictitious tale of the making of the film with Max Schreck as a real vampire and the complications that come with that in the filmmaking process. (A creative little idea.)
The movie was a hit for its time in Germany and around the globe, but it was also a huge downfall for its filmmakers. You can't just rip off a popular novel and not expect a reaction. The widow of Bram Stocker would sue the filmmakers for infringement and win, bankrupting the studio, before it could get started, ceasing the distribution of the picture. Fortunately for us some prints still got past the case before it was finalized and the film would be copied and and viewed all over the globe. So unfortunately the filmmakers made a timeless motion picture, but failed to reap the rewards because they did not play by the copyright laws. Their loss (and stupidity) is history's gain. The picture will live on as one of the best vampire (but not Dracula) films of all time and would influence the realm of horror.
The film was out to be produced as the first adaption of Bram Stroker's world famous novel Dracula, but with a new company just getting their feet wet they would be unable to purchase the right to make the adaptation. So they did the next best thing... Rip it off! The story basically parallels the classic plot of Dracula with name changes (i.e. vampire is now Nosferatu, Count Dracula is now Count Orlok, Jonathan Harker is Thomas Hutter... and so on) as well s some other minor changes. I'm not going to bother you with the plot, for you should have a good idea about it anyways (man visits the Count on business, man hears of strange things, man see strange things happen, man reads up on vampires, oh no the Count is a vampire, vampire kills people, vampire eventually dies.)
What makes this picture special is the overall creativity of the film. The cinematography, the effects, and the editing are all remarkable, and it makes the creature down right freaky. First off Max Schreck's depiction of Count Orlock is wonderful and actually very different from the Dracula character. In the novel the Count is a well mannered, attractive gentleman about town. Nosferatu is a bit different and his differences would actually contribute to how we would view vampires from then on. Unlike the sleek man that Dracula is Orlock is a slender, tall, rodent faced man with big pointy ears and large rodent teeth along with his long nails. Nothing at all says that this man would be able to go out on the town and blend in in any way. In fact he cannot go out in the sun (the very thing that would kill him in this film). For you see Dracula in the novel was able to be in the sun, and was seen as doing so at times, but it was from this very movie that we get the idea that vampires do not like the sun and can even be killed by the sun.
Apart from the appearance of Orlock, the way he was shot made him more menacing. The effect of him rising up from his coffin (perhaps the single most memorable shot for the picture) give you the feeling of his unworldly powers. What is even better is the use of shadows. the silhouette of Orlock moving along a wall seems far more frightening then seeing the creature himself (a device that works so well even to this day with many creatures in film). His silhouette is even recognizable, a feature important to timelessness of film characters. (Think about it. You can recognize many really memorable silhouettes. I.E. Mickey Mouse, Indiana Jones, Alfred Hitchcock, the list goes on.)
This is simple one of those silent films that though many people may not have seen, many can recognize parts of it, and it would influence people and many filmmakers. It even spawned a movie in 2000, Shadow of a Vampire, a fictitious tale of the making of the film with Max Schreck as a real vampire and the complications that come with that in the filmmaking process. (A creative little idea.)
The movie was a hit for its time in Germany and around the globe, but it was also a huge downfall for its filmmakers. You can't just rip off a popular novel and not expect a reaction. The widow of Bram Stocker would sue the filmmakers for infringement and win, bankrupting the studio, before it could get started, ceasing the distribution of the picture. Fortunately for us some prints still got past the case before it was finalized and the film would be copied and and viewed all over the globe. So unfortunately the filmmakers made a timeless motion picture, but failed to reap the rewards because they did not play by the copyright laws. Their loss (and stupidity) is history's gain. The picture will live on as one of the best vampire (but not Dracula) films of all time and would influence the realm of horror.
Comments
Post a Comment