When I told someone that I wanted to see Nosferatu, the 2024 remake of the 1922 original of
the same name, they said, "Why? It's just another vampire movie." To this I didn't have much to say, in fact, more or less agreed, but said something profound like, "Yeah, but that's my kinda jam" (these are the kinds of phrases you use when you have a Bachelor's and Master's degree).
This was not the first time I'd heard something like this, for vampire films, TV shows, and books are everywhere, probably to the point of over-saturation. Ever since the release of the first Nosferatu, Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror, in 1922, the public can't seem to get enough of blood-suckers, especially if they have exotic Eastern European accents and live in musty old castles. From Bela Lugosi's inimitable portrayal of the Count in 1931's Dracula, to Edward Cullen, vampires seem to be a bankable commodity for Hollywood. And fans like me, for whom yes, vampires are, "my jam," as it were, no matter how many different portrayals we've seen of them, no matter how disgruntled we seem to get with the latest half-assed attempt at doing something new with the genre, we are always up for a new vampire film, especially if they have exotic Eastern European accents and live in musty old castles.
As I was watching Nosferatu, directed by Robert Eggers and starring unrecognizable Bill Skarsgard (and that's saying something, for being unrecognizable in his roles seems to be HIS jam) as Count Orlock, I started to wonder if some modern audiences would be confused because the story is basically that of Dracula, from the vampire who lives in the far off Carpathian mountains, to the the wizened, nutty old professor, the asylum director, and the young clerk with a pretty young wife who becomes the subject of the count's desires. So, if that was confusing to anyone, let me clear that up. In 1922, Nosferatu, directed by F.W. Murnau, was a German production that did not have the rights to make an adaption of Dracula but in essence, did it anyway, changing all the character's names. This version of Nosferatu is a remake of the original film which is an adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel. If that IS confusing, don't worry. If you know the basic plot of Dracula - an ancient vampire buys an old estate in England, goes after a young woman and her fiancée, to be confronted by an unlikely band of heroes to stop him- you're good.
Stylistically, Nosferatu is excellent, from the cinematography to the intricate and incredibly detailed set and costume design to the lighting, which is something I don't think of often when I am watching a movie (which of course, is usually the idea). In the case of Nosferatu, the filmmakers deftly craft a darkened ambiance that captures 19th century very well (or so I can only assume). Orlock's castle, the various pubs, estates, and homes really look like they're only lit by torches, candles, and fireplaces. They also do an exceptional job of portraying Victorian England, an era that is often portrayed through rose-colored glasses, while in this film, it looks grimy. The filmmakers also do a decent job of using old school special effects techniques or at least make it look like they are, relying heavily on shadows, much as the original silent film did back in 1922. The result makes it nice and creepy.
As said, the story plays out much like Dracula, with a few twists that shouldn't distract purists too much. The actors all inhabit their roles well enough, with my only issues, unfortunately, being with the two heavies, Skarsgard as Count Orlock and Willem Defoe as the Van Helsing character (called von Fran in this film).
Don't get me wrong, Skarsgard works well as Orlock, with the possible exception being that at times he sounds like a Tuberculosis patient on his death bed whenever he opens his mouth. The main issue with his depiction is less his fault and more that of the director's. This iteration of Count Orlock is not only hideous but looks like a half-rotten corpse out of The Walking Dead. I am fine with a disgusting-looking vampire, it's just that this film, like many versions of Dracula still attempts to paint him as a sort of sex symbol, terrible hairline, giant mustache, TB breath, rotten flesh and all. Didn't work for me.
And Willem Defoe, who's probably never called in a bad performance, doesn't give one here, he just comes across as a little too nutty, like some gleeful imp happy to be included in the vampire-killing adventure. Anthony Hopkins had a similar take in 1992's Bram Stoker's Dracula, but he also came across as wise, mysterious, and serious, while Defoe's von Franz acts like an escaped patient from the asylum.
If you like old school vampire films, there's a lot for you here to enjoy. The attention to detail makes the classic film a modern work of art. It's creepy, gory, but maybe ultimately just a little cringey. You'll know what I mean when you watch it.
Comments