directed by F. W. Murnau, 1922
That�s why on first viewing Nosferatu is interesting for all the shots that Schrek isn�t on screen. Thomas Hutter, Professor Bulwer�these are all new characters, presented fresh for audiences eighty-five years on. The shots of Orlock rising from his coffin, lurking in his crypt � and, of course, coming up the stairs � are fantastically exciting, but only when the rest of the story is added are these moments validated and a truly great film is made.
Nosferatu was made a score of years after Bram Stoker wrote Dracula (in fact his widow was still alive), and the vampire it gave us is now such a ubiquitous trope that it�s easy to forget how comparatively recent it was, and that Nosferatu comes from a period when the imagery surrounding it was still being defined. The film dates from when something new was being brought to the table with every retelling of the story, and this film�s major contribution to the tale is the idea that sunlight is fatal to vampires. Since technical limitations meant that scenes could only be shot in bright sunlight, in retrospect they were lucky to get away with it.
But it works. F. W. Murnau was the king of German Expressionism in silent cinema, and the abstract, surreal and symbolic style of film-making makes a virtue out of necessity. Hand-cranked cameras mean that people move strangely � this is actually incorporated into the film here, to give characters a sense of grotesque distortion. Similarly the bright sunlight during what is supposed to be the middle of the night is used to give the feeling that time itself has been subverted in Orlock�s realm, as the enigmatic figure disappears from one place and reappears in another without apparently travelling through the intervening space. All this contributes to Nosferatu�s status as one of the most atmospheric and visually beautiful films of all time.
Murnau died in 1931, around the time when silent films were being phased out in favour of talkies. This means that he will forever be associated with the style of cinema of which he was the undisputed master. He famously liked to use the visuals to tell the story, and to keep title cards to a minimum; as a consequence, the plot of Stoker�s novel has been stripped to its bare bones. Once again however limitations and necessities are taken and turned into bonuses, as the plot here becomes a frame around the film. Expressionism was, after all, concerned with symbolism and suggestion rather than the purely literal, and it feels appropriate that the various milestones of the novel become mere points of reference here, starting places for it to divert away in its bizarre, frightening manner.
These days, modern audiences find silent films increasingly difficult to get to grips with. It�s understandable, but it�s a shame. I haven�t mentioned the poor quality of the film stock because it simply doesn�t matter (in fact it adds to the evocative nature of the film by increasing the distorted effect), but common gripes don�t end there. A common accusation is that silent films are badly acted, or that the comedies aren�t funny. They are well acted�just in a different way. And they are funny�just in a different way. They follow a different set of rules. But I need make no such excuse for Nosferatu, which remains as scary (if not more so) than any horror film I�ve ever seen, while remaining a beautiful, intelligent, literate piece of cinema. So put aside your preconceptions, if you have any, and forget about the silly spoofs. Just enjoy a film that�s almost perfect on every level of its conception.
*****
Back to films index
Back to main page