Nosferatu (1922) - Lisa's Review

This is an oooooooooold movie, a SILENT movie for gawds sake!  I'd managed to successfully avoid watching this one up until tonight.  You see, this is probably one of my husbands favourite movies.  It's most definately his favourite vampire/vampyr? movie.  A bit of information first.  This was the first movie based on the 1897 Bram Stokers Dracula.  Given our modern ideas on vampires, this is quite surprising as the vampire depicted in Nosferatu is very, very different.  Bram Stokers widow denied permission for the movie to be made, but undeterred, F.W. Murnau continued with his version of the famous book.  He did change the names and made subtle differences to the storyline, but anyone who had read Stokers book or who had any knowledge of it, would be quick to make the connection.  Upon finding this out Stokers widow demanded all the copies were destroyed.  Fortunately for film history, a copy had made it's way to America, so the movie was saved and so is able to be enjoyed today.

So, why Nosferatu when the main vampires name is Orlok?  Well a little bit of reading tells me that Nosferatu is a Romanian word synomymous with Vampire and with the location being Transylvania... there you go!

Our movie starts depicting the happy relationship between our star Thomas Hutter and his beautiful wife Ellen.  They have a very simple relationship, one that shows an almost dependence upon one another, so when Hutters boss Knock sends him to Transylvania to secure a sale with a new customer, Count Orlok, Ellen is unsure and reluctant for Hutter to go.  Of course he doesn't have an option but to go, even with the reputation the place has of being full of phantoms and evil spirits.

So Hutter sets off on his journey leaving Ellen in the care of his friends.  I have to say, being female, the whole notion of a woman having to be cared for by someone else when her man is away is a bit patronising, but I suppose it is the 1920's.  If Hutter is a bit dubious of his visit to Orlok, he is not reassured when he stops off at a local inn and the mere mention of the name Orlok is enough to provoke fear and loathing.  They discourage him from travelling at night, they say due to a werewolf being on the loose.  The 'werewolf' is shown and amusingly is a hyena.  I wasn't sure if this was the closest the filmmaker could get to a werewolf or whether it was to highlight the villagers lying to attempt to protect Hutter from Orlok by dissuading him from travelling at night.

As has to be the case, Hutter and Orlok as destined to meet and they do.  Interestingly, Orlok is nothing that you would expect given our understanding of a modern day vampire.  He is far from alluring, handsome or debonair. Rather he is hideously ugly with a misshapen bulbous head, a deathly pallor and 2 long fang-like incisors.  He is, what vampires probably always should have been. Orlok contradicts what we have come to learn as normal for vampires.  He is not a 'turned' vampire, rather he is cursed.  There is no choice between death or life everlasting as a vampire.  Orlok is shown in this movie to have to carry his burial earth everywhere with him.  I didn't understand why he even had burial earth, given that I thought vampires have never been buried.  This is when the differences were made apparent.  People who are bitten by Orlok do not die nor become a vampire as illustrated when Hutter wakes in the morning after his night staying at Orloks castle to find 2 incisions on his neck.  He initially thinks these are mosquito bites and even mentions them in a letter to Ellen.  Orlok is also not able to walk outside in daylight.  This has been used in some modern vampire tales showing that this movies portrayal of a vampire has influenced folklore today.

I won't discuss any more of the storyline of Nosferatu as after Orlok and Nosferatu meet, the story properly begins.  This is most definately not a movie I would have chosen to watch.  As I've already said, even though it is one of my husbands favourite horrors, I had always managed to avoid it.  I don't think this was necessarily fair as it is a decent movie.  There are some truly terrifying images in the movie.  The set, lighting and imagery are fantastic.  The work that was done with such basic equipment is awe inspiring.  Sure there are some slightly silly, almost laughable sections, but they can all be forgiven for the positives that the movie has.  Something as simple as using a sepia lens to denote daylight and a blue one to denote night time was incredibly effective.  Also the limited use of stop-start motion was perfect where it was used.  It was the imagery, the makeup and the entire character of Orlok that made the movie for me.  Some scenes honestly made my eyes widen, not because I was terrified, but because they were such cool, creepy, eerie images and were so effective.

One thing I did find a bit hard about the movie to start with was the over exaggerated acting, but I got used to it as the movie went on so it didn't seem odd any more, but I have since read, that this was normal to make up for the fact the movie was silent.

All in all, I would definitely recommend this movie as, for a horror fan, or even a movie fan, this is a piece of history and one that deserves to be seen.  I'm only sorry I left it this long to give it a chance.