Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens / Nosferatu (1922) – 3/5

A vampire classic

My original review from September 2015:

This is Murnau’s take on the famous Dracula tale and it is exactly these films that made Germany such a successful nation in terms of silent movies. They did not have the quality or quantity like France or the United States when it came to very early silent short films, but in terms of feature films they are right there at the top. „Metropolis“ is probably the most known example, but „Nosferatu“ follows right behind. This one was made when vampires did not sparkle in the sun, but actually die if they do not make it into their coffin quickly.

There are several runtimes listed here, but the version I saw had slightly over 1.5 hours, which is the longest and the most common as well. This is a silent movie, so all the music and sound effects (the cock noise near the end) was added later on to make this a better viewing experience. In my opinion it does improve the material, but that is a choice that everybody has to make on his own. In any case, the story is such a memorable and fascinating one that even legendary German filmmaker Werner Herzog produced his own approach to the tale starring Kinski, Ganz and Adjani over 50 years later and changing some of the names as well (Hutter became Harker).

But back to this 1922 version: It’s actually not that long anymore until it has its 100th anniversary. In my opinion, the best parts were the ones that included Nosferatu. Of course his presence was felt during the entire movie, but it was just so much more effective when he was seen, which he was not for almost the entire second half of the film, which is why I guess I preferred the first half. Plague references nicely rounded up the whole picture and personal tragedies, so I imagine people back in the first half of the 20th century were genuinely scared back then. People today probably are not that scared anymore, despite the gruesome looks of Nosferatu, because of the way the medium of film, and horror films as well, has developed over the last 90 years. Still, all in all a pretty good movie and I recommend it.

Additions from January 2023:

„Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens“ or „Nosferatu. A Symphony of Horror.“ or just „Nosferatu“ is a German black-and-white silent film that had its 100th anniversary last year, which sadly also means that every human working on it is long gone. Luckily, they left us their art. The biggest name attached to the project was F. W. Murnau and it is probably his career-defining effort and same for everybody else, especially the actors. Some people might say that not Murnau is the star here, but bearded writer Bram Stoker is. He did not live to see any of the major success linked to his Dracula novel, even though he could have as he was not super old when he died. I am sure he would be amazed if he knew that everybody still knows his work in the 21st century. This 1922 version is the second adaptation. Hungary was quicker and released a Dracula film in 1921 already, but almost nobody has seen that one. This one here got seen by millions. It is now close to 100,000 imdb ratings, which is huge for a silent film, especially a non-American one. More years passed and no new Dracula films got made until the 1930s, but then it was one after another. Bela Lugosi started the hype. Vampire films in general kept getting made on many occasions, not just Dracula, and always with elements from Stoker’s novel. The screenplay writer here was Henrik Galeen. It is not the only silent film that he worked on that is still popular in the 21st century. He was also in charge of lighter films, but this one here is his by far most known effort.

A few words on the cast: Max Schreck is fairly iconic in here, which has as much to do with the makeup as with his performance. Probably more Count Orlok’s looks are just incredibly memorable, even if they differ from the poster. After seeing Schreck’s character, you will not get him out of your head again. The good guy is played by Gustav von Wangenheim, a bit of a beau here and he was just in his 20s during shooting. Murnau was also young still, closer to 30 than 40. Unfortunately, he died in a car accident less than a decade after this movie. So very untimely and even before the fateful 1933. Many big names came to his funeral. Now, back to this movie: It runs for over 1.5 hours, longer than most movies from its era, and there are several Dracula films from the years after that were shorter than this black-and-white film. Don’t be fooled by the colors. It was still interesting to witness when/why the shades were yellow, blue etc. One central character is played by Greta Schröder, a prolific German actress from her era back in the day. She was pretty. I can see why Dracula traveled hundreds of miles to see her in person. Well, she was not the only reason, but a key reason for sure. Towards the end of the film, she lures him into her chamber and he walks upstairs to get there. Initially, he is outside the window, but he does not enter the room from there. This specific stairway shot with his gigantic shadow moving is among the most known sequences from the era of silent film. Awesome camera work there. We have an aspect here that is always closely connected to vampires, namely how they cannot enter a home without permission. No matter if you have come across it on Buffy or on a modern, really good Swedish vampire film, apparently this idea was also a factor already in this very old movie. I think this is not as crucial in other Dracula films, at least during the final scenes when she asks him inside and sacrifices herself for the greater good. It was maybe as much of a factor when the human protagonist visits Dracula early on and offers him a contract that allows the undead to visit said human at his hometown.

The element of people rotting away during and after Dracula’s passage is also a factor here. Wasn’t in every Dracula film. In general, this film here reminded me a lot of Werner Herzog’s version starring Kinski. There are many parallels, especially the bleakness void of Hollywood pomp in both films. The rats and dying the two films have in common too. Not (as big of) a factor in other Dracula films. Or take Van Helsing. He is not even in here and elsewhere he is a key character, on rare occasions even more significant than Dracula. I was okay with his absence. I never really dug the character too much, not even with the iconic Anthony Hopkins in charge. One thing I found a bit confusing about this silent film here was the element of people dying. I understand everybody on the ship died before Dracula arrived, but what was up with those news reports if all this happened far away on the ocean and not (yet) in the town where the film is set during the second half? Remains a mystery to me. What else? Oh yeah, you will find some overacting in this film, but it’s nothing unusual for silent films, even the classics. One moment where it was extremely obvious here was the scene when a man cuts himself and we see him bleed from his wound. So does Orlok. His reaction there was so over the top that it was almost funny, even if surely not meant this way. This scene, however, with how Dracula can hardly hold himself back is something you find in every film. Another inclusion that you will see almost every time is the innkeeper who is worried when he hears the human protagonist is heading for Dracula’s castle. This was also a bit over the top here.

And there is also another character you will find in every Dracula/Nosferatu film, namely the one who loses his sanity and turnes into an aide or at least admirer of Dracula. His reaction to his master arriving on the ship is something so haunting that you will easily remember it. In this film here, he also feels the death of Orlok inside him in the end, so there was a special connection between the two. I kinda like the character, he always adds a lot. They went with a German name here for him, namely Knock, just like the city where the film is set also has a German name. A fictitious name. The best example, however, is the creature itself. The name is Orlok here, not Dracula. This is a massive alteration from the other films where it is always Nosferatu or Dracula. Dracula is more opulent in a way perhaps. This one here depicts him as a mostly suffering creature who does what he has to do in order to „stay alive“. You know what I mean with the „. If you look at the credits here, then you will see that most characters have their profession credited with the name. Some also only have the profession credited. This combination of both is something that is really common for silent movies. I like reading it like this.

There is a lot more here to talk about from this film that was shown on a special occasion a few days ago. There was a lecture before that and I almost felt like being back at university when a film historian was elaborating on the movie and also the many spider (web) references for example. Right after the lecture, the movie was shown and luckily there were really many people attending. Another triumph basically representing the wave of old(er) movies coming back to the big screen and there are always tons of people watching. Admittedly, these other films are usually nowhere near as old as this one. From my rating, you see that I liked the watch, but was not blown away. I don’t see it as a classic, just as one of the better films from the 1920s. There are some memorable moments, most of all Schreck’s character’s looks in here. I also heard there was a big advertising campaign to ppromote this film back then that was apparently more expensive than the shooting of the film. It did not become a big commercial success, but they can accept it now I assume looking at the movie’s popularity to this day. It is perhaps not a film that will turn silent film haters into silent film groupies, but if you have a bit of an interest in the era already, then go give it a chance. Thumbs-up.