Please write whatever comes into your mind and heart, but I'm particularly interested in how you aesthetically and thematically connect Nosferatu to the previous work of Herzog's we've seen up to this point. I'm also curious to know what it is about this work that struck you the most.
As usual and in general, I welcome and appreciate whatever detailed insights you're inspired to provide - by no later than noon next Wednesday of course.
Herzog’s Nosferatu is undoubtedly the most depressing adaptation of Bram Stoker’s Dracula. While arguably Murnau’s original also ends on a rather sorrowful note, it isn’t completely as apparent as it is within Herzog’s version. While Herzog states the film was his attempt to bridge the gap between himself and the first generation of German filmmakers, it felt more like it was his attempt to bridge the gap between Murnau and Stoker. While Murnau couldn’t use elements of Stoker’s novel for legal reasons, here we see Herzog splicing the two together quite effectively. He changes Count Orlok’s name back to Count Dracula and he reintroduces the characters of Mina and Van Helsing (although they are radically different than they appear as in Stoker’s novel). Elements of Murnau’s film are kept as well, including the film’s climax of Lucy tricking Dracula into staying in her room until morning, the aesthetic choices (color schemes, set design (the creepy skull clock making a return appearance), and lighting), and of course Dracula’s demonic like appearance.
ReplyDeleteMy biggest issue with Herzog’s adaptation of Dracula, and it’s one I have with essentially all adaptations of Stoker’s novel (this is while I’ll never forgive Coppola for his bastardizing adaptation), is that it humanizes the monster. What is it about Dracula that makes filmmakers (or us as an audience) want to humanize him? In Stoker’s novel, Dracula is very antagonistic, not interested in love, desire, or other human emotions that are often bestowed upon him in various adaptations. Is it because we believe that the monster will only be frightening to us if there’s something recognizable, i.e. something human, inside of him that we can perceive? If the answer to this question is yes, then I don’t buy it. I certainly would find an ambiguous figure with unknown qualities much more frightening than a recognizable one – which is why I believe Stoker’s novel continues to surpass any screen adaptation in regards to the “fright factor”.
All things considered Herzog’s Nosferatu is a strong adaptation of not just Stoker’s novel but of Murnau’s film as well. It is because these two stories encapsulate the heart of the film that I believe Nosferatu may be the most un-Herzogian film we’ve watched so far. He incorporates lighting schemes so radically different from his own, but so essentially crucial to the German expressionistic feel of the film, that of course it feels like something new. In a lot of ways, Herzog’s Nosferatu has more in common with the Italian surrealist horror films of this time, films like Dario Argento’s Suspiria (also influenced by German expressionism) and Lucio Fulci’s The Beyond, than it does with previous Herzog films or even German expressionism for that matter. But Herzog’s voice as an auteur does seep through in many scenes. Lucy’s first dialogue to Dracula, the various shots of the sweeping Transylvanian mountainsides, the film’s nihilistic conclusion, lingering shots of silence (particularly the dinner sequence between Jonathan and Dracula), and of course the haunting and somewhat angelic score being used strongly over scenes of dismay and horror.
In regards to Kinski … well, what can be said? We’re so used to the bombastic, psychopathic persona that he truly was that his portrayal of Count Dracula – a performance heavenly driven by subtlety – seems so outside of his wheelhouse. If anything, his onscreen portrayal of Stoker’s titular villain shows that he isn’t a man to be fascinated with simply because he was psychotic, but that he was a man of enormous talent.
(why* I'll never ...) sorry
DeleteI thoroughly enjoyed this one. To begin with, from the very first shot I was in it, and very creeped out by the images of the corpses, the dead babies, the details on the skeletons like the shoes they were wearing and the hair that still clung to their skulls. The music in the background, like creepy chanting monks, set the tone for the rest of the film, and the whole opening scene helps emphasize just how old this demon is. I also found it to be a very strong juxtaposition when the disturbing introduction was followed immediately by the images of Jonathan’s sleepy little town, with all of the greenery, waterways, and naturally lit homes. The soundtrack immediately switched over into a soft piano ballad, with images of kittens climbing over books. This absolutely set the tone for the movie, or rather the two tones that would continue to be juxtaposed against each other.
ReplyDeleteYou could first tell something was array when Jonathan walked into Renfield’s store, and he was hiding in the dark, balled up into himself like a creature of the night trying his hardest to keep himself from the light. Not to mention that his laugh was out of this world, we look down on him from higher angles so that he looks like a tiny, creepy, cowardice creature, and even his outfit was odd, with a purple jacket, a polka dot vest and a black bow tie. Renfield was absolutely my favorite throughout the film, simply for his ingenious take on what would have been a tired and told character.
The cinematography was gorgeous throughout the film. My absolute favorite shot was that of Dracula standing like a statue in the doorway of the bedroom as Jonathan pretended to sleep. The blue light highlighting Dracula’s bald, pale face, the tension between the two as Dracula moved as slow as spreading ice, with Jonathan waiting to react for as long as possible, paralyzed by fear. My second favorite shot is of a similar color scheme, with deep, dark, overly saturated tones. This is the moment when Dracula is on his way to Jonathan’s house in the middle of the night, and he stops in the middle of the town, dead center, looking passed the camera lens, this time with his face standing out in a sea of black and blue, highlighted in a eery green hue that matches the bokeh in the background (that I could not presume to be street lights only because of the time period it is set in).
I loved the way Herzog went about making Dracula into a character to empathize and understand. Focusing on his loneliness, his comical dismissal and annoyance with Renfield, the sounds of his breath when he interacts with Lucy and the excitement in his body language. Of course there is also the strange victorious soundtrack that Herzog chose for the moment when Dracula runs through the town at night finding a place to bury his coffin. The way this was all edited together made it seem as if we were supposed to begin rooting for Dracula, as the story began to spend more and more time on him, and less on Jonathan, who by the time he returned to town was essentially a useless, talking corpse.
Overall: Renfield was amazing, Dracula was phenomenal, and Herzog was the perfect choice for this film.
It's very rare that I'll enjoy a horror remake. I can only think of a few off the top of my head that are either better or an acceptable tribute to the original. Herzog's Nosferatu doesn't quite make it into tat respected category but it's an interesting attempt. It reminds me a bit of when Van Sant set out to remake a shot for shot version of Hitchcocks Psycho. It's a movie that doesn't require an update as other (namely B horror films) do. Herzog definitely wasn't trying to improve on the original and neither was Van Sant but both were doing something experimental.
ReplyDeleteWhat's odd about Herzog's film is that it focuses more on humanity. In past Herzog films the characters were God-like psychopaths or humble outcasts and he would focus on how they were on the fringes of society. Here, Herzog's first attempt at a character who isn't human at all, feels oddly normal. Essentially, Dracula is just looking for love and doesn't really do any harm in his pursuit, other than obeying his natural urges which is a very relatable human quality. The usual Herzog techniques of filming are still present which causes the film to feel less like a horror film and more like a documentary. The acting however, is Herzog trying to connect the bridge between old German films and German cinema post WWII. The acting is appropriately expressionistic in line with the style of the original film. Also, here we have Kinski playing the role it seems he was put on this earth to play. Where in other films Kinski is crazy and unpredictable, in Nosferatu, he seems to be holding something back. Therefore this is the film that has caused me to recognize Kinski's true talent of acting because before I thought he was playing himself in these roles but now I can see some range. If this were Kinski's Dracula, he would blown a casket at the first sight of blood. But this is Herzog's Dracula and Kinski seems to understand what needs to be done in order for Herzog's vision to come to life. While I enjoyed this film, I enjoyed it the same way I enjoyed Van Sants Psycho. Nowadays horror films get remade to cash in on a quick paycheck. This film was made for a different more confusing reason and it's outcome didn't make me angry as other disappointing remakes have. Those other remakes seem to be caught up in trying to repeat the same feeling of the original. Here, Nosferatu symbolizes the progress of cinema rather than nostalgia.
This is the first time I’ve seen a Herzog film and had trouble discerning it as especially Herzogian. That isn’t to say I wouldn’t have figured it out eventually, it’s just that it all seemed a bit watered down. This of course is not to say this movie does not have its merits, but as far as the acclaimed director goes, it is one of my least favorite efforts.
ReplyDeleteThe first shot is mesmerizing (as per). Mummified corpses with blackened eyes and mouths agape stare into the camera as an ominous choir sings in the background. It is almost as if the corpses are singing an eternal song of death; a perfect fit for a film about a vampire.
Kinski’s acting has good points and bad points. The labored breathing and eyes that refuse to blink are a great addition to the vampire lore. I can’t remember if Kinski ever does blink in the film, a true feat. However, his acting is rather awkward at times. In quite a few shots Kinski, the vampire, is running off in random directions and one can’t help but laugh at the goofiness of it all.
It all comes down to the writer/director. In this case, Herzog. We can all talk about what he wanted to do with the film and how the film was trying to fit in with previous stories, but Herzog has set himself apart from the others by being different. His refusal to conform has kept us glued to the screen many a-time. The dialogue in Nosferatu the Vampyre is just bad at times. I even felt the casting was off, minus the main character Jonathan (Bruno Ganz). Jonathan is the only character (until he is turned into a vampire) whose acting I take seriously throughout the course of the film.
At one point I wrote: is this a serious movie? I’m not too sure. We discussed for a minute how Herzog was trying to appeal to the story as it was, but I must reiterate: Herzog is spectacular because of his refusal to conform. The themes (for example the Count wants to be loved) are too spelled out. If the Count wants to die so badly why doesn’t he stand in the sunlight? Why are there colored composition notebooks on the table of a house? There are small inconsistencies everywhere in this film. Can I take it as another horror flick and be pleased? Yes. As one of Herzog’s greatest works? Absolutely not.
On a last note, I should mention the locations were pretty awesome; colorful, grandiose and different from one another. As a location scout, our Herzog is still on his game.
Personally I found this film to more intense than actually comedic as many people view it. I think it was a classic Herzogian tactic of making the shot longer than normal and making the audiance uncomfortable. Specifically speaking when John first sat with Count Dracula at the dinning table and when John cut his finger you see an intense bloodcrazed look on Dracula's face and the music and backround sound and all you hear in Dracula's deep 'stalker' like breathing. Herzog does this several times throughout the film. Along I think that Klaus Kinski complete MADE this film with his astonishing performance.
ReplyDeleteThis film was not my favorite Werner Herzog production, although it was another great feature.
ReplyDeleteWhile Nosferatu is seemingly the most conventional narrative we've seen thus far, it still rings with Herzogian moments throughout - from the opening shots of the mummified corpses to the droves of obsessively dyed rats feasting with people in a scene of apocalyptic feigned luxury, to the ever-present threat of descent into madness - we are constantly reminded who is behind the camera.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the film also throws back to classical silent film melodrama, with the characters often speaking in grand cliches (that one might see written on a dialogue card) and waving their arms about dramatically. Yet, while much of the action is larger-than-life, Herzog's use of sound draws us into the madness with intimate discomfort. This is especially evident when the Count is sucking the blood of Jonathan's wife - there is complete silence, save for the juicy, tender noises of this action. In this scene, we are brought back to the larger theme of the outsider's desire to be loved. Like many of Herzog's characters, the Count exists outside the realm of social acceptability and must cope with the rejection of those human desires he still possesses.
Working under three hours of sleep, I was honestlly considering passing out and rewatching it again under different circumstances. And yet, I found myself fully captivated by the end of it. I think the moment when I first realized what I was watching was when Dracula aggressively cornering Harker, and just lingers over him for an unusually long period of time. It was uncomfortable watching Kinski throughout the film, especially as he just lingers slowly over whoever his victim had been, before sucking the life (or attempting to, in some cases) out of them.
ReplyDeleteI think we all remember that one scene where Dracula is looming over Harker as he sleeps, and there's this blue light focusing on Dracula in the darkness. Other favorite scenes of mine include Dracula visiting the casket in the middle of the night, where we see these gloomily-lit buildings in the dead of night; Lucy rushing into town and watching everyone carry away the caskets; and Harker riding off into the empty fields. Whereas the original Nosferatu had been done in black and white, I think Herzog did well to really experiment with color in this remake. Whereas the lighting told us how to feel back then, here it's the colors. Colors that are just as rich as they are cold and depressing, and, oddly enough, contrast with that white face of Kinski's.
I really enjoyed Werner Herzog's version of Nosferatu. First of all I loved the soundtrack. I seem to immediately fall in love with any Herzog film that employs Popol Vuh as the creators of the film's soundtrack. There is something so organic and atmospheric about their music that just seems to blend so perfectly with Herzog's fairly contemplative imagery. Without the soundtrack included in Nosferatu, I do not believe I would have enjoyed the film as much as I did. I have never been much of fan of the original Nosferatu, however I do respect it for the historical work of art that it is and it's importance to the development of cinema. Herzog's version was much more entertaining to me because I thought it was a much more interesting take on a classic vampire story that originally seemed to fail in highlighting the desires of the Count Dracula besides his desire to feed on people. He has a desire for human affection, a desire for a human love that he has never been able to experienced during his long and very lonely existence. Klaus Kinski was perfect for the role of Count Dracula. He executed his performance with a level of intensity that was so gripping at times that I simply could not look away. The scene where Jonathan cuts himself with a knife at the dinner table is one of the best examples of how Kinski was able to make the character seem very withdrawn and weak most of the time. However, when he is refused Jonathan's hand so he can clean the wound with his mouth, Kinski explodes in a very physical manner by quickly throwing a dining room chair quickly backing Jonathan into a corner whiteout raising his voice whatsoever. To have that sort intensity that can be explicitly expressed through physical action is pretty amazing, especially for modern day actor standard. This film was highly unlike the other films we have seen in this class. First, I wouldn't really consider this film to be a remake of the original because they don't really compare besides the use of the subject matter and similarities in the plot. I think the use of death is much more overtly shown in Herzog's version then in the original which added to the fear of uncertainty as well as a looming terror that every person is doomed to succumb to sooner or later. Also the use of color was a very nice touch for this story. I noticed at times that some of the shots were almost completely void of color besides maybe one or two objects within the frame that just pop out with very strong, vivid colors. The film maintained a wonderful color scheme that complements the story. It also includes an ode to the original film by including the characteristic chiaroscuro lighting that made the imagery of the original film so shadowy and memorable. The combination of the two was very unique and I really would like to know how this was achieved. What I liked most was Klaus Kinski. When it comes to actors I am familiar with, he does not even compare. He is in a class of his own. A presence that I have never seen matched on screen with any role that he assumed during his acting career. Although I though Bruno Ganz's performance was also wonderful it couldn't help but get overshadowed by Kinski. His movements are terrifying as he creeps slowly and silently from room to room, and he always maintains his distance from the other actors in the scene as if he is always trying to control himself and resist the urge to feed. Anything I have seen Kinski in before makes me consider his performance in Nosferatu to be one of his most memorable and well executed.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed this film a lot, but it definitely was a far stretch from his other films. The film was so theatrical for the first half, like any classic tale of a blood sucking hermit ought to be, but the melodrama felt almost out of place when compared to Herzog's previous films. It took me a second to accept that he was altering aspects of his style to adhere to a genre which I'm not entirely familiar with. Once I was able to accept the film for what it was, Herzog began to reveal himself through the melodrama. His vision was most apparent towards the end when Lucy talks of death and preaches Herzog's sermon of purposelessness.
ReplyDeleteOverall, Nosferatu was a great film and Herzog has yet to let me down, but I do feel like prior knowledge of the previous Dracula films is necessary in order to fully appreciate where Herzog is coming from here. I give it a 6.5.
Having read Dracula in high school, I was really excited to see this film. I know there are many different versions of Nosferatu films, but this was the first one I've ever seen.
ReplyDeleteTo begin, I was very surprised by the accuracy of the film's plot compared to that of the novel, at least, throughout the first half of the film. I recognize that films and novels can never really synchronize 100%, but I enjoyed the route that Herzog went for with his version. I would have liked to see more of Mina's peril with Dracula and the character Lucy, who was completely omitted.
What I enjoyed the most would have to be the locations within the film. Herzog is known for his landscapes, and seeing the various locations of this film to create Transylvania was astounding.
We talked about it as a class last week, but I want to reiterate how this film didn't exactly feel like Herzog's other films. I can't really pinpoint it, perhaps it has something to do with the fact that he was adapting the story from the novel, but regardless, I think this was a good addition to Herzog's list of films.
I think this was the first film so far that truly disappointed me. I'm not sure what intangible expectations I had, but I expected this affair to be more grand than it ended up being. In retrospect it's nonsensical I would expect grandiosity from Herzog, but nonetheless I did.
ReplyDeleteNosferatu as a film has power, and its undeniably a good film. However, by the end of the film I couldn't help but feel that it was... for lack of a better term, bare bones. The entire film seemed propped up on a shoe string plot and lots of filler. Of course that filler is gorgeous imagery and interesting metaphors, but nonetheless it felt like these were more important than plot or even actual horror. There would be scenes, especially towards the end that would descend into this fever dream of death and chaos, but inevitably we have to return to the narrative. We have to get to the ending we all know is coming. The rest of his films have freedom to wander, because the wandering is practically the narrative itself. This restraint on Herzog is what I'd argue ultimately hurt the film.
I guess when it comes down to it, this is the opinion of a die-hard horror hound. Horror is what got me into film in the first place, and I expected something different because of that. For me, Nosferatu is a good film, but a mediocre horror film. Speaking of mediocrity, or rather the complete lack thereof, Kinski was amazing in this movie. One of the best vampires in cinema.
Nosferatu by Herzog is one of the examples I'd show to a class with how you can make a film your own, despite it being a well known original property. This is definitely a Herzog film, which I feel is still evident despite our class feeling as if this "lost" most of his auteurship.
ReplyDeleteThe chose of changing the name to Dracula in this adaptation is the only dissatisfying moment, because I feel the character has been so diluted over time. The use of the name Count Orlok (while only made for copyright use reasons) is just refreshing and removed from the familiar tropes of Dracula. His demonic appearance and the terrifying mannerisms make him a welcome addition to the vampire lore. Kinski plays the character with a surprising human element, but also a menacing nature that keeps us reminded that this is a MONSTER.
I really enjoyed the dream like temperature of the color. The whole film feels like an odd dream, which floats between delirium and fantasy. This is a definite aesthetic that should be seen as a signature of Herzog's by now, since he loves playing with the idea of mirages and hypnotic atmosphere.
I thought this was a fantastic re-imagining. I still think the ending is interesting (not uplifting but rather unique), and the film stands easily as one of Herzog's achievements in cinema.
This film was very in Herzog's style. The main character, count Dracula, is an "outsider" who has a trouble dealing with himself, and is constantly in conflict with the outer world. I liked his interpretation of the novel, although sometimes I didn't feel like I was sympathizing the main character. And before we watched the film, Dan said that Herzog was trying to make Dracula look vulnerable, and make us feel him, not be afraid of him. That wasn't always true for me. There were moments when I felt like he was purposely trying to hurt other people, not because he was so lonely and unloved, but because he was just mean. Especially the scene when he sucks the main female character's blood and she eventually dies. Whatever was left from my compassion for Dracula died after that scene.
ReplyDeleteI also want to emphasize the colors, especially Herzog's use of the blue color. I thought it did a great job at putting us into the film and making us feel physically present in it. The shades of blue that appeared every time the lighting changed were interesting to watch. Overall, I really loved the camera work.
Now, don't hate me for this. I still feel like Gary Oldman was a better Dracula, and when I read the book (and I did it before watching anything), that's exactly how I pictured the main character. There was more intellect and manners in Oldman's Dracula, more suffer and passion. I liked Kinski too, but to me he looks way better on the screen when we can see his actual face.
I think the part of this film that struck me the most was Klaus Kinski himself. The shots that held on him for an uncomfortable amount of time made it feel like you were alone in his castle with him. That, I think, was the most disturbing part of this film. Aesthetically, this film has Herzog written all over it, from the music to the morbid, opening shots. I have to admit, I’ve never seen the other Dracula, nor have I read the book, so this film was the first take on the story for me. To compare, I’d obviously have to watch the other film or read the book, but I will say that this film was more enjoyable than what I thought it was going to be. Again, I have to credit that to Kinski, who plays the part so well, you have to wonder if he actually is a vampire-madman. The color scheme and use of space in this film really did wonders for my eyes as well. Overall, I enjoyed this film and I’m happy to say that Herzog’s Dracula has been the first and only take I’ve seen of this classic tale.
ReplyDeleteThis was my first experience with a 'vampire' movie. The reason I avoided them in the past was because they seemed to be coated in a soggy, nacho cheese topping. This film, on the other hand, was a beef wellington; a classic story - well done.
ReplyDeletesuppose what scared me away from sitting down to a vampire film in the past was my idea that it would be a black and white story. Good vs. Evil, perhaps a moral-less fairy tail. What this film gave me was more than I expected. What struck me the most was how Dracula's character was handled. As the movie ended, I did feel a connection to him. I feel the final scene with him and the woman felt like a high schooler loosing their virginity. His nervous, almost care for her was off-putting, knowing his background, but I feel his timidness is what sold his humanity for me.
What I had originally interpreted as dramatic pauses, stares and invading of personal space was merely this guy's awkwardness. "Yeah I want to suck your blood, but I don't want to hurt you".
The camera in this film was not purely to infiltrate reality, but to create a mood: tension in the dark. As the frame follows our realtor his dark head gets lost in the dark halls as it is framed center, adding tension until he sways to the side, revealing his silhouette against a white wall. How Herzog sets up a tone where the unknown is literally the dark, the viewer is forced into the perspective of this realtor guy.
The use of green light also seemed only used for extreme vampirism scenes, sometimes mixed with yellow for an exceptionally sickly feeling.
This was my first experience with a 'vampire' movie. The reason I avoided them in the past was because they seemed to be coated in a soggy, nacho cheese topping. This film, on the other hand, was a beef wellington; a classic story - well done.
ReplyDeletesuppose what scared me away from sitting down to a vampire film in the past was my idea that it would be a black and white story. Good vs. Evil, perhaps a moral-less fairy tail. What this film gave me was more than I expected. What struck me the most was how Dracula's character was handled. As the movie ended, I did feel a connection to him. I feel the final scene with him and the woman felt like a high schooler loosing their virginity. His nervous, almost care for her was off-putting, knowing his background, but I feel his timidness is what sold his humanity for me.
What I had originally interpreted as dramatic pauses, stares and invading of personal space was merely this guy's awkwardness. "Yeah I want to suck your blood, but I don't want to hurt you".
The camera in this film was not purely to infiltrate reality, but to create a mood: tension in the dark. As the frame follows our realtor his dark head gets lost in the dark halls as it is framed center, adding tension until he sways to the side, revealing his silhouette against a white wall. How Herzog sets up a tone where the unknown is literally the dark, the viewer is forced into the perspective of this realtor guy.
The use of green light also seemed only used for extreme vampirism scenes, sometimes mixed with yellow for an exceptionally sickly feeling.
Nosferatu was a very interesting film, it played on many relatable themes, the monster within was to me the most impactful. As Herzog plays with the relationship between Dracula, and Johnathon almost as if each were a half to one person throughout the film, I found my self relating with both characters equally. The idea of creating a dynamic role in the film which could only be played by two contrasting characters was very interesting to me, mainly for i think it is not something often scene in cinema.
ReplyDeleteHaving never read the original Dracula I can say nothing in regards to how Herzog adapted the story, and whether or not it was a successful adaption. I can however say that having never scene Dracula, or a real Vampire movie before i was coming into the movie with a blank slate. I was blown away. The film was incredibly powerful. The performance from both lead actors was denominal, especially Klaus Kinski's portrayal of Dracula.