What were your initial reactions to the film Nosferatu? What did it add to your current understanding of vampire lore? What might the sexual ambiguity of Count Orlock have meant in the context of 1920s Germany? How might anti-Semitism have figured in? What elements of Count Orlock seem to be making a critique of the social conditions at the time? How does this change your understanding of how American vampires are depicted in modern movies? How are they similar and how are they different?
My first impression of the film was a bit of confusion, I don't find myself watching black and white films with text dialog, or even recently composed vampire films often at all. Which isn't to say I hold any sort of bias against it. However in my opinion this film further concluded the idea that vampires are more often that not, portrayed as extremely wealthy and usually powerful figures in social society. Also they are able to obtain a sort of control over their victims leaving them helpless. Count Orlock's sexual ambiguity portrayed in they motion picture would of most likely been unheard of at the time, and been consisted very risky during the 1920s. Which was a much more conservative time then our current cultures' ideas of sexuality. I noticed a few examples of anti-Semitism in the film. One of them being the stereotype the people of the Jewish fait have large and sometimes pointy noses and the fact that the villain Count Dracula had this same quality. I got the impression that the Count was critiquing the current scare of the Bubonic Plague that was spreading all across European civilizations. Inquiring if it were “Nosferatu” who was responsible for bring it to Bremen. This film contradicts the current images of vampires, in American movies today vampires are often portrayed as super beings often possessing superhuman strength and agility, also in recent times there are a sort of “good” vampires attempting to help the human race against the “bad” ones. But, both modern and old vampire films share the vampire need for blood.
ReplyDeleteWhen I found out we had to watch a from the 1920s without character dialog I thought I would be bored out of my mind. The opposite was true. I enjoyed the film and found it easy to follow, for the most part. I had a little difficulty distinguishing night from day because the colors looked so similar throughout the entire film. I found it interesting that Nosferatu was portrayed very much the same as any other vampire, past and/or present, rich, intriguing and an aristocrat. Nosferatu is an unauthorized adaptation of Bram Stoker's Dracula. Dracula was written before the suffragette movement had become popular and therefore included more sexual references and details. Nosferatu was filmed during a time when German sexual values were more conservative. In 1919 the Treaty of Versailles was signed by Germany ending the war and stating that they accepted sole responsibility for the war. Germany was ordered to pay reparations to Britain, France and the United States. Even though Germany signed this treaty, the German public still did not believe that they had been defeated. The German High Command tried to blame responsibility for the defeat on many civilian groups and one of the main groups were the Jews. Germany did not have a good opinion of the Jews at this time and often scapegoated Jews as diseased. Jews were migrating to Germany in the late 19th century and when they arrived in a new village, their arrival often times coincided with a disease outbreak. Count Orlock appears to portray Germany's overall opinion of the Jews by being an evil entity who comes to a German town and bringing disease and death. I have never put any thought into any of the horror movies I have watched but I will be sure to think about them more in the future. Every movie could be assessed differently because they were made by different people at different times in history. I do not think I will be able to just sit back and enjoy a vampire movie again because I know I will be searching for the deeper meaning in the shadows of the film.
ReplyDeleteBrittne R.
I was initially drawn to the acting in Nosferatu. Over exaggeration, I’m guessing, due to the transition from stage to film and the difficulties of conveying emotions without words. Conversely, I found it most odd how Count Orlok could hardly walk never mind move. Rigid, he eventually progressed to a board of sorts. He did suitably convey many of the main themes of modern vampires. Count Orlok seemed to be a member of high society with abilities such as telepathy, telekinesis, and most importantly a harsh afflition to daylight. Oddly though I had never heard of a vampire-earth connection. A vampire carrying around his dirt? Also the equations to blood thirsty plants was quite unexspected. Unfortunatly I was unable to identify the anti-Semitism undertones in this movie, but I can see some connections in hindsight. Given the time and place of production I can understand the arguments. Count Orlok unfortunately can’t hold a candle to the modern vampires in the sexual department, but back in his day I’m sure sneaking into a women’s room invited, save middle of the night and trespassing, was down right unacceptable. The time also called for a great response to the mention of plague. The ships log alone caused the town to lock down. Showing that, unlike now, the simple mention was nothing to joke about. I was unsure of the rats’ placement in the film until it came to fruition upon the ships arrival. Perhaps Jon is right, when he says, “that the Count was critiquing the current scare of the Bubonic Plague”. Much of the Count essence has been carried on the American vampires. From day sleeper to spontaneous light educed vaporization we seem to hark back to many more characteristics then I would have imagined. As Nosferatu progressed I was able to observed more and more of these connections, but one difference stood out. What was with the bucked teeth?
ReplyDeleteRich B.
Despite being almost a century old, Nosferatu is impressive. Honestly, I expected something overly exaggerated and grotesque like a Charlie Chaplin movie, or a work of the Marx brothers. Conversely, the characters are very real and not that different from their modern fellow horror industry dwellers. The anti-Semitic sentiment stood out from the start. The minute I saw Knock, I remembered Shylock from the "Merchant of Venice" - a vilified Jew who cheats Christians by definition. Of course, Knock serves his even more sinister Master, Count Orlok, who employs Knock to help him purchase property and thus make his way to Wisborg. With that being said, it is peculiar that they both read very similar papers (Knock when we first see him, and Count Orlok when he dines with Hutter), and among other symbols we can decipher, David's star promptly appears in both readings. It is also symbolic that Wisborg's inhabitants, the plaque survivors, jointly chase Knock towards the end, when his crimes become public knowledge. Again, the message here is "blame it on Jews", bluntly put. To be fair, Count Orlok shares the blame burden with Knock, although more covertly. Count Orlok, an evil yet amorphous and almost sexless creature, semi-dead, is responsible for progressively increasing deaths, while giving no births at all - even his victims die instead of joining the vampire clan. Orlok stands for the German ruling class headed by Kaiser. Together, their leadership jointly failed their country in the First World War, leaving behind only the legacy of decay and destruction, both physical, moral, political, and economic. Such track record of "success" results in Orlok being devoid of either sexuality or masculinity. He is merely a ghost. I think, a similar work capturing modern geo-political situation in the world would be quite pertinent. I envision the vampiric reality transcending cultures and distances, starring Hu Jintao, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and other contemporary gloom contributors.
ReplyDeleteLuba VC.
I was very surprised at how different Count Orlok is from today's vampires. He is portrayed as being repulsive and awkward. He has a hunchback, hooked nose, pointy ears, long and skinny fingers, and bulging eyes. He also exhibits some particularly unsettling mannerisms, such as the fact that, even when disguised as a human, he rarely, if ever, blinks. Overall his appearance is very disturbing. That contrasts the current trend starkly. Now, vampires tend to be portrayed as inherently appealing or attractive. This can be seen as early as Bela Lugosi's Dracula and is almost overwhelmingly present in current media. Now, even the strictly evil vampires, like Orlok, are still charming and seductive. Even despite this obvious difference, it is clear that many tropes present in Nosferatu are still in use. Orlok is obviously a wealthy, powerful man. This is evidenced by the fact that Hutter originally goes to meet him because of his money and the fact that he is a member of the nobility. This is something that most adaptations seem to keep intact. He is also nocturnal and sleeps in a coffin, a tradition that continues and can be seen today in True Blood. Furthermore, this film began the long-standing trope of vampires dying in sunlight. True Blood, once again, illustrates this, as do many other movies such as a particularly scary scene in Interview with the Vampire.
ReplyDeleteAlexandra G.
My initial reaction to the film Nosferatu was actually one of enjoyment. I love to watch old films, however, I have never viewed a silent film before and I very much appreciated the experience. There are a few points of the film that I found unique, the main one is the presentation of this powerful monster as a hideous, old, reclusive, lonely, and somewhat sympathetic figure. Most vampires are portrayed with some envious qualities. They are often handsome, or at least prestigious in some manner, rather than old, decrepit, hunch-backed, with oddly over emphasized hands, ears and nose. The other point that really stuck out to in my mind and it was pretty hard not to notice, is the role that nature plays in the film. There is a constant struggle between man and nature that is abundantly evident throughout the picture. Hutter is warned not to stray outside at night because he will likely be a target for the werewolves. There are multiple shots of wooded areas, mountains, and streams etc. that act as impassable boundaries which capture their prey. Then of course is the less subtle example where they watch a Venus flytrap capture a fly and it is easily comparable to Orlock, this is suggested by the dialogue, but also by how it really resembles Orlocks creepy hand clenching a fist. The film also offers allot to contemplate in regards to boundaries and captivity. Many shots focus on entrance ways, which the mortal characters usually struggle to exit, while Orlock opens all of them with ease, actually without even touching them. I did not even think about the possibility of anti-Semitism influencing the film, however, when one sits back to contemplate it, plenty of bigoted symbolism can be uncovered. First of all, if a viewer pays attention, there are holy crosses scattered throughout the movie. They are worn by citizens, they are hanging on walls, and they are used toward the end to distinguish the infected households from the non-infected. The fact that this film was made in 1920’s Germany will lead me to consider the notion that it has an anti-Jewish bias. Perhaps the crosses represent the faithful and therefore the saved. Also Orlocks appearance can draw a correlation to an incredibly over emphasized and groundless stereotype of Jews having over-accentuated features. Orlock is tall and slender, dressed all in black, bald and hideous with pale-white skin. He has an oversized pointy nose and large pointy fingers to match. One could make the comparison that he looks like a white representation of how African Americans were horribly portrayed in America in minstrel show advertisements during the early 20th century. Orlock also carries the ability to poison ones mind, or to enchant them, or drive them mad. I am assuming that this may be an attitude held by Catholics in Germany at the time in regards to other religions. As far as elements of the picture critiquing the social conditions of the time, all I really know is that by 1922 the Great War was over and the Treaty of Versailles left Germany completely crippled and bankrupt. The Treaty was overly harsh toward the Germans and left them festering in a misery that would provide a foothold for the events which would eventually lead to World War II. This worldview of the country may account for the confinement that is abundant throughout the picture. Count Orlock, much like 1920’s Germany, was all alone in this world, isolated, each rightfully so and by their-own doing, but alone nonetheless. Nobody wants anything to do with Orlock, at least nobody that has met or heard about him. Nosferatu differs from American vampires in the fact that American vampires are not so depressing. I find the vampires of the United States to be much more exciting, and it is suggested that they live much more personally satisfying lives, or deaths, or un-deaths, however you want to put it. They are rarely, if ever portrayed as lonely, grotesquely-ugly, recluses without charm or luxury. Sean S.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have to admit that when I first sat down to watch Nosferatu, I was not entirely excited by the prospect of watching a black and white silent movie. However, within a few minutes, I found myself not only enjoying the movie but actually really admiring the skill with which the director conveyed the tone and mood of the film with his limited access to special effects.
ReplyDeleteIn class we spend a great deal of time discussing the fact that throughout the movie, Orlok fails to garner sympathy from the audience. Indeed, he comes across as a passive and almost clueless individual who fails to heed to signs of danger. His passive nature continues to the very end of the movie, at which point his wife assumes the role of the hero and ultimately stops the threat of the vampire. This reversal of the stereotypical movie roles, Orlok as the damsel in the distress and his wife as the hero who saves the day, was particularly fascinating to me, especially when viewed in contrast with today's vampire movies. It also begs the question: if the roles were reversed and Orlok was portrayed by a woman, would the audience be more forgiving of his clueless nature and thus express more sympathy for him?
Elisabeth M.
Staying Connected Through Dreams
ReplyDeleteWhile I was watching this movie I concentrated mostly on the importance of dreams. In “Nosferatu,” the dreams which Nina and her husband had were significant. Even though they could not directly communicate with each other while Jonathan was traveling, they connected through this intuition of the present and the future. Whether or not they were together, they could feel each other. In fact, Nina’s dream actually saved her husband from being killed by the vampire. While she was asleep, she could sense that Jonathan was in danger. He was also asleep at that time, and he couldn't defend himself from Nosferatu. However, his faithful wife saved his life by calling out to him, and subconsciously forcing the vampire to leave Jonathan alone.
Dreams are things that we can’t define clearly, but they can be a very important aspect in each person’s life. This movie reminds us that we shouldn’t ignore dreams because they are connected to our waking life. Some dreams influence our decisions when we are awake, and we may not even realize it. For instance, some people can predict the future in their dreams. More commonly, people dream about the things that happened to them recently, and the dream can help the person feel more comfortable with the stressful things in their lives. If we listen to our dreams, we can learn about our deepest fears and our weaknesses, and this realization allows us to improve ourselves. Like the dreams of Nina and Jonathan, dreams can have a strong impact on the way we live our lives.
I found the film "Nosferatu" quite fascinating and captivating in spite of it being a 1922, black and white, silent movie. I was expecting to see Count Orlok with characteristics similar to those of the vampires we are accustomed to seeing in modern day movies: young, fabulously charming and irresistible, sophisticated, and self-confident. Instead, Count Orlok proved to be the opposite. He was a gory looking old man with despicable features and moved like a crawly creature. He had bulging, motionless, scary eyes with bushy eyebrows and ears like erect antennas. His fingers were frighteningly elongated with long claw-like nails. The only similar traits he shared with other vampiers were that he was wealthy and that he needed blood for his survival.
ReplyDeleteApart from Count Orlok's shortcomings and horrible looks, the film also portrayed him as a vampire who strived on the blood of anyone without preference. This is quite unlike other vampires who prefer the blood of young, beautiful, and innocent dames who are dazed by their charm without suspecting their conniving and deadly abilities.
Interestingly, the film brought to the forefront the strength, courage, and resilience of one woman. She found out the secret of Conte Orlok and was not going to let him get away with impunity. Nina was willing to sacrifice her life for the well being of a people that was faced with death and destruction. She disobeyed her husband's orders and read the book which instructed her how to achieve the demise of the vampire. When faced with the ultimate choice of giving up her life for the sake of others, Nina willingly complied and that was the end of Conte Orlok.
In the end the blood of the innocent shall always prevail.
Audrey H.
For the first twenty minutes of Nosferatu I was pretty sure I wasn’t going to make it through the whole film without falling asleep, but then I found myself completely sucked into- the plot, of course- but also the down-right creepiness of some of the imagery. There is definitely a power in black and white, silent film that is missing in our current incarnation of the genre. It was interesting to see how much of what we traditionally label as “vampire” has been passed down from much earlier works. Though some elements were inconsistent with how we view the monsters today (mostly Count Orlock’s appearance) the basic characteristics were the same. As far as the sexual ambiguity of Count Orlock is concerned, I connected that with the seemingly random insertion of the carnivorous plant scene. Most of the physical characteristics of Orlock and Knock were pulled from this scene (or the implications of this scene), I thought. Orlock is long and pale and slow, a phantom, just as the strange white floaty organism that the scientists observe is considered a phantom. Knock has many physical characteristics in common with the spider, which isn’t directly mentioned in the scientist scene, but comes up later in Knocks cell when he randomly yells “Spiders, spiders!” and looks up into the corner of the room. Knock has an extremely distended abdomen like a spider and can often be found climbing up the walls of his cell. Also…he eats flies. Both of these “creatures” are sexually ambiguous and seem to attach more of a “non-human” flare to the villains. Part of “Draculas” attractiveness is that he reads as human and therefore can be sexual. Culturally, I expect this exposes a fear of something unnatural, or not quite human but posing as human, invading the protagonists space, moving in next door to his house, and threatening his family. I didn’t originally consider anti-Semitism as a theme, but I suppose those two ideas could be related.
ReplyDeleteSarah Bell
Jane Jacobs argues in "The Uses of Sidewalks: Safety" that the safety of a city comes from its "eyes on the streets," and that "if a city's streets are safe from barbarism and fear, the city is thereby tolerably safe from barbarism and fear." Can a correlation be made to that of the monster? Can monsters serve a community as being these "eyes on the street?" If monsters are manifested through the identifiable fears of a culture, the fact that they have been created and that they exist is evidence that the cultural fear or problem has already been identified, and has therefore been assigned to the development of a monster to warn people of that fear. Therefore, the more monsters created by a culture, the more fears and/or problems they are aware of and they will hopefully be more readily avoidable or resistible. If this is the case, than the same can obviously be said if the lens is reversed: the monsters created by a culture provide evidence of fears within that culture, which we have already discussed at great lengths in class of course. When turning back to Nosferatu with this interpretation in mind, one can look at the multiple references suggesting captivity, isolation, or being trapped as symbolism reflecting the self-image of Germany at the time. The film offers allot to contemplate in regards to boundaries and captivity. Many shots focus on entrance ways, which the mortal characters usually struggle to exit, while Orlock opens all of them with ease, actually without even touching them. Each barrier in this film is easily opened by Orlock, or he simply appears on the other side. The same can be said about the coffins. In one scene on the boat, the first mate struggles to hack open a coffin while Orlock just rises from it. The boat of course also provides a setting for the most fearful captivity of all, because there is nowhere else to go for safety outside of the boat. The release of this film coincides with a shameful world perception of Germany. World War I had just ended, Germany signed a war-guilt clause taking all of the blame for the event, and Clemenseau and George, respectively from France and Britain, were intent on humiliating the Germans, making them suffer, and holding them to obscene amounts of owed debts. Germany was subsequently broke and all alone in the world, very much like the Count, and hopelessly stuck in that position for some amount of time, as Hutter struggled to break free from Orlocks castle. Furthermore, nobody other than Hutter was eager to get to Orlocks lair, in fact, most warned Hutter not to pursue, and they themselves refused to go, and it required crossing difficult boundaries of sea, land, mountains and forests to get there, really emphasizing the castles unwanted and unwelcome position in regards to its surroundings. Sean S
ReplyDeleteWhen it was said that we need to watch black & white movie from the 1920's i thought i would not be able to make it to the end. As i am not that found of watching old movies. But when i started watching Nosferatu i found it very interesting and easy to follow even without dialogues artists did a great job in putting the words through their expressions and written script also helped a lot. I watched the entire movie from start to end without any break. To my understanding vampires are mostly shown rich, weathy, belonging to high society, and i found Nosferatu's character to be the same.
ReplyDeleteAfter Orlok's welcome to Hutter followed by dinner the scene in the movie, when Hutter cuts his thumb and Orlok tries to suck the blood and Hutter puuls his hand away and steps backwards and orlok continues to move towards him and Hutter falls on a chair, and also the scene where Orlok holds the candle and stairs at Mina through the window and Mina expressing welcome to Orlok. These two scenes during 1920's were surely not accepted. The similarities to me are both the olden days vampires and modern days vampires feed on blood, don't sleep during night, and can't withstand sunlight. In regards to difference i am pretty sure the appearance Orlok was presented disgusting with pointy ears, skinny fingers, hunch back and usually modern days vampires are more charming.
Richard wrote he could not identify anti-Semitic undertones in Nosferatu. Conversely, there are quite a few anti-Semitic pointers offered in the movie. In “Monster-Making: A Politics of Persuasion”, E. Ingebresten argues that “…whatever their particular features and historical specifics … social monsters share a common fate in the civic dramaturgy of spectacle…” - we create monsters as scapegoats to blame for social woes, and we then achieve cleansing by staking and purging them out of the society system (30). That is precisely what Nosferatu creators are doing to find plausible explanation for the dire socio-economic and political conditions in post war Germany. The vampires in the movie stand for Masons, whom Germans closely identified with Jewish people and considered them one of the causes of their defeat in the World War I. For instance, Hitler in Mein Kampf attributed defeat to the “pacifistic paralysis of national instinct of self-preservation” that influential Masons transmitted to the masses via press (315). Masonic lodges were outlawed and disbanded in the following years. In this connotation, it is significant that Bulwark, the botanist, is denoted as Pracelsian in the cast section. Paracelsians are the followers of the Paracelsius, who was a famous Renaissance occult philosopher. Occultism means the knowledge of the hidden, and theurgy, one of the occult forms, is practiced in Judaism, and Masons also make use of theurgic symbols. Thus we have the occultism-theurgy-Judaism-Freemasonry connection. Calling them “the mysterious ways of nature”, Bulwark compares carnivorous plants to vampires. In doing that, he alludes that vampires are Masons, who possess, according to their use of occult theurgy, the hidden knowledge, and the aura of mysticism is inherently associated with this fraternity as well. It comes as no surprise then that both Orlok and Knock read papers that show theurgic symbolism. Moreover, when Orlok leaves for Wisburg, a plaque-like pandemic afflicts Germany leaving many dead, all bitten in the neck. Since Orlok is travelling on a ship during this time, he could not have done it, and the only plausible guess would be that his departure set off a massive vampire attack. It is apparent that both Orlok and Knock are a part of a vampiric clan that devastates Germany. According to the conventional conception of that time, that is precisely what Jewish dominated secret Masonic society did to Germany after the War. As it turns out, both post-war Germans and modern Americans are alike in that both cultures prefer scapegoating manufactured monsters to facing the realities.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Elisabeths and Audreys comments about Nina as a character I have to agree that it seems an interesting choice for the director to make (considering the times) to have a strong female character: stronger, in fact, smarter, and with greater intuition than the male lead. In the beginning of the film when Hutter gleefully announces that he’s “going to the land of ghosts and witches!” (hooray!) and starts packing excitedly for the journey, only Nina has the good sense to be concerned. I would be curious to know how many modern relationships have had moments like these, where the “husband” becomes distracted by potential monetary gain or job advancement, while the wife is more aware of the total picture…of what’s REALLY going on…and gets (understandably) worried. Also in regards to the vampire book, Hutter refuses to read it because it gives him bad dreams and makes him “see faces”. He also forbids his wife to read it, but read it she does. Why? Because knowledge is power, and in the end it is the knowledge she gained by reading the books that gives her the answer to the question of how to destroy the monster. This she does, while Hutter alternately dozes and runs to other people for help, in a true gesture of what the director would most likely consider “Christian sacrifice”. There are several themes that might be forced on to these events that may or may not have been what the director intended. Hutter’s fear of his wife becoming “educated” does in the end lead to her demise, i.e. for her own good he wants to keep her ignorant. This might be considered an appropriate theme for the time period being represented. But, on the other hand, her defiance of his request for her not to read the book leads to the salvation of the whole town. What could this mean, in 1922 speak? On the other hand, if we consider Count Orlock as a representation of the “Jewish Plague” we can read Nina’s Christ-like sacrifice as the answer to that problem, Christianity as the conqueror of invading ideas and people.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Luba that the monster in Nosferatu symbolizes the Jews. As many people have pointed out and we discussed in class, Count Orlok is portrayed as stereotypically Jewish. The fact that he immigrates to Germany, has a big, crooked nose, and that there are Jewish symbols on the sheet of paper that he looks at all solidify that symbolism. What is more important, however, is the implication of this in the context of German history. The fact that Germans are ‘identifying’ the monster as Jewish, as evidenced here by Murnau’s representation of Orlok, foreshadows the real events about to occur in Germany. As Edward J. Ingebretsen asserts in “Monster-Making: A Politics of Persuasion”, monsters fulfill a very specific role in every society. He argues, “every society needs a stigmatized person- or group of persons- whose function it is to provide readily moralized examples of how not to think and act.” (26) This is a clear parallel to what happened in Germany. After the Jews were turned into monsters, they were further separated and cast out of society. Furthermore, Ingebretsen says “the narrative of the monster dictates that, of course, the monster must die, and it can never be our fault.” (25) This is yet another point that was proven true by history. Although there were many Germans that did not support the Nazis, too many sat by idly, doing nothing to stop the executions. They allowed the ‘monster’ to be murdered without getting their own hands dirty. Finally, Ingebretsen claims that this killing is “the means by which the Social Body… achieves a periodic cleansing, ridding itself of diseased or undesired elements.” (26) Nazi propaganda portrayed Jews as greedy, having gotten rich off of the Germans people’s hard work without doing any themselves. By killing them, Germany would be returning to a more prosperous time. This is why it is so dangerous to allow a specific group of people to become perceived as monsters, like the Jews were in Nosferatu and Germany in general, because, as Ingebretsen argues, we only make monsters to watch them die.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI feel that I must come to my own defense. Once objectively looking at this film in class we seem to be drawn to the obvious, that this film is harking to anti Semitism on several occasions. Whether this is my chance by social conditioning or a deliberate message was still left unclear at the end of our discussion. Yes, Nosferatu has a crooked nose, but so does the witch of the west and Pinocchio. Weiss illustrates this in the more blatant form in his first theses. “We are simply entranced and enchanted by the cheapness, shabbiness, and inferiority of material.” When noticing that disfigurement is often a prized trait of many different monsters, it may not seem as important. Despite all this I believe Luba is right. Given the context of the situation and German culture at that time it seems likely that the monster could very well be a culmination of the fears at that time. Most poignant I feel is the circumstantial evidence of the rats. Personally I feel the plague would have been a much more fearful experience than migrant workers. Less refutable is the location and simple presents of the Jewish star and other symbols on the papers. Throughout the movie time and time again they appear. Even on the wall of the cell they appear. They presence in business paperwork is even more damming. The connection as Alex points out of the Jewish heritage and money has history, but this alone I do not feel is enough for a solid theses. While the Nazi party was coming to power at them time this film is a far cry from propaganda material. Nosferatu underlines Wiess’s sixth statement that, “Monsters symbolize altered and difference in extremis. They manifest the plasticity of the imagination and the catastrophes of the flesh.” So in conclusion I withdraw my initial post.
ReplyDeleteIn her exposé on Nosferatu, Alexandra painted an accurate description of Count Orlok as being repulsive and awkward, having a hunched back, hooked nose, pointy ears, long and skinny fingers, and bulging eyes. She also noted that she was very surprised at how different he looked in comparison to today’s vampires who are appealing and attractive.
ReplyDeleteOne could argue that if the distinguishable traits and features like those of Count Orlok’s were characteristics of today’s monsters, society would be in less danger than we actually are. It is relatively less risky and more beneficiary to be able to detect monsters that resemble Count Orlok than the ones that can deceived us by their appearance.
In today’s society, it is hard to differentiate the vampires who are akin to ordinary people; the ones, according to Alexandra, who are appealing and attractive. The more they appear to be like us, the more difficult it is to detect them; until they expose their vampiric nature which ultimately causes havoc in society. Frank Grady, in Vampire Culture, makes reference to Anne Rice’s The Vampire Lestat in which he wrote that Lestat’s first move when he rises form the earth in 1984 New Orlean is to find himself a laywer who helps procure him a birth certificate, driver’s license, and social security card. This gives him access to lots of money and everything that comes with it. He wants to fit in and he does. He calls himself the James Bond of the vampires and he later becomes a rock band singer. How can one know that a vampire is in his presence when Lestat is there? There is absolutely no telltale sign. He is too much like everyone else and there is where the danger lies.
Grady refers to Rice’s vampires as being romantic, aristocratic, elegant, and deeply fascinated with humanity. This sounds like someone we would like to meet. Meeting an undead like the one in Nosferatu we would run and hide but meeting one with the before mentioned characteristics would be our sad demise.
After reading Asma's article "Monsters and the Moral Imagination," and Grady's "Vampire Culture," the character of Count Orlok becomes all the more compelling. Throughout their respective works, both authors consistently make the claim that vampires, and monsters in general, possess a certain seductive quality that invites the audience to "entertain the monstrosity for some extended duration (Asma)" Indeed Asma writes that "monster stories were considered cathartic journeys into our unconscious," and allowed their reader to "walk on the wild side," before returning to "civilized order." However approaching the character of Count Orlok through this lens proves quite problematic as the count possesses few characteristics that might be deemed enviable/seductive. As such, Count Orlok's repulsive nature strikes me as all the more interesting. What is the purpose and rational behind creating a monster/villain that elicits such a poor reaction from the audience? Why is he so obviously the bad guy, with seemingly no redeeming nor seductive qualities?
ReplyDeleteI was surprised originally that it was a silent film. I didn't know that going in. In all honesty I was bored for most of it due to the fact that the monster was excessively over the top obvious and due to the film failing to deviate from the source material. The silence kept the film from embracing the type of sophistication I enjoy in movies.
ReplyDeleteUltimately this is one of the prime motivators of many if not most of the vampire/monster related tropes and symbolism that I enjoy in modern works.