Nosferatu the Vampyre
I really thought I had seen Werner Herzog’s remake of the F.W. Murnau silent masterpiece at some point in my journey through his work, and horror in general. But either I did and forgot it entirely (highly unlikely, given how much I love Herzog’s work), or just didn’t see it. Herzog’s film casts a spell that is not entirely equal to Murnau’s, but just as captivating in how it approaches well-worn material.
Color adds another dimension to the Dracula story, and “Nosferatu” in particular. Part of why the Murnau film is so effective and chilling is how black-and-white and color filters are used to accentuate the atmosphere of Count Orlok’s homeland, and his reign of terror. For Herzog, color gives off a different type of expressionism. The trek to Dracula’s homeland by Harker, and Dracula’s travels to the town, are almost even more haunting because of how color allows Herzog to play with shadow and light. The images in Murnau’s film remain more iconic, but Herzog is going for a dream-like reality, not the recounting of a nightmare in the 1922 version.
You’ll notice that I changed names mid-paragraph in discussing the film. That’s because, unlike Murnau, Herzog was able to utilize the character names in Bram Stoker’s novel. It’s a bit jarring, to be so familiar with the story as told here but to associate the characters with their original names, but we remain entranced with the story of “Nosferatu,” and a vampire who lacks the seductive allure of Dracula physically, but whose words (as spoken by the legendary Klaus Kinski) are able to seduce whomever is listening. Dialogue does what silence could not do in Murnau’s film- brings an unnerving seduction to this story that almost comes part and parcel with other straight adaptations of Stoker. Lisa (Harker’s love, played here by Isabelle Adjani) is the heart of the film, as Ellen is in the silent film, but her connection to Dracula has an erotic component to it Murnau was not really interested in exploring, even though it often goes with the story as adapted with actors from Bela Lugosi to Christopher Lee to Gary Oldman. In the end, she uses that to her advantage, taking revenge on Dracula for what he’s done to Harker, who doesn’t recognize her when he returns. This emotional component is a departure from the silent film, and it captures our attention as Lisa takes the lead in the narrative, rather than just being a pawn for men to use as they wish.
Murnau’s film emphasizes the dark, pending doom of the plague Nosferatu brings to the town, turning it into an allegorical reflection of what had just taken place a few years earlier in the Spanish Flu pandemic. Herzog sees Dracula as a conqueror whose seductive way of capturing people in his thrall; was he commenting on what Hitler had accomplished during WWII, and the way the Nazis ran rampant over Europe, with little resistance? The ending is not in keeping with this read, but it does reflect how some of those for whom Hitler had the strongest pull were unable to fight against it. At the end, Harker seems ready to start anew; is he symbolic of the neo-Nazis who would begin to elevate Hitler’s message again?
Dialogue is a natural reason for “Nosferatu the Vampyre’s” 25-minute longer running time than Murnau, but this isn’t a straight remake. The horror on board of the ship is replaced with a town who doesn’t want to listen to a woman who knows what’s going on. We get an opening at a museum, and see bats flying at key points. Also, Harker’s fate is more tragic- he’s not just cold and exhausted, but has fallen to Dracula. In many of these changes, Herzog has created a film as rich, and mesmerizing, as the one his shares a title with. If I’m not as entranced with it as Murnau’s, it’s because the haunting power of silent cinema seems ideal to tell a horrific tale of terror, with a grotesque creature at its center.
