Before immersing myself in the humorous, outdated film rendition of Dracula, I conjured up any and every vampire character I have been exposed to in my life. Images of ghostly pale handsome men with sleek black hair and exaggerated fangs filled my mind while the opening credits played on the dormitory television. As I waited for Count Orlok to fill the screen, expecting his countenance to fit the mold of one of the vampires I had remembered, I tried to place myself in a secure state of mind for I am a complete scaredy cat when it comes to horror movies. I still have nightmares of Samara from The Ring; I watched the movie ten years ago. Nevertheless, I had to face my fears for the sake of IDC and Macaulay…or so I thought. However, the moment Count Orlok, in all his awkward glory, entered the premises I literally laughed out loud and became assured this 1922 film would not serve as a threat to my dreams. Instead of igniting fear, Noseferatu sparked emotions of confusion, suppression, humor, and frustration.
Confusion: Because of the poor transitions between scenes – or lack of – as well as the odd background choices I was left wondering where the characters were at certain points of the film and at others wondering what was going on in general. For example, why was Ellen sitting on a bench on a beach filled with crosses? Was she on a religious beach, or a cemetery on a beach? However, I understood leaving the viewers questioning some aspects of the film was the desired effect. In the instance where the scene cuts abruptly when Count Orlok is zeroing in on Hutter who is sitting on a chair, the director wanted to create a sense of ambiguity and leave the audience guessing what happened.
Suppression: The entirety of the film contained elements of covered truths and suppressed secrets. The most obvious example is the true identity of Count Orlok – an identity he keeps poorly hidden because he cannot stop feeding on people. Seriously Orlok, did you have to suck on Hutter’s finger…more on that later. But other suppressions included Hutter having the knowledge of “The Bird of Death” but choosing to only make the connection after Count Orlok reveals himself to him and Ellen hiding her plan to sacrifice herself to Count Orlok for the sake of the people.
Humor: Although I know this was probably not a desired reaction, I found the makeup, exaggerated acting, and cheerful music all quite humorous. I understand the technology of the 1920s cannot exactly satisfy my modern day expectations. However, I believe the production team could have done a better job in creating a more ominous feel by eliminating the joyful music that literally destroyed the elements of fear in the film, making the wife appear more feminine and Hutter more masculine, and instructing the actors to just act better.
Frustration: I was frustrated for almost the entire duration of the film because everyone was ignorant and I had no clue who Knock was/where he was. While Hutter and the public chose to ignore every blatant warning sign thrown their way, Knock was in a mental hospital or prison or neither looking weird and creepy for undisclosed reasons. Why?!
Overall, Noseferatu failed to meet any of my expectations: it was not scary, Count Orlok did not look like an “actual” vampire, the unfitting music disrupted the silence, and Ellen was not a feminine damsel.
I felt the same way when I was getting ready to watch Nosferatu. But I experienced more relief than disappointment when the film ended. I was glad that I would not have to deal with nightmares for the next couple of days.
I’ll admit if I was looking for a scare, Nosferatu would not have been a choice for me. The confusion that resulted from the film is understandable, but I wouldn’t blame them for this. The idea of movies in the 1920s are completely different from how we see it today. Nosferatu and earlier films were created during a developmental period for the movie industry. This is a difference in culture and technology.
Ignorance and frustration with the character’s actions are a common trait in most horrors. The characters would have to be ignorant to a certain extent because otherwise the horror element would be lost if characters made intelligent choices.
I credit my lack of enjoyment and disappointment to our current cultural standards, but I must acknowledge the fact that this was produced in 1922.
I really like the structure of this mood diary. It is easy to agree with you in all of your points because you identified the feeling you had and all of the reasons why you had it in such an organized way! I was confused at the same points as you because I did not understand the transitions. I felt the film was humorous because of the make up and music and lack of a real “scary” element. It is even humorous that Count Orlok tried to suppress his identity because it was so obvious when he complimented the woman’s neck and sucked Hutter’s finger. I like your mood diary and agree with the points you bring up regarding the film.
I can definitely agree with your assertion of a generalization that our society associates with Vampires in general, with respect to the attractive male Vampires from movies like Twilight and TV shows like Vampire Diaries. Furthermore I can agree that I did not think this film was scary at all, it was more awkward and silly than scary. Instances in the past that may have been scary probably would not scare young children anymore. Similarly this film did not meet my expectations especially with the lackluster ending with just what seems to be the count fading into thin air. Furthermore I would say the constant shaking of the film greatly affected my level of enjoyment of the film.
Although I agree that “Nosferatu” was more humorous than scary, I think you have to take into account that film technology was very limited and the culture was different in the 1920s. I think your expectations were too high for such an ancient film. Today, the image of vampires has been distorted by movies such as Twilight to be, as you said, a “ghostly pale handsome man.” I think Orlok was in reality, the “actual” vampire because he is whom all the modern vampires such as Dracula originated from. I can sympathize with your lack of enjoyment though, mainly because of our much higher standard for horror films today.
I agree with you that the film was very confusing, especially with the lack of noticeable difference between day and night which played a big role in the film. I think suppression was a very good word to describe a lot of the events in the film and I actually never thought about it that way until I read your mood diary. Also, the film was humorous because of Hutter’s ignorance and the weird music. I also experienced a feeling of frustration, not really over the events in the film or the actions of the characters, but over the slow pace of the film especially when the text is displayed on the screen for such a long time.
I completely agree with the points you made in your mood diary. When I initially thought of vampires, I immediately imagined people from Twilight or Vampire Diaries. I pictured a tall, dark, and handsome man with fangs because that’s the typical mold of vampires in today’s society. In addition, I also found the film more humorous than scary. From the oddly happy music to the excessive makeup to the exaggerated facial expressions, I couldn’t help but laugh in many of the scenes. Knowing that this was an out-of-date film, I didn’t set my expectations high so I was not as disappointed. I knew from the beginning that I wouldn’t enjoy a silent, black and white film.