It's been a minute since I posted a Polis poster and I have plenty more to go! This one is not as bizarre, pretty straightforward, really.
Showing posts with label nosferatu. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nosferatu. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 4, 2025
Polish posters: Nosferatu
It's been a minute since I posted a Polis poster and I have plenty more to go! This one is not as bizarre, pretty straightforward, really.
Thursday, January 16, 2025
Shadow of the Vampire (2000) directed by E. Elias Merhige
I saw this film in the cinema on release and remembered liking it quite a bit. Seeing again recently, I realized I forget how good it really is. Basically a comedy with some tension and drama thrown in, the movie is a "what if" sort of story positing that when Murnau filmed the silent classic Nosferatu, he used a real vampire.
I originally was tempted to the cinema because Eddie Izzard was in it and his small role does merit going to see it the film but it's Willem Defoe who shines and stands out as the vampire. His appearance is beyond perfect and he without doubt spent some time studying Max Schreck in the original role - copying his physicality and postures to perfection. Murnau has told the cast and crew that Defoe is a method actor and will appear only at night and in full make-up, never dropping character for the entirety of the production. His odd behaviour and attacks on crew members quickly brings a few to conclude that he is, fact, a member of the undead. Thing like pulling a bat in flight out of the air and eating in front of people was a clue for example, though in that case Udo Kier's character simply states... "Max, you must be the greatest actor ever!"
The vampire seems to be under the control of Murnau through most of the runtime but it becomes clear that is not the case by the end. Defoe manages to go from comic to genuinely terrifying in a split second and the stakes change completely.
Quirky might not cover how odd this film is and you will have to sit through a rather long opening credits sequence before the movie starts but it's all worth it. As a little extra info, Nicolas Cage produced this film and was to play Schreck but gave the role to Defoe when he showed interest. Good choice!
Wednesday, January 1, 2025
Nosferatu (2024) directed by Robert Eggers
This long awaited remake of the 1922 classic film by Murnau was finally released Christmas day this year. The plot is not different from the original but the details and execution make this film very much it's own thing. A real estate agent is sent to meet a certain Count Orlock in in the carpathian mountains to sell him a property for a large sum of money. He arrives, and Orlock is an undead creauture that decides it will take control of the agent's new wife. The agent escapes and gets back home just before Orlock to warn his wife, who because of her odd connection to the monster already knows he is coming. The rest of the film is a race to destroy the menace somehow before the entire village dies from him or the plague he has brought with him.
Spoilers:
I was not sure this would work. I saw The North man and it was OK, but basically had the same plot as Conan the Barbarian. It was well filmed with great performances but had its faults. Luckily, this movie is not a copy of the original and keeps away from many of the expressionistic trapping of that one (though not all of them which is good) and relies much more on true gothic horror and the folklore of the Carpathian region involving vampires to create something new and terrifying for a modern audience. Orlock is really nothing like Max Schreck in the silent version physically. Schreck has a slim monstrous beauty in a way. Bill Skarsgård is a walking corpse with a voice that give you nightmares and is unrecognizable in any way from his real life appearance and voice. The original was considered one of the most scary films at the time due in most part to the look of Nosferatu and this new version gives us a new image to lose sleep over.
Visually I also had some trepidation. Eggers is a master of camerawork and transitions and I am always afraid he will slip into something that looks great and takes me out of the film. He doesn't do that, in fact i would say as fantastic as the cinematography is, it stays in service of the story from start to end - pulling the viewer through the events until the conclusion. Too many films look like video game segments with sweeping impossible camera moves that are far too smooth and really distracting. See The Lord of the Rings Trilogy for example and almost any new horror movie. This film lives in its darkness and takes you into it without dragging you along, you go willingly and it's seamless.
The sound design in the film is great. I didn't notice the soundtrack much to be honest but there are all sorts of crazy, disturbing noises woven into the shots that add to the fear and sense of unrest.
The folklore has to be addressed since Eggers is famous for his research and Nosferatu has some nice nods to the actual legends rarely seen. A horse is used to find the grave of a vampire and I've only seen that in the disappointing Dracula with Frank Langella. They use iron stakes, nice touch! The vampires are walking rotted corpses not sexy teenagers. Nosferatu is pure evil, without morals or a dumb backstory to make you "understand him better".
The cast is all stellar. Skarsgård is the stand out, he can't help but be and Lily-rose Depp really gets her role and her character as well as manages to freak you out with her fits of hysteria as they were called. I was hoping Willem Defoe would be Nosferatu before production started as he was so good in the role in "Shadow of the Vampire" but he was better as the eccentric vampire hunter, a role that recently I have come to really detest how it is interpreted. Francis Ford Coppola had Anthony Hopkins as a mean, perverted Van Helsing and Laurence Olivier's turn at the part was cold and underwhelming. This was a good balance of dedicated and crazy.
As a life long fan of the Murnau film, I can say I was impressed by this version and I also love the Herzog version which is, again, a totally different take on the same story. Believe it not, a lighter version. Eggers brought the silent film into today while keeping it's look and feel firmly rooted in the past and gothic horror traditions. it could have easily gone over the top or into cliché after cliché but made it's own way instead. This is a bleak, tense often violent film so it is not for everyone and not for anyone who wants anything that resembles most vampire tales. If you want the real deal don't miss it.
Tuesday, December 22, 2020
Nosferatu poster project
I seem motivated by monsters these days. When I get an idea and the urge to realize it I'm trying just close the door to the studio and work until I'm done. I started this one a day ago but did about 7 hours on it today.
Monday, March 6, 2017
The Unholy Films of Dracula
There have been 1000s of films with Dracula as a character in them, maybe 10s of 1000s. The idea of vampires had existed in legends for centuries but the titular character in Bram Stoker’s book created a sensation that continues to this day. With all these interpretations out there, do any honour to the original story? Over the years some do, most do not. Many, though loosely following the plot at best have managed to create something outside Stoker’s original vision. The cinematic impressions have taken over our memories of Dracula and vampires and superseded the novel’s version almost completely.
So here is a list of some of the major films that in their own way cover the origins of the Transylvanian Count.
La Mort de Dracula (1921)
This film takes place in an insane asylum and involves an inmate that may or may not be the undead count. So it has nothing to do with the book but it does have the distinction as the first appearance of Dracula on the screen.
Nosferatu (1922)
Maybe one of the most iconic telling of the tale.The legendary director Murnau has created a tour de force of surreal horror and loosely follows the original story here and there but goes off the track as it approaches the end and takes on a less action oriented finale in lieu of one where Harker’s wife sacrifices herself by tricking the monster to forget the time and be destroyed by the first rays of dawn.
It’s a miracle we can see this movie at all. The producers did not get the rights from Stoker’s estate and were ordered to destroy every copy. Luckily for humanity, some people managed to hide copies throughout Europe and we are still trying to put together a complete version to this day. The look of the vampire in this film is so iconic and frightening it rivals even the Lugosi idea of the undead.
In the 80s, this was remade with Klaus Kinski by Werner Herzog in both German and English. Well worth seeing.
Dracula (Todd browning and Spanish version 1931)
Speaking of Lugosi, Universal studio’s entry of the classic tale is likely the most famous and imitated since it’s release. I have to say, and many would disagree I’m sure, that this version is not so great. Lugosi saves the film with his charismatic performance but the often amazing director Todd Browning’s work on the film is terrible. He was apparently drunk or passed out through much of the filming and the Spanish version, lensed at night on the same sets, is a vastly superior film, in my opinion. The actor playing Dracula is fantastic, the editing better and this version even as more effects that Browning never bothered to add into the English version. We never would have been able to see the Spanish take if it wasn’t for a pristine copy being found in Cuba not too many years ago. All other copies had disappeared over the decades.
Neither version of the film follows the storyline very closely but this version has become the de facto plot most people have come to expect.
Horror of Dracula (1958)
The first in Hammer’s long series of Dracula films that launched the horror careers of both Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing. Again, the plot of this film cuts and pastes elements from not only the book but from previous films and adds a little more sexiness and blood to the mix. A low budget endeavour, this film benefits from interesting sets and cinematography and the performances of its main actors. It created it’s own look and in a way it’s own horror universe that translated to other Hammer monster films, like Frankenstein and the Mummy.
Dracula (BBC 1977)
Louis Jordan plays the count in what is the most faithful of all Dracula films by my estimation. Its overall production value is good and the performances are as well. It’s well worth checking out even though it suffers from some unfortunate effects techniques that take away from the otherwise gothic feel of the project. Specifically, the terrible solarization of Jordan’s face now and then. It seems to be saying, we can do this weird thing with video so why not use it? Because it’s terrible and inappropriate would have my response if I was asked.
Dracula (Frank Langella - 1979)
In many ways, this production is reminiscent of the Hammer films from a few years earlier in style and substance. The story is a hodgepodge of Dracula lore and mixes and matches from previous efforts. Where the film stands out is in Langela’s take on the count (which he had perfected by playing him for years in the stage production), the music and the set pieces. The film fails in pacing and by not delivering what audiences really wanted at the time, which was a movie version of the hit play. A play, which despite the huge success it was world-wide at the time, has never been revived, at least not so far. I would also say the film is murky in style and lighting - making it difficult to figure out what is happening at points. It sounds a little odd to say, but I think movie lacks a soul - something that would make it relatable and new when it’s a typical gothic horror done in a competent manner that sort of sleep walks its way through the story. One thing it had going for it in spades was the John Williams soundtrack. Haunting, romantic and desperate sounding, it’s worth a listen on it’s own merits. Langella's hair might be a little too feathered....
Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992)
Francis Ford Coppala’s sumptuous and, face it, batshit crazy adaption of Stoker’s signature novel is visually stunning. Gary Oldman’s over the top performance is worth seeing alone, the rest of the cast seems to sleep walk through their roles and for something called Bram Stoker’s Dracula there is a lot of stuff in it that has absolutely nothing to do with the source material. It adds needless backstory and tries to make the count a victim of his fate, looking for his lost love though the centuries. Oldman has a lot to work with in the role and his vampire walks in the daylight, turns into some sort of bat human thing, has a shadow that (as in Nosferatu) has a life of its own and at one point transforms into some sort of rape-y werewolf - thing. Annie Lennox and Diamanda Galas sing on the sound track which is like a wet dream - for me, anyway. The movie is earnest in its presentation, to say the least, which makes it a little beyond normal criticism. It’s worth checking out but I would have to say, all it’s wonderfully made pieces do not add up to a coherent whole.
*This film seems to take elements and inspiration in some ways for the 1973 Dan Curtis TV movie of Dracula starring Jack Palance, which is not a bad version of the story but adds in the elements of the historical Dracula and the idea that Lucy is a reincarnation of his lost love.
Like most film versions of classic tales, Dracula’s legacy is spotty in terms of faithfulness to the author and the original concepts in the book. Also like many adaptions from book to movie, a faithful adaption isn’t always the best one or even possible. I do think the bloodthirsty villain of Stoker’s imagination has fared much better than Shelly’s Frankenstein. Most of those adaption don’t even try to capture the subtle nature of her story and opt for forgetting who the real monster in the story really is. Dracula at least keeps something of his written personality much of the time.
So here is a list of some of the major films that in their own way cover the origins of the Transylvanian Count.
La Mort de Dracula (1921)
This film takes place in an insane asylum and involves an inmate that may or may not be the undead count. So it has nothing to do with the book but it does have the distinction as the first appearance of Dracula on the screen.
Nosferatu (1922)
Maybe one of the most iconic telling of the tale.The legendary director Murnau has created a tour de force of surreal horror and loosely follows the original story here and there but goes off the track as it approaches the end and takes on a less action oriented finale in lieu of one where Harker’s wife sacrifices herself by tricking the monster to forget the time and be destroyed by the first rays of dawn.
It’s a miracle we can see this movie at all. The producers did not get the rights from Stoker’s estate and were ordered to destroy every copy. Luckily for humanity, some people managed to hide copies throughout Europe and we are still trying to put together a complete version to this day. The look of the vampire in this film is so iconic and frightening it rivals even the Lugosi idea of the undead.
In the 80s, this was remade with Klaus Kinski by Werner Herzog in both German and English. Well worth seeing.
Dracula (Todd browning and Spanish version 1931)
Speaking of Lugosi, Universal studio’s entry of the classic tale is likely the most famous and imitated since it’s release. I have to say, and many would disagree I’m sure, that this version is not so great. Lugosi saves the film with his charismatic performance but the often amazing director Todd Browning’s work on the film is terrible. He was apparently drunk or passed out through much of the filming and the Spanish version, lensed at night on the same sets, is a vastly superior film, in my opinion. The actor playing Dracula is fantastic, the editing better and this version even as more effects that Browning never bothered to add into the English version. We never would have been able to see the Spanish take if it wasn’t for a pristine copy being found in Cuba not too many years ago. All other copies had disappeared over the decades.
Neither version of the film follows the storyline very closely but this version has become the de facto plot most people have come to expect.
Horror of Dracula (1958)
The first in Hammer’s long series of Dracula films that launched the horror careers of both Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing. Again, the plot of this film cuts and pastes elements from not only the book but from previous films and adds a little more sexiness and blood to the mix. A low budget endeavour, this film benefits from interesting sets and cinematography and the performances of its main actors. It created it’s own look and in a way it’s own horror universe that translated to other Hammer monster films, like Frankenstein and the Mummy.
Dracula (BBC 1977)
Louis Jordan plays the count in what is the most faithful of all Dracula films by my estimation. Its overall production value is good and the performances are as well. It’s well worth checking out even though it suffers from some unfortunate effects techniques that take away from the otherwise gothic feel of the project. Specifically, the terrible solarization of Jordan’s face now and then. It seems to be saying, we can do this weird thing with video so why not use it? Because it’s terrible and inappropriate would have my response if I was asked.
Dracula (Frank Langella - 1979)
In many ways, this production is reminiscent of the Hammer films from a few years earlier in style and substance. The story is a hodgepodge of Dracula lore and mixes and matches from previous efforts. Where the film stands out is in Langela’s take on the count (which he had perfected by playing him for years in the stage production), the music and the set pieces. The film fails in pacing and by not delivering what audiences really wanted at the time, which was a movie version of the hit play. A play, which despite the huge success it was world-wide at the time, has never been revived, at least not so far. I would also say the film is murky in style and lighting - making it difficult to figure out what is happening at points. It sounds a little odd to say, but I think movie lacks a soul - something that would make it relatable and new when it’s a typical gothic horror done in a competent manner that sort of sleep walks its way through the story. One thing it had going for it in spades was the John Williams soundtrack. Haunting, romantic and desperate sounding, it’s worth a listen on it’s own merits. Langella's hair might be a little too feathered....
Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992)
Francis Ford Coppala’s sumptuous and, face it, batshit crazy adaption of Stoker’s signature novel is visually stunning. Gary Oldman’s over the top performance is worth seeing alone, the rest of the cast seems to sleep walk through their roles and for something called Bram Stoker’s Dracula there is a lot of stuff in it that has absolutely nothing to do with the source material. It adds needless backstory and tries to make the count a victim of his fate, looking for his lost love though the centuries. Oldman has a lot to work with in the role and his vampire walks in the daylight, turns into some sort of bat human thing, has a shadow that (as in Nosferatu) has a life of its own and at one point transforms into some sort of rape-y werewolf - thing. Annie Lennox and Diamanda Galas sing on the sound track which is like a wet dream - for me, anyway. The movie is earnest in its presentation, to say the least, which makes it a little beyond normal criticism. It’s worth checking out but I would have to say, all it’s wonderfully made pieces do not add up to a coherent whole.
*This film seems to take elements and inspiration in some ways for the 1973 Dan Curtis TV movie of Dracula starring Jack Palance, which is not a bad version of the story but adds in the elements of the historical Dracula and the idea that Lucy is a reincarnation of his lost love.
Like most film versions of classic tales, Dracula’s legacy is spotty in terms of faithfulness to the author and the original concepts in the book. Also like many adaptions from book to movie, a faithful adaption isn’t always the best one or even possible. I do think the bloodthirsty villain of Stoker’s imagination has fared much better than Shelly’s Frankenstein. Most of those adaption don’t even try to capture the subtle nature of her story and opt for forgetting who the real monster in the story really is. Dracula at least keeps something of his written personality much of the time.
Saturday, October 29, 2016
2 ½ Nosferatu
Nosferatu, the silent, illegally made version of Dracula, is still the greatest of them all. It's hard to beat Max Schrek in the role and his look is, to this day, creepy as hell. Despite there not being a complete version, the various restored prints get across the genus of filmmaker Murnau and it's imitated in style and tone by new filmmakers and probably all future ones.
The Herzog versions made a huge effort to get a modernized take on the original. He filmed in the city the silent was filmed in and Klaus Kinski looks AMAZING. The wine pouring scene with those ton like claws of his is unsettling decades later.
There are two Herzog version of Nosferatu... one German, one English. Same cast and same shots. It's really hard to tell them apart if the sound is of. I find the English version a little less effective since English was not the first language for any of the actors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)