Nosferatu is the gothic tale of an evil vampire who inflicts terror upon a young woman and the city where she lives. Though it is beautifully filmed, technically proficient, and touches upon interesting subjects of spirituality versus scientism/materialism, the film falls largely flat, in addition to being grotesque and macabre. Written and directed by Robert Eggers, it is an adaptation of both Bram Stoker’s classic novel, Dracula, and the 1922 silent film, Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror.
The original Nosferatu was produced in Germany and released in the silent era of filmmaking. Itself being an adaptation of the Stoker novel, though created without acquiring the rights to the original story, the 1922 film was almost lost to history. Stoker’s widow sued the production company, and a judge ordered that all prints of the film be destroyed. The film survived, however, and has since become inextricably intertwined with the existing mythology and lore of vampires. Even the concept of vampires perishing in sunlight finds its origin in the Nosferatu story, and not in the original Dracula novel.
Now, over 100 years since the original release, this new version comes to us from the filmmaker behind The Witch, The Lighthouse, and The Northman, Robert Eggers. Eggers has made a name for himself creating high quality, thoughtful, yet sometimes disturbing, films which predominantly fall into the ‘horror genre’. The exception being 2022’s Viking epic, The Northman. This new film has been somewhat of a passion project for Eggers since his teenage years, and it has been in development since the release of his very first feature, 2015’s The Witch. Nosferatu stars Lily-Rose Depp, Nicholas Hoult, Bill Skarsgard, Willem Dafoe, and Aaron Taylor-Johnson. It was released by Focus Features in the U.S. and Universal Pictures internationally.
While many viewers might recognize an almost identical plot between the book and this film, it is in the details where Eggers’ picture differentiates itself, but not always to its benefit. Given that this new film is made in an era where graphic content is much more prevalent in filmmaking, it was almost inevitable that a new version of the vampire story would push the boundaries of propriety in certain places. Films are able to portray events, or even behaviors, which we may find disturbing in ways that are not so explicit as to make us literally look away. Eggers’ film, however, crosses over into the off-putting enough times to make the viewing no longer enjoyable. The film’s greatest fault is that there are simply too many of these ‘gross moments,’ resulting in neither an enjoyable nor beneficial watch for the viewer.
The strongest aspect, aside from its technical achievements, is the theme of the reality of the spiritual world. Count Orlok, the titular vampire, is regularly referred to as a demon in the film. In the original film’s lore, Orlok was created by a lieutenant of Satan. Willem Dafoe (who delivers the film’s strongest performance) openly ridicules modern scientism throughout the picture. His character, Professor von Franz, at one point exclaims, “We are not so enlightened as we are blinded by the gaseous light of science. I have wrestled with the Devil as Jacob wrestled the Angel in Penuel, and I tell you that if we are to tame darkness, we must first face that it exists!” In a time when many Christians have been lured into a materialistic worldview, this perspective was refreshingly portrayed, and seemingly judgement free on the part of the filmmakers.
Though the film’s visuals were quite impressive, the overall effect of the film was underwhelming. Other minor issues could be criticized and examined, such as the themes of repressed sexuality. Ultimately, the film was unengaging. With the exception of Dafoe’s performance and the transformation of Bill Skarsgard as Orlok, the cast was unimpressive. With so many scenes leaning into graphic content, the film could have learned a lesson from Jaws. In this sort of medium, what remains unseen is often more effective than what is seen. Restraining the explicit aspects of the film could have made for a classier, more elevated experience. Instead, it just seemed to wallow too much in the filth.
Mature or intense content is not a reason I would automatically use for not recommending a film. However, in this instance, the use of the graphic imagery did not serve a beneficial purpose to the narrative. The novel and the 1922 film have disturbing and dark material without becoming overtly repulsive. This classic story could have been tackled in a way that was refined and intelligent throughout. While it was smart, thought-provoking at times, and expertly crafted, the end result did not impress.
