I love your line that "The confrontation with that mind, which is alien and beyond our modern comprehension, is part of what makes his art valuable." I would argue that Stoker's Dracula was (and is) valuable for much the same reason--indeed, confronting the horror of the past as it rises up to consume us in all its incomprehensible otherness has always been part of the allure of vampiric monstrosity. Eggers’ skill in bringing that particular horror so beautifully to life was one of the reasons I adored his remake of Nosferatu.
(Please don't let your exhaustion with cultural criticism keep you from your keyboard forever!)
Thanks so much, Margo! I appreciate the encouragement. Also, I think it's worth considering (for someone else, in another essay of course) the lack of Christian symbology and worldview in this Eggers film. It's pre-modern, but not really "of" Christendom.
I quite enjoyed Eggers' Nosferatu. Orlock's voice is something that won't get out of my head. What a great performance. And yes, I get tired of people considering this era better than any past era. It clearly is not and no era every will be superior in every way. I think it's a natural and well, dull way of thinking that everything is better now or that everything is worse now. It's always a combination. Drop the dramatic and look at what is real. It often is not dramatic and that's a good thing. That's what movies and stories are for. Great post, Danny.
I must really watch this movie again because, while I also left the theatre with thoughts, they were much more critical; the main one being 'how on earth could I have been so bored by an Eggers film'.
When you state:
He re-creates the mind of the past, not just images. The confrontation with that mind, which is alien and beyond our modern comprehension, is part of what makes his art valuable.
I mean given that the story is so previously known, I think you're letting him off the hook here by stating that. I wasn't even too impressed with the visuals and I certainly didn't get the mind of the past here. Some of the performances were troubling. Depp was a revelation and Willem Defoe a delight - he certainly gave us a fresh look at the past. But some of the others were miscast and detracted from the others. I still watched it, but it was not the immersive experience that Eggers' films usually give - I think that's what I'm trying to say, lol.
I'd have to agree with the Holmes review more than any of the others ...in that, where you quote him as saying Eggers rarely says anything to the past - or something to that effect - I think that is certainly the case here. He gave us nothing new and it seemed nothing more than an homage ...nothing that even hinted at a worthy interpretation of the original movie. And I think at this point, we should all stop talking and start reading Dracula. Now there's a book that stabs!
Well, it's ok. Different people have different experiences with art, and that's just how art works. Thanks for your thoughtful response anyway. And we can agree that Dracula is definitely great.
“This is what I admire most about his work, in fact. His films create worlds that shouldn't still exist. They are anachronisms. He re-creates the mind of the past, not just images. “ Well said! This is exactly what initially struck me about The Witch.
I did see that about Werwulf and I can't wait. Werewolves are my favorite horror sub-genre. And I did read your Nosferatu piece when it came out! Have the "like" receipt to prove it :) Well done, yet again.
Ack YES, this is exactly what I find so great about his movies!! I don’t need to agree with whatever they’re saying (or even know, sometimes frankly) - it’s that watching them makes me feel like I am someone from the time period of the movie hearing the story from a contemporary! I think this is maybe why I liked The Northman more than a lot of other people seemed to, for me at least watching it felt exactly how I imagine it would feel to learn that myth as you grew up, and to me that is exhilarating and special in modern media. So glad you fought the exhaustion with internet critique to write this, as it’s certainly my favorite nosferatu essay so far :))
Oh how nice of you! Very flattered by that last remark. And I agree, the Northman does a similar thing with fully adopting the mind of the time the film explores. To me, it's fascinating to hold that movie up next to Hamlet. The same general story told from two entirely different worldviews.
I share your sentiment about cultural criticism; today, in a world of social media self-promotion, critics are far more performative than they are insightful.
Thank you for summarizing both of the opposing articles, too, by the way. I think your assessments of both are accurate and appropriate.
Thanks James. honestly, one of the hesitations I had about writing was trusting in my ability to fairly represent the articles. Glad it worked for you.
I withheld judgment on “Nosferatu” until I finally got around to seeing it today. I was predisposed to despise it, but I actually enjoyed it immensely. The scenes were beautifully filmed and I loved the eerie soundtrack that went with it.
I thought the elements of the occult added to the story; and I find the critique about alleged anti-scientism in the film bizarre. The doctor himself proclaims that Willem Dafoe’s character is off his rocker and was let go from the university. Besides, the film is about a supernatural entity, so “science” doesn’t really matter. That’s like asking for the chemical composition of the fairy dust in Peter Pan.
One critic complained that it made no sense that the ship carrying the Count went from Transylvania to Germany. But that only parallels the novel “Dracula” in which the ship sets out from Varna on the Black Sea to England. I liked the ship sequence and thought verisimilitude of it having a crew Russians was a nice touch.
HOWEVER, there were a few things about the film that annoyed me:
* The dialogue grated on my nerves. It was way too precious. I appreciate archaisms every now and then, but the repeated double possessions (“this my command,” “this my wife”) or the pretentiously bloviated, “I must to my study,” “He is come to the city.”—and on and on and on made me feel like the WAY the characters were speaking were what I should be focusing on rather than WHAT they were saying. So the human factor got lost on me. They sounded stuffy and posh, considering they were supposed to be middle-class Germans who had made their money in trade.
* And there was no such place as “Germany” in 1838. The German-speaking nations were divided into indpendent states, duchies, etc. To call the fictitious German town (which I think was supposed to be Bremen) “Germany” would be calling 1730s New York a city in The United States.
* I loved the look of Orlock and the reveal of him in the coffin in the castle was magnificent. BUT, I hated that over-the-top accent. I don’t understand why all vampires in movies “Haaaf to taaalg, like diiis.” His voice made me laugh so much that I had to step out of the theater for a second. The thing that made Bela Lugosi’s original performance of the Count so interesting was that he was Hungarian and knew barely any English, so he had a voice coach who taught him to speak the lines phonetically: “Ayy do not drink… wayn.”
Thanks for the feedback and for sharing your thoughts, which I appreciate!
I think you'll be disturbed to know that Eggers apparently plans to release a 3+ hour extended cut, then! (Which I can't wait to buy!).
I also think that a lot of the things you found annoying about the movie are part of the archaic world-building that makes the movie work for me. I'm perfectly happy to bask a while in the "how" the characters talk.
Really appreciate your thoughts, as usual, Danny. I just saw Nosferatu (after seeing a showing of the original paired with Radiohead albums a couple months ago, haha), and even during it I found myself unsettled by his commitment to a “pre-modern” perspective. And I’m glad I was! I’m glad he doesn’t hedge about it, but the fact that he doesn’t also provokes deep discomfort in me—which I think I need. So this piece very much resonates. Thank you.
Thanks Stephen. One of my friends texted me after having seen it and couldn't get over how bleak the film was. This is, of course, something I find laudable about it, LOL. He is committed to his vision, consequences-be-damned. Glad you resonated with the piece.
I love your line that "The confrontation with that mind, which is alien and beyond our modern comprehension, is part of what makes his art valuable." I would argue that Stoker's Dracula was (and is) valuable for much the same reason--indeed, confronting the horror of the past as it rises up to consume us in all its incomprehensible otherness has always been part of the allure of vampiric monstrosity. Eggers’ skill in bringing that particular horror so beautifully to life was one of the reasons I adored his remake of Nosferatu.
(Please don't let your exhaustion with cultural criticism keep you from your keyboard forever!)
Thanks so much, Margo! I appreciate the encouragement. Also, I think it's worth considering (for someone else, in another essay of course) the lack of Christian symbology and worldview in this Eggers film. It's pre-modern, but not really "of" Christendom.
I quite enjoyed Eggers' Nosferatu. Orlock's voice is something that won't get out of my head. What a great performance. And yes, I get tired of people considering this era better than any past era. It clearly is not and no era every will be superior in every way. I think it's a natural and well, dull way of thinking that everything is better now or that everything is worse now. It's always a combination. Drop the dramatic and look at what is real. It often is not dramatic and that's a good thing. That's what movies and stories are for. Great post, Danny.
I must really watch this movie again because, while I also left the theatre with thoughts, they were much more critical; the main one being 'how on earth could I have been so bored by an Eggers film'.
When you state:
He re-creates the mind of the past, not just images. The confrontation with that mind, which is alien and beyond our modern comprehension, is part of what makes his art valuable.
I mean given that the story is so previously known, I think you're letting him off the hook here by stating that. I wasn't even too impressed with the visuals and I certainly didn't get the mind of the past here. Some of the performances were troubling. Depp was a revelation and Willem Defoe a delight - he certainly gave us a fresh look at the past. But some of the others were miscast and detracted from the others. I still watched it, but it was not the immersive experience that Eggers' films usually give - I think that's what I'm trying to say, lol.
I'd have to agree with the Holmes review more than any of the others ...in that, where you quote him as saying Eggers rarely says anything to the past - or something to that effect - I think that is certainly the case here. He gave us nothing new and it seemed nothing more than an homage ...nothing that even hinted at a worthy interpretation of the original movie. And I think at this point, we should all stop talking and start reading Dracula. Now there's a book that stabs!
Well, it's ok. Different people have different experiences with art, and that's just how art works. Thanks for your thoughtful response anyway. And we can agree that Dracula is definitely great.
“This is what I admire most about his work, in fact. His films create worlds that shouldn't still exist. They are anachronisms. He re-creates the mind of the past, not just images. “ Well said! This is exactly what initially struck me about The Witch.
Absolutely! The Witch will remain a mesmerizing movie because it exists outside our present moment. Thanks for the feedback!
You probably know this already, but his next movie is apparently about werewolves in the 13th century with “period dialogue,” whatever that means.
I also posted an essay about Nosferatu, if you’re interested. Have a great day.
I did see that about Werwulf and I can't wait. Werewolves are my favorite horror sub-genre. And I did read your Nosferatu piece when it came out! Have the "like" receipt to prove it :) Well done, yet again.
It is a black omen to see Nosferatu in poor health. Obey this my counsel.
Ack YES, this is exactly what I find so great about his movies!! I don’t need to agree with whatever they’re saying (or even know, sometimes frankly) - it’s that watching them makes me feel like I am someone from the time period of the movie hearing the story from a contemporary! I think this is maybe why I liked The Northman more than a lot of other people seemed to, for me at least watching it felt exactly how I imagine it would feel to learn that myth as you grew up, and to me that is exhilarating and special in modern media. So glad you fought the exhaustion with internet critique to write this, as it’s certainly my favorite nosferatu essay so far :))
Oh how nice of you! Very flattered by that last remark. And I agree, the Northman does a similar thing with fully adopting the mind of the time the film explores. To me, it's fascinating to hold that movie up next to Hamlet. The same general story told from two entirely different worldviews.
I share your sentiment about cultural criticism; today, in a world of social media self-promotion, critics are far more performative than they are insightful.
Thank you for summarizing both of the opposing articles, too, by the way. I think your assessments of both are accurate and appropriate.
Thanks James. honestly, one of the hesitations I had about writing was trusting in my ability to fairly represent the articles. Glad it worked for you.
I withheld judgment on “Nosferatu” until I finally got around to seeing it today. I was predisposed to despise it, but I actually enjoyed it immensely. The scenes were beautifully filmed and I loved the eerie soundtrack that went with it.
I thought the elements of the occult added to the story; and I find the critique about alleged anti-scientism in the film bizarre. The doctor himself proclaims that Willem Dafoe’s character is off his rocker and was let go from the university. Besides, the film is about a supernatural entity, so “science” doesn’t really matter. That’s like asking for the chemical composition of the fairy dust in Peter Pan.
One critic complained that it made no sense that the ship carrying the Count went from Transylvania to Germany. But that only parallels the novel “Dracula” in which the ship sets out from Varna on the Black Sea to England. I liked the ship sequence and thought verisimilitude of it having a crew Russians was a nice touch.
HOWEVER, there were a few things about the film that annoyed me:
* The dialogue grated on my nerves. It was way too precious. I appreciate archaisms every now and then, but the repeated double possessions (“this my command,” “this my wife”) or the pretentiously bloviated, “I must to my study,” “He is come to the city.”—and on and on and on made me feel like the WAY the characters were speaking were what I should be focusing on rather than WHAT they were saying. So the human factor got lost on me. They sounded stuffy and posh, considering they were supposed to be middle-class Germans who had made their money in trade.
* And there was no such place as “Germany” in 1838. The German-speaking nations were divided into indpendent states, duchies, etc. To call the fictitious German town (which I think was supposed to be Bremen) “Germany” would be calling 1730s New York a city in The United States.
* I loved the look of Orlock and the reveal of him in the coffin in the castle was magnificent. BUT, I hated that over-the-top accent. I don’t understand why all vampires in movies “Haaaf to taaalg, like diiis.” His voice made me laugh so much that I had to step out of the theater for a second. The thing that made Bela Lugosi’s original performance of the Count so interesting was that he was Hungarian and knew barely any English, so he had a voice coach who taught him to speak the lines phonetically: “Ayy do not drink… wayn.”
* The film felt long by about 20 minutes.
Thanks for the feedback and for sharing your thoughts, which I appreciate!
I think you'll be disturbed to know that Eggers apparently plans to release a 3+ hour extended cut, then! (Which I can't wait to buy!).
I also think that a lot of the things you found annoying about the movie are part of the archaic world-building that makes the movie work for me. I'm perfectly happy to bask a while in the "how" the characters talk.
Really appreciate your thoughts, as usual, Danny. I just saw Nosferatu (after seeing a showing of the original paired with Radiohead albums a couple months ago, haha), and even during it I found myself unsettled by his commitment to a “pre-modern” perspective. And I’m glad I was! I’m glad he doesn’t hedge about it, but the fact that he doesn’t also provokes deep discomfort in me—which I think I need. So this piece very much resonates. Thank you.
Thanks Stephen. One of my friends texted me after having seen it and couldn't get over how bleak the film was. This is, of course, something I find laudable about it, LOL. He is committed to his vision, consequences-be-damned. Glad you resonated with the piece.
Haha, yes. There was a moment in the middle of the film where I was like, “…. I don’t think Nosferatu is a metaphor at all.” 😂