The Frustration of Egger's Nosferatu

A discussion of what I wish had/hadn't happened

DISCLAIMER: This is my opinion

Despite how prevalent Robert Eggers has been in the past decade, I had never watched any of his movies — it’s not that they didn’t interest me, I was genuinely intrigued when I heard about this upcoming movie called ‘The Lighthouse’ back in 2019. But I never got around to watching The Lighthouse, and I still have not seen The VVitch. I have heard a lot about him though: Some people adore him, seeing him as this visionary genius, whose films are art. Others seem to have this strong disdain for him, and treat him like a scapegoat figurehead for the ‘pretentious, style-not-substance drawl’ that has taken over popular contemporary films. Me? I never really paid attention to this discourse. It took me until last week to fully grasp his name; I have constantly muddled Robert Eggers’ name with the famed film critic Roger Ebert… I held his name and filmography in this opinionless regard, just a neutral stance that he is a famous modern filmmaker. On Wednesday, however, I finally watched something by him: his adaptation of 1922’s Nosferatu.

Nosferatu (or specifically Count Orlok) was a character and story I knew well: introduced to him at a young age as the guy flickering the lights at the Krusty Krab, recognizing him as a vampire from some old movie. I later learned that Nosferatu was a strange unauthorized adaptation/copy of Dracula — depending on if you ask Florence Balcombe, who won a lawsuit that ordered every copy to be destroyed of the German film. Despite knowing it for, at this stage, decades, I only got around to watching it on New Year’s Eve, the day before seeing Eggers’ remake. It wasn’t my first silent film, it wasn’t even my first German silent horror (The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari takes that title), but I know that a large percentage of people would rather be shot than watch a film shot in black & white that lacked sound, as to denote what is happening on the film screen whilst looking at a separate screen would be impossible. Frankly, that’s their prerogative, but I would strongly recommend that people set aside any distractions for the 90 minutes because the Murnau’s Nosferatu was fascinating. It’s a gorgeous film that is both goofy and genuinely unnerving. The plot is a rip-off of Dracula — I studied Dracula and its multiple film adaptations last year so I know its storybeats all too well — but it takes it in a different direction, one about the occult and plagues and mob mentality. Its influence on not just horror but film in general cannot be understated, and even while watching I noticed so many things that other films would later go on to reuse and reference; Halloween Kills’ sequence of the townspeople chasing a man they believe to be Michael is inspired by a scene where the townspeople chase Knock, believing him to be ‘Nosferatu’.

Now, before I get into the film, and what frustrated me, going down a tangent that might make me seem obnoxious, or petty, or an idiot, or whatever other adjectives I may be prescribed, I have to commend Eggers on his cinematography. The set design, the costuming, and the way the camera flowed in this dreamlike state between scenes, using shadows as transitions and twisting and turning like Ellen’s possessed state, it was a marvel to watch. The blend of historical realism and the dramatic was splendid. If what you want is a movie that’s beautiful and atmospheric and all-around visual-centric, then this is the movie. I think Eggers did a pretty great job at capturing the captivating visuals of the original and modernizing that drifting surrealism. I adored his commitment to practical effects; it made the film haunting and immersive. This movie is not a bad movie, in some ways it’s a great movie. So please take that into account before you take my complaints as some personal attack against you for liking or enjoying this movie, because I also enjoyed it too, but I also have some issues.

What has been frustrating me these past few days is the potential I could see in Nosferatu that it just didn’t live up to. To me, this movie felt like Eggers was trying to make a film about ‘hysteria’ and the demonization of female sexuality, whilst also making a faithful adaptation of Nosferatu, and instead made a film that straddles that line without making up its mind. I’m sure that watching the Murnau version the day before made me hyperaware of where Eggers’ movie strayed and where it followed its predecessor — not because I expect an adaptation to be the same, quite the opposite; I much prefer when someone takes the source material and reshapes it into their own vision. An example is the removal of that aforementioned scene with Knock and the townspeople: it’s one of my favourites of the 1922 original, but its existence was not necessary in Eggers’ version and its removal was not something I felt affected this movie. Eggers certainly had a vision, but it felt like he was either too unsure about executing it, or too unsure the idea itself. By focusing on Ellen (played by Lily-Rose Depp), the story becomes less about Count Orlok’s existence as the general ‘Other’, but instead an embodiment of Ellen’s shame and horror and desire around her own sexuality. A fascinating concept — you connect the character’s sleepwalking and trance-like states from the original with the well-established sexual connotations of vampirism, and boom, you have an interesting story about hysteria and sexual-induced mental anguish.

But what started to trouble me was how little it seemed Eggers cared about this theme. In the original, Ellen still sleepwalks and has some psychic abilities that let her communicate with Orlok, stopping him from killing Thomas in his castle by way of telepathic communication. It’s certainly a plot point that was not really expanded upon in the original, and Eggers wanted to do just that by having this strange connection between Orlok and Ellen introduced at the start where, years prior to the main plot, Ellen invokes him and is sexually assaulted. Or is possessed by him. I don’t know, the movie never fully delves into that, instead focusing on the visuals of her possessed moments. This event is the cause of Ellen’s ‘hysteria’ and seizures, which are only quelled when she meets Thomas (played by Nicholas Hoult). This overused ‘protagonist has a previously unknown connection to the villain’ trope annoys me, but I can still see how it can an interesting change, reminiscent of Coppola’s Dracula, which this movie really tries to be like.

Where it becomes a problem is when you get to the final act, where Eggers builds up this plot point that Ellen has three days to submit herself to Orlok, or everyone she loves will die. Once again there’s this overdone plot point that feels less like an inspired addition and instead a way to add some tension via a time limit put on the characters, something that wasn’t in the original (it’s established that there’s a time limit on them stopping Orlok, but it’s not from a direct statement and instead from his plague that is running rampant and killing people), and this addition completely upends the effectiveness of the Nosferatu ending. For those that haven’t seen either of the films, Nosferatu is killed by sunlight (the actual introduction of this trope as Dracula is only weakened, not killed) and a woman can wilfully sacrifice herself to Nosferatu, basically distracting him with sex and blood sucking until the sun comes up. The emphasis on that word, wilful, is what makes Ellen of the Murnau film a hero. Whilst Orlok was attracted to her, Ellen was under no obligation to make this sacrifice and instead does it of her own volition to save Thomas and the others; she wilfully sacrifices herself. What Eggers does by introducing Nosferatu as this figure that is intrinsically linked to Ellen by being a figure of sexuality (whether that’s her shame, her physical desire, or some mix of both) and having her trapped in her connection to Orlok — he literally tells her she has to submit herself to him or everyone will die — well it just doesn’t really make her sacrifice ‘wilful’, does it?

Of course, you can say that that is the entire point of this movie, that her sacrifice is not wilful, and the way that women are shamed and made to suffer for sexuality is the horror in itself. That Ellen is left as a pawn to be played with all her life. And maybe I could eventually be convinced that that is what Eggers intended, because rationally, I do believe that… but it really didn’t feel like that to me. Where Murnau’s Ellen was a character with autonomy, Eggers’ Ellen becomes a depressing figure whose whole existence is to suffer and seizure, go ‘crazy’, and die. It irritates me that Eggers kept in the ‘wilful sacrifice’ bit; he removed other bits of the story and reframed whole storylines to fit his theme and his movie, so why was this bit kept, unless he forgot that Orlok forced her into this ‘choice’. If the folk scripture says ‘wilful’, semantics matter, especially when it comes to something that was described as ‘a cure’. And if ‘wilful’ sacrifice means ‘doing something because you have no other real choice’, then either you hadn’t thought it through, or you’re a bit muddled on what your theme is trying to be. I know that, again, it could be read as commentary on consent and coercion, leaving thematic elements ambiguous just feels like a cop-out of having to commit to an idea. Though I’m harping on about what can be seen as one little issue, it’s indicative of how this film seems to favour it’s visual excitement over caring about what it’s trying to say or be. It’s a stunning movie, but that’s it really. When a movie from 100 years ago and lacks sound has a stronger theme than your film, it’s saying something.

I know that film is a visual format and that some people enjoy films solely for imagery, but I just felt like Eggers decided to tack on the theme about female sexuality to his Nosferatu remake to make its existence feel warranted. Which really frustrates me, because it’s a fascinating concept for a Nosferatu adaptation! I was rooting for this movie, but as it went on, I felt like that his intentions were to create a movie that felt more profound and meaningful than it actually was. Overall, I felt like there was no soul in this movie, no heart or reason for it to exist bar Egger’s desire to remake it. And while I’m complaining, Aaron Taylor Johnson’s acting left way too much to be desired, I was in disbelief at some of the scenes thinking, ‘is this really the best take you got?’… but that’s just me complaining.

I know I’m probably going to be seen as nitpicky, or that I ‘didn’t understand’ the movie, but I think I understood what was shown perfectly, the issue is that what was shown was not enough. Maybe I need a second watch, maybe I’m just completely wrong. Honestly I’d rather be wrong — I would love to have an epiphany and love this movie. It has so much to love about it. Nicholas Hoult was incredible, Dafoe gave a charming performance. I had no idea that it was Bill Skarsgård playing Orlok because his performance and costuming were magnificently captivating. I really loved how the movie holds back his appearance until that doorway scene, it was nerve-wrecking and jolting when his hand would appear from the side with no warning. With so much to love about it, it’s frustrating that my mind cannot escape this incessant loop of pondering its ‘soul’. I feel myself going mad because I keep trying to give it a pass, but then I’m reminded of how I felt at that final shot, a morbidly beautiful picture of Orlok’s rotting corpse on top of Ellen’s, feeling this maddening mixture of admiration for this image and disappointment at how this image was just that, an image. There’s so many amazing scenes and beautiful sets, but it felt like that that was all that mattered in this movie. Had Eggers just committed to making a stunning modern, faithful adaptation of Nosferatu, or to making a film about the demonization of female sexuality with a 19th century backdrop, I think I would have been a lot more satisfied. For now though, I’m not satisfied, I’m just a bit let down.

Anyway, if you agree or disagree with this, please leave a comment. I know this post could be seen as me tearing apart a film you may love, I’m not. Like I said, I enjoyed a lot of this move — the fact that I’m ‘frustrated’ is because I did like it and what it was trying to do! I just wish I could say I felt it did it effectively…