Filmmaker Robert Eggers must have seen Yorgos Lanthimos’ “Poor Things” last year. This year, Eggers has taken many of those same stylistic and narrative themes and constructed his own film, “Nosferatu” – a remake of sorts of F.W. Murnau’s silent 1922 German classic, which still stands as the best vampire movie of all time. Ironically, Eggers’ update is flawed in many ways, but now stands as the second-best vampire movie of all time. Unlike the 1931 Bela Lugosi “Dracula” and all its subsequent knock-offs, Eggers’ film isn’t campy; it treats its subject matter with the gravity it deserves. Yes, we know vampires aren’t real, but “Nosferatu” can’t come off as preposterous.
The story centers around Ellen, a young married woman in mid-nineteenth century Germany. Ellen is played by Lily-Rose Depp, Johnny’s daughter; and doesn’t it just figure Johnny Depp’s daughter would appear in something this macabre? Happily married to an estate agent named Thomas (British actor Nicholas Hoult), Ellen senses something is amiss when Thomas’ employer sends him on a long journey to Transylvania (now part of Romania) to seal a transaction with a mysterious Count Orlok. Orlok has inhabited a remote castle for many years, and now has a desire to quickly move to the German village of Wisborg, where Ellen and Thomas live.
Orlok, of course, is the legendary Nosferatu of Bram Stoker’s 1897 novel “Dracula,” whose name was changed by Murnau when he made his “unauthorized” 1922 version. Eggers’ intent is to stay true to Murnau’s vision. To wit, the name Dracula is never uttered by anyone in Eggers’ adapted screenplay. Again, Eggers’ goal here is to make a serious and geniune vampire film. And he has.
Unfortunately, Eggers relies too much on blood-and-guts gore. Yes, I’m fully aware a vampire must feast on human flesh to survive, but go back and watch Murnau’s silent film. Or even the Bela Lugosi “Dracula.” We get the idea the vampire is feasting on body tissue without needing to see the act in extreme close-up. Likewise, we don’t need to see blood spewing forth from the incision to realize the human body is comprised of blood. Again, Eggers has taken a cue from Lanthimos, and to a negative effect.
My chief complaint with Lanthimos’ films has always been that he assigns too much weight to gross-out scenes. In “Poor Things,” why was it necessary for us to see a close-up shot of human flesh being sewn with a needle? It added nothing to the story, and caused half the audience to look away in disgust. In “Nosferatu,” Eggers has done the same thing. The result is that viewers leave the theatre complaining the picture they just witnessed was grotesque rather than discussing its narrative themes or the quality of the acting. Eggers’ cinematography overshadows other aspects of his film.
And that’s a shame, because “Nosferatu” has a lot going for it. Depp’s performance is outstanding, and in her first major role, she’s asked to carry a weighty film. “Nosferatu” sinks or swims based primarily on Depp. She succeeds, as does Bill Skarsgard as Orlok/Nosferatu. He’s tasked with the unenviable chore of forcefully muttering each of his lines in a low bass rumble that vibrates through the theatre. If you can get past the gore factor, “Nosferatu” is one that should be seen on the big screen. Ironically, Skarsgard (son of Stellan) scored his big breakthrough in the 2017 version of Stephen King’s “It.” Skarsgard played Pennywise, the heavily-made-up clown who terrorizes a town’s middle schoolers. Following “It” and now “Nosferatu,” I can’t help but wonder what Skarsgard actually looks like.
Also appearing in the cast is veteran character actor Willem Dafoe as a reclusive professor and scientist who is well-versed in the legend of Nosferatu, and whose intellect and guidance are summoned when the vampire makes his way to Wisborg. One of the ironies here is that Dafoe also appeared last year in “Poor Things,” the film Eggers would seem to be simulating. He was better in “Poor Things.” Here, Dafoe’s performance borders on the absurd. Dafoe has a tendency to overplay his hand, as he did in Guillermo del Toro’s “Nightmare Alley.” His performance was pure camp, in an otherwise serious film.
Another irony is that Eggers used Dafoe’s talents to much greater effect in his 2019 film “The Lighthouse.” That was the story of two men stranded on a small island with a lighthouse, who proceed to delve into insanity as they drive each other mad. Dafoe was brilliant in that film, which was told on a much smaller scale than “Nosferatu.” The contrast – in Dafoe’s performances and in the end-result quality of the films – makes us appreciate the small-scale pictures over the blockbusters. When filmmakers swing for the bleachers, the stakes are higher, and their products stand a greater chance of failing.
I also want to take a moment to mention the cinematography. Jarin Blaschke, known for his work with Eggers, has fashioned a stylish nineteenth-century look, which begins with a black-and-white sequence from Ellen’s youth, in which she first encounters the vampire. Her subsequent dreams of Nosferatu are also depicted in black-and-white, while he uses a soft, washed-out, icy-blue color for the present-day narrative
I like the ice blue look – it certainly fits the morbid subject matter – but why didn’t Eggers shoot the entire film in black-and-white, as he did “The Lighthouse?” This was a chief complaint of mine with “Poor Things.” Rather than switch to muted colors when his protagonist experienced her first sexual encounter, Lanthimos should have stuck with black-and-white for the duration. Same with “Nosferatu.” It’s based on an old novel, and it deals with an ancient legend. Let’s give it an ancient look!
There’s a lot to like in “Nosferatu,” but the strong performances simply can’t overcome Eggers’ and Blaschke’s need to hit us over the head with their stylistic touches, particularly the over-reliance on gore. If the blood (and projectile vomiting) had been eliminated – or at least reduced – we’d be discussing themes and visions rather than blood and guts. And that’s a shame.
