The Dracula Movies.

[Wayne]

In 1897, Bram Stoker's novel: 'Dracula' was published, & it became one of the great classics of horror/fantasy literature. There must be few people who have never heard the name 'Dracula', & at some time or other , most of us must've seen at least one of the many Dracula movies that have been made over the years.
There must be many people who's first experience of Dracula was either the Hammer version, or one the several sequels made, all of which of course feature Christopher Lee, in what is still (much to Lee's chagrin) his most famous role.
The first Dracula film that i remember seeing as a boy was Hammer's first sequel to their original Dracula production;- 'Dracula: Prince of Darkness'. We will cover the Hammer era later, but suffice to say that the film made a big impression on me. I was immediately fascinated by the character of Dracula, & the wider concept of vampires as a whole.

I'm sure many others like myself were eventually led back to Bram Stoker's original book. I was in my early 20's before i got around to reading it, & despite some initial problems with the 'olde worlde' style of the late nineteeth century, i was soon drawn into what proved to be a very eerie, atmospheric, & highly evocotive novel.
It's well known that despite the claims made by makers of various Dracula movies over the years, that none have been entirely faithful to Stoker's original concept, although all the films obviously follow the original story to a large degree, but many in different ways with the emphasis on different aspects of the character & the novel. And some have deliberately incorporated the ideas which have come about over the years that link Dracula with the historical figure of Vlad the Impaler. (More on that when we get to those specific films)

As a collector & enthusiast of the horror genre in general, & having a long held fascination with the vampire sub-genre in particular, i thought it would be fun to share with fellow enthusiasts, a journey through the key interpretations of Dracula that have been made for film & tv over the years.
I've seen most of the films that we will be covering, - Some favourites, several times. But in looking into the history of the Dracula movies, i tracked down 3 films which will be new to me on this thread. Namely: the 1970 version by Jess Franco, which although not a Hammer Dracula, stars Christopher Lee. Also, the version from 1973 by Dan Curtis, which stars Jack Palance as Dracula, & finally a film from 2002, called: 'Dark Prince: The Legend of Dracula', which i've also never seen before.

But the very first adaptation was F.W. Murnau's "Nosferatu' from 1922. I'm planning to kick off the journey either tonight or tomorrow night at the latest with this film. The version i'm watching is the BFI release which restores the original blue tinting that Murnau intended for the night time scenes, (which were all shot in the daytime) & also features a newly recorded score by Hammer films maestro James Bernard, who scored most of Hammer's Dracula films, & many others.
I would recommend that my fellow participants watch the 25min documentary on the dvd, by film historian Christopher Frayling, before watching the movie. It's very informative on several things, & explains why this restored version is really the version to watch.

So, i'll be back some time in the next 24hrs with my thoughts on 'Nosferatu', but for now, i'd be interested to hear, - What was the first Dracula movie that you ever saw? How old were you, & what did it do for you? etc...

Oh, and if anyone reading wants to take part in the thread, & needs me to lend the films to them, Just PM me.

[Alex]

It's odd, because I've always loved the Dracula tale, but I honestly have no memory of what the first film version I ever saw of it was.

I do remember having a talking book version of it, read by Anthony Valentine, that I'd listen to over and over again as a kid, especially on long car journeys when we were off on holiday, and I absolutely loved it.

I know I saw the first Hammer film round about the time I was 16ish or so, and quite enjoyed it, but my first Dracula at the cinema was Francis Ford Coppola's version, which I was quite underwhelmed by.

Anyway, I'm definitely looking forward to watching a whole load of these, Nosferatu especially as I've wanted to see it for ages!

[Wayne]

I do remember having a talking book version of it, read by Anthony Valentine, that I'd listen to over and over again as a kid, especially on long car journeys when we were off on holiday, and I absolutely loved it.

Anyway, I'm definitely looking forward to watching a whole load of these, Nosferatu especially as I've wanted to see it for ages!

I used to have that Anthony Valentine audiobook. It was quite good, but i prefer the one read by Christopher Lee.
I'll be watching 'Nosferatu' before the night's out. Review up sometime around the midnight hour.

[Wayne]

Nosferatu (1922)

Despite the change in title, character's names, & location/setting, F.W. Murnau's: 'Nosferatu', is clearly based on Bram Stoker's 'Dracula', so much so that his widow sued for copyright infringement, which eventually resulted in the existing prints of the film being destroyed, But fortunately, not before a print of the film was sold overseas, which is why it is still with us today. The story is set in Bremmen, & instead of Count Dracula, we have Count Orlok. In place of Harker we have Hutter, Ellen instead of Mina, Professor Bulwer instead of Van Helsing, & Knock instead of Renfield.
I first saw Nosferatu when the BFI dvd release came out a few years ago. I'd been put off seeing it for a long time, thinking that i wouldn't enjoy a silent movie, but in actual fact i warmed to it quite quickly, so watching it again tonight was certainly no chore. Positively the most striking thing about this film, aside from the gothic architecture, is Nosferatu/Count Orlok himself, & yet one of the first people we see in the film, the character of 'Knock', is also a very strange, odd looking bloke!

The film begins to really get moving about 20mins in, when we get our first tantalizing glimpse of Orlok driving the coach & horses, & then shortly afterwards when he arrives with Hutter at the castle. Murnau cleverly keeps Max Shrek's full make-up hidden underneath a hat for the first few scenes at the castle, but it's clear that he's not your ordinary looking fellow! At the dining table with Hutter, we are again treated to a few more glimpses of a rather astonishing looking man with deep sunken eyes, & huge bushy eyebrows. When Hutter accidently cuts himself, you can really notice just how big Orlok's hands are, with their long fingers tapering away to long pointed nails..... And the actor Max Shrek himself, really does have very demonic looking eyes!
The full effect is acheived a few minutes later when Hutter is exploring the castle, & we see Orlok, first in a distant shot, & then closer, without his hat & collar hiding his face. In a splendid scene which is highlighted brilliantly by James Bernard's score, Hutter wrenches open a door, & we see the almost bat-like head & face of Orlok, complete with pointed ears. I really do think the next moment is truly eerie, as we see Orlok slowly advance through the door, with his hands straight down by his sides...... It just looks so damn freaky! As the Count leaves the room, we see for the first time, the mis-shapen skull, & the 2 long pointed teeth as we get our first real close up shot of Orlok. We can see now just how inhuman he actually looks, & the effect is doubled in the next scene when Hutter finds the vampire in his coffin, & we realize that this truly is a 'creature', rather than a 'man'. As effective as Orlok is, he is quite different from the vampire depicted by Bram Stoker. Orlok has an almost skeletal appearance, & resembles a corpse, rather than the demonic, but well groomed Count Dracula.

Some of most unnerving scenes of this film, take place on the ship, as the Count is being transported to Bremmen. Possibly my favourite moment of the whole movie, is the scene below decks where Orlok rises from his coffin from horizontal to vertical in one long languid movement. The extraordinarily large hands still fixed firmly down by his sides, & the wide eyes staring fixedly ahead. I can't recall seeing it done quite so effectively in any Dracula movie since. Even the smooth & aristocratic Dracula portrayed by Christopher Lee is seen to be clambering out of his coffin in a rather ungainly fashion on at least one occasion. But yes, the scene of Orlok walking across the ship, in that perculiar animated fasion of his, & the deserted ship then arriving in Bremmen on the river, are very effective scenes.
As you can probably tell, Max Shrek/Count Orlok totally dominates this film for me. As the film reaches it's climax, the most striking images of the Count are used to great effect; I love the bit where he's staring through the window of the house with his hands splayed in a strange upwards clawing gesture, & then of course there's the famous scene which everyone remembers where we see the Shadow of the vampire scuttling up the stairs, through to the final scenes where we see him crouched at Ellen's beside, sucking from her throat in the darkened room, just before he fades away leaving a wisp of smoke as he is destroyed by the dawning sun. Brilliant stuff!

The other characters don't get that much of a look-in. Apart from Hutter of course who has quite a big role in the story, & to a lesser extent, Ellen. But after Orlok, the most memorable performance for me is that of 'Knock', who is Renfield's counterpart in this version. Also, unlike Stoker's book, & all the other subsequent Dracula movies, one of the most important characters, that of Van Helsing, (or Professor Bulwer as the character is called here) is barely featured in this film at all. He has nothing to do with Orlok's destruction, which has all been worked out by Ellen, who tricks Orlok into losing all sense of time when she offers her blood to him freely.
Also totally omitted from Stoker's novel are the 3 vampire brides that try to seduce Harker at castle Dracula. In fact, all of the overtones of the Count as a sensual, (or even sexual?) being which are strongly hinted at in Stoker's descriptions are totally absent from this film, & would only appear in future films. Perhaps it was just a 'no no'in Germany in 1922, to portay the Count or his female victims as deriving any sensual pleasure from their activities.
Nevertheless, 'Nosferatu' is a very expressionistic film of it's time, & i think it's a powerful & effective work. Though for me, it's largely because of Max Shrek's unique representation of Count Orlok. I find 'Nosferatu'an enjoyable experience, & strangely enough, even though it's a silent movie, In many ways i find it considerably less dated than the next Dracula movie from Universal studio's, which would not appear for another 9 years after 'Nosferatu'.
All things considered, i would give the 1922 'Nosferatu' a rating of 7.5/10, based on overall enjoyability factor. This version gaining an extra half point for James Bernard's superb music, alone.

[Ralph]

Ah...a new thread to get my teeth into I see the Dracula season is underway...reminds me of the BBC2 Horror season when I were a lad

I'll watch Nosferatu this week - a premier viewing for me, I guess I've let the 1922 movie tag put me off but Wayne's enthusiasm has inspired me to give it a go

As for my first memories of Dracula.... for me it's intermingled with the Frankies so I'm not sure which came first. I think my first viewing was almost certainly a Hammer - I remember finding the Hammer movies scary while the Universal movies while creepy I felt at ease with. The most memorable Dracula for me was also the 1966 Prince of Darkness Hammer which I found exceptionally scary I must have watched it in the mid 70s I reckon. Even now I still think it's a creepy movie thick with atmosphere.

I'll enjoy reading your reviews Wayne and thanks for organising this viewing extravaganza!

[Wayne]

Ah...a new thread to get my teeth into I see the Dracula season is underway...reminds of the BBC2 Horror season when I were a lad

I'll watch Nosferatu this week - a premier viewing for me, I guess I've let the 1922 movie tag put me off but Wayne's enthuisasm has inspired me to give it a go


I'll enjoy reading your reviews Wayne and thanks for organising this viewing extravaganza!

Yay!
Just for the record, i won't be going through this thread at my usual rate of knots. Paul, Carol, Ant, Alex & yourself have all signed up, so i'll be giving people plenty of time, doing approx one film per week.
Glad you're onboard Ralph.

[Ralph]

Yay!
Just for the record, i won't be going through this thread at my usual rate of knots. Paul, Carol, Ant, Alex & yourself have all signed up, so i'll be giving people plenty of time, doing approx one film per week.
Glad you're onboard Ralph.

Thanks Wayne - at this pace I should be able to keep up!

[Wayne]

And there's only one more film before we get to the Hammer era. Although, i know it's not that long since you did a Hammer Dracula marathon.

[Carol Baynes]

(Creeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaakkkkkkk... THUD!)

Man, this coffin is comfortable. I almost slept for the whole weekend. I'm absolutely ravenous for blood now; Let's see- am I decent? Fangs sharp....busom looking buxom in ye olde dress....slight blush on the cheeks of otherwise white face....I look dandy, so let's fly! Oh, and what's this I spy- Count Wayne's Dracula thread has begun!

Wayne has kindly 'lent' me some discs, and theres some I have already so I shall begin soon. I'm off all week so I might watch two or three!

[Wayne]

Welcome aboard, Countess!

[MacNimon]

I've always been rather fascinated by Nosferatu ever since I saw some great pics in an article in a late 70s issue of Starburst. I've never actually had the opportunity to watch this, as it has very rarely been on tv. And to be honest, like Ralph, the 'made in 1922' tag didn't really make me want to rush out and get a copy. Despite this, the fascination still exists for me, and what better time to finally catch up with this? After all, it's not that big a jump from the early 30s Universal films to 1922, is it?

And speaking of that Starburst article, I'm trying to remember why it was printed. I have a vague memory of a remake of this around that time, but could I just be mixing this up with a possible re-release of the original? It certainly wasn't for a video or dvd release, that's for sure...this was in that pre-video age of 1977/78/79-ish.

[Wayne]

I've always been rather fascinated by Nosferatu ever since I saw some great pics in an article in a late 70s issue of Starburst. I've never actually had the opportunity to watch this, as it has very rarely been on tv. And to be honest, like Ralph, the 'made in 1922' tag didn't really make me want to rush out and get a copy. Despite this, the fascination still exists for me, and what better time to finally catch up with this? After all, it's not that big a jump from the early 30s Universal films to 1922, is it?

You'll soon get your chance, Mac. I'll posting the loans tomorrow.
Welcome to the team!

[Wayne]

For the benefit of Mac & Logo who have now signed up for a loan of the vampire voyages, Here's a list of all the film/tv adaptations we'll be covering in order at the rate of approx one per week:


Nosferatu. 1922.
Dracula. 1931. (Universal/Bela Lugosi)
Dracula. 1958. (Hammer/Christopher Lee)
Jess Franco's: Count Dracula. 1970. (Christopher Lee)
Dan Curtis': Dracula. 1973. (Jack Palance)
Count Dracula. 1977. (BBCTV/Louis Jourdan)
Nosferatu the Vampyre. 1979. (Klaus Kinski)
Dracula. 1979. (Universal/Frank Langella)
Bram Stoker's Dracula. 1992. (Fracis Ford Coppola/Gary Oldman)
Dark Prince: The Legend of Dracula. 2002. (Rudolf Martin)
Dracula. 2006. (BBC/ITV?*/Marc Warren)

*(The dvd release says ITV on it, But i recorded mine when it was show on BBC1 over christmas, So you tell me!)

I will be touching on some of the sequels briefly, though only the gothic ones, not the contemporary ones, but the 'main' films to be covered in detail will be those that are based on Bram Stoker's original novel.

I'll be away from tomorrow morning until Friday, (calling at the Post Office on the way) but will hopefully have some thoughts on 'Nosferatu' to read when i get back, before moving on to Universal's 1931 production of Dracula, starring Bela Lugosi, in about a week's time. I think i'm going to enjoy this thread.

[Carol Baynes]

Great stuff.....Ahh, the DVDs of the night, what beautiful pictures they make! (groan)

First thing I really have to say (which might be an obvious addition given my love of the era) is that silent films do not generally deserve their reputation amongst many modern viewers who hold a silly (but understandable) prejudice based no doubt on seeing jerky footage from history programmes and the inconceivable idea that a film could truly work without sound (or the sound of an actor's voice to be precise).
If that is the case you could not be further from the reality.

Many of the techniques and principles of motion picture photography found their genesis and arguably greatest evolution and experimentation during the silent era. It was a vastly important time that produced some genuine masterpieces of cinema; not just from the United States either. If anything, the pre-sound era found a world where Hollywood was in it's infancy and world cinema had a chance to breath and evolve. Many of the greatest pictures came from Europe actually (although that again is more a matter of opinion).

Anyway, without going off on too much of a silent film tangent, I do recommend you all take a fresh look at films pre-1930. With an open mind you will surprised, entertained and perhaps stunned in some cases. I just lament the fact that many films have perished (the original "Cleopatra" springs to mind), but of the hundreds still around only a handful are on DVD and they are not always easy to obtain.

As for "Nosferatu", it is a classic of it's time in my opinion. Not particularly a mainstream film, even in 1922, but a very important one, particularly in the horror genre.
I'm still off work on hols do I'm going to make a cup of tea now and go and watch it again. With it fresh in mind I'll then really get my teeth into it...Mwhahahahahaa!

[Anthony Williams]

Nosferatu

I've long had a fondness for the original novel, by Abraham "Bram" Stoker, which I studied at A-Level. Hence, I've held a long interest in seeing various interpretations of the book on film.

Nosferatu was one of the first film interpretations that I saw of the novel. The version that I originally saw was the Eureka DVD edition, with a sepia-tint, and a somewhat dodgy industrial-influenced soundtrack.

It was with delight that I watched the BFI release of the film today, with its various colour tints, and it's somewhat more traditional soundtrack. The various coloured tints give the film a significantly increased atmosphere.

One of the things that I absolutely love about this film is the filming techniques. The way that the film was wound through by hand, the fades between scenes, the unnatural movement of the characters. The film works better without voices than it could ever work with. Absolutely genius.

There are some distinctly innovative filming techniches, too. Particularly with regards to the scene onboard the ship, where Count Orlok rises from his coffin. Indeed, Orlok's later death scene must have been extremely innovative at the time.

As to the actors and characters themselves... well, Max Schreck is obviously the real star of the piece, with his interpretation of Dracula, Count Orlok, being fantastically creepy and eerie. Rather than the glamourous Dracula of later pieces, Orlok is rat-like, balding, unattractive, and totally repugnant. Orlok sums up the worst fears and the worst aspects of humanity. It is somewhat amusing that F.W. Murnau found Max Schreck so ugly that he decided that all he needed make-up wise was some pointed ears and false teeth!

Despite only having nine minutes of screen time, the influence of Orlok permeates the film, much in the same way that the influence of Dracula totally permeates the original novel, without being in it that much. The fact that in those nine minutes, Orlok does not blink once, makes the character even more terrifying.

The film is technically about Hutter and Ellen, but their equivalent characters are much better portrayed in other adaptations. It is the character of Orlok who steals the show, and holds the interest throughout the film.

Nosferatu is a unique film - no other has come close to capturing the feel of pre-twentieth century Europe - the religious symbolism, the plagues and the mass hysteria. After all, let us not forget that vampirism in the original novel of Dracula was meant to be represtentative of syphilis. Indeed, I see little evidence of sensuality and sexual allure in the character in Bram Stoker's original novel. Instead, Dracula is a disease, leeching off the life force of people in a very similar way that such diseases do. Orlok is one of the only interpretations of the character of Dracula that comes anywhere close.

No other Dracula film adaptation has come this close to representing it. Certainly, the 2006 tv adapation dealt with the issue of STIs, but suggested that vampirism might bring a cure, and not as a parallel of such diseases.

Quite simply, F.W. Murnau produced a work of brilliance. One that is, in my opinion, one of the best adapations out there, even almost 80 years later.

For anyone who might have enjoyed this film as much as I have, it may well be worth checking out John Malkovitch's Shadow of the Vampire, which is a black comedy, set around the premise of "what if Max Schreck was a real vampire?". It's good fun, and a bit of a laugh.

Ant x

[Carol Baynes]

Nosferatu (1922).

F.W. Murnau's silent film is the right place for us to start this exploration of cinematic Draculas, because it laid down many of the storytelling conventions adhered to in later adaptations. Elsewhere though, "Nosferatu" is radically different, and despite it's vintage and archiac quality, could have good argument for being one of the most scary adaptations as death has legs and his name is Max Shreck. His perfomance, equal to the film making talent on show, is integral to the impact of this picture.

This expressionistic presentation is very much a German product of it's day, and the whole film is far more of a visual experience than some versions. Some have gone as far as to decipher some perceived analogy in the way various scenes are presented. As often mentioned much German art probably proved an influence, and Max Shreck himself is the visual dark side of the vampire presented in Stoker's novel- almost a leeching corpse. Some scenes apparently pay homage to the german expressionistic landscape painter Casper Fiedrich, and the film does have his surreal nightmarish quality, most particularly in the scenes set in Transylvania. Elsewhere Fuseli's art is also referenced as Shreck's blood sucking incubus lurks at the side of the lady's bed.

So "Nosferatu" is a fim that offers style and substance by making us think about the symbolism of what we're seeing- a rarity with later versions. Some of that is open to interpretation, and perhaps we can dwell on those later.
What is clear is that Max Shreck's Count Orlock is a fantastically creepy presence throughout the whole film (although his screen time is effectively slight). The contemporary audience would have probably feared him even more; bringing the plague to each town he visits (in a substantial change to Bram Stoker's novel). Eastern Europe would have known the aftermath of WW1 and the influenza epidemic, and the presentation of death in the film could well have struck a chilling chord.

Overall, "Nosferatu" is looking it's age (which is probably more down to the shoddy treatment the film had in the 1920s and '30s with Stoker's widow filing law suits to have all copies of the film destroyed. A long story we can take up later perhaps. The film effectively dissapeared after the '30s, before it's 'revival' and reappraisal some 30 years later.) But despite it's rough quality it still holds a magnetic appeal. It presents very strong images which stay in the mind long after. Witness Shreck's almost surreal and metaphysical rise from his grave (as mentioned by Wayne), the arrival of the ghost ship into the harbour and the ascent of the vampire up the stairs to it's prey, in arguably one of the most famous single scenes in all vampire films; shadowy claws several steps ahead of it's form.
Beautiful direction in all these scenes. Beautiful, and also un-nerving. For a picture like this, a perfect emotion to incite.

The film presents an alternative re-telling of Stoker's book it must be said, with a degree of simplification. This was maybe to cut down on the need for non-visual narrative, but Stoker's novel is still followed quite faithfully. While the structure was setting a precedent for future productions, this film remains the only one I have seen so far to include the letters and mauscripts so integral to the structure of the original novel.

Elsewhere, there are a few scenes that don't work. The fast motion effect in several parts looks odd to my modern eyes, and almost comical. The expressionistic acting can also be (slightly) over the top as well. The scene where Hutter announces his intention to visit the count is quite amusing. The reaction following the caption "I have to go onto Count Orlock's castle" was followed by a group of expressions so vivid that I swear I could hear the gasp!
If I supressed a laugh, it was understandable I suppose, but be clear on this- in a dark room more than 80 years later, I wasn't laughing for long. This film can still command your respect and attention.

We will watch some great movies over the next few weeks, all based on Stoker's great novel of an ancient evil in a more modern time. But one movie in, be assured, you have already seen the most important. Whether it translates as well to a modern audience is debatable, but it's innovation and influence are undimmed.
I believe there is one true masterpiece in the collection of films that Wayne has sent us- and this is it.

[Milky Tears]

It's all downhill after Murnau's effort... and Nosferatu is probably only his third or fourth finest film.

[Anthony Williams]

It's all downhill after Murnau's effort... and Nosferatu is probably only his third or fourth finest film.

quiet you!

Ant x

[Carol Baynes]

Incidentally, there is also the spanish version of "Dracula" made at the same time (and on the same sets) as Tod Browning's 1931 version with Lugosi. There is also a 1968 version of the novel with Denholm Elliot.
Anybody think these are worth seeking out and adding as supplements
to our feast of blood?! Mwhahaha!

[Milky Tears]

Damn you, Baynes!

I was going to wait until Wayne reached Browning's effort before posting:

"The Spanish version pisses all over it!!"

[Carol Baynes]

Hahaa! Your puny efforts cannot defeat the thread! Your milky flow is nothing compared to the flow of fresh blood! Mwhahaha!

Edited to say: I haven't shared my first Dracula/vampire experience. No, not real experience! That'd be extremely scary.... Without letting the side down too much, the first memory of being scared by a vampire in a film or TV series was the "Buck Rogers in the 25th century" episode "The space vampire" in late 1980. I was only 7 years old and could barely look at the screen. I might be wrong about the transmission dates, but I'm sure "Meglos" was on the other channel at the time, which I did see a few epsiodes of, and that scared me as well! Lightweight!
I got into mythology and folklore in my teens and the vampire fascinated me. A potent time to gain an interest as one's sexuality begins to awaken and the idea of blood gains new significance. I saw Hammer's series some time in the '80s on late night re-runs, with Christopher Lee. They were extremely guady and colourful to my teen eyes, and not particularly scary; although I did find them mildly erotic and wonderfully stylish. Not sure which one would have been my first Hammer. I'm thinking it was "Dracula- prince of darkness", but the memory cheats a little. I certainly didn't see the 1958 Hammer version of the book until a couple of years ago, although I was familiar with the showdown scene between Cushing and Lee involving the curtain. Not sure where I would have seen that, but I only saw the full film recently, and intend to watch it again for this thread. I was a bit underwhelmed by it, to be honest, due to the high expectation I had- but more of that later.
Elsewhere I've seeen other vampire films. I do like the other Hammers, and "Countess Dracula" is a favourite. I also, quite frankly, love a bit of European vampire soft porn (let's not pretend it's anything else!) "Underworld" and "Blade" entertained to a degree, but I prefer things more traditionally gothic. "Buffy" was a good series in many ways, but I feel it failed miserably as a vampire series. By turning the vampire into part of a teen high school drama, the series forgot to treat the dark fable with any reverance in my view. The vampire should be erotic and scary, and "Buffy" and "Angel" were neither.
My experience of vampire literature has been surprisingly limited actually. I haven't touched Anne Rice's novels yet, for example. But I have read Stoker's great novel, and also class Stephen King's second novel "'Salem's lot" as a brilliant book. As King says, all these years later, it's still one of his good ones; one of the scary ones...

So the vampire fascinates me. Occasionally (very occasionally, mind) I'll consider if such a horror could exist, and what an eternity of hunger and flawless alabaster flash would be like...but some things are better off left to the world of fiction. God may have put eternity into the heart of every man, but what happens when your heart stops beating? It's a frightening idea. No matter what worlds and other possible lives may await us, an eternity on Earth in constant blood lust, never able to see a sunrise again, is surely a tragic kind of hell.

So let's dim the lights and slide the DVD in your player, or turn the page of your book. Somewhere in your psyche is a dark part that will believe in the fiction, and we'll be scared together.

Was that your door creaking, or mine? Or was it....something else.....

[Dirk Gently]

James' flow is nothing compared to the fine full flow of Carol!

[Carol Baynes]

James' flow is nothing compared to the fine full flow of Carol!

Eww, you don't want to know what kind of image that conjours up! Although if you're a vampire you might find my full flow quite refreshing! It's full of iron you know!



By the way, I think we should add the other two films to the list and bring the total up to 13! Mwhahahahahaa!

[Logo Polish]

Nosferatu (1922)

One of the common qualities of silent films is the sheer emotional openness of them. With no spoken dialogue and usually only occasional captions, the moods and feelings have to be conveyed by body language amd direction, and this, coupled with the stage roots that most actors in early films are likely to have had (whether as participants or just spectators), means that the acting can often be very florid and expressive.

Gustav von Wangenheim has a particularly merry presence in the early scenes as Hutter, bouncing cheerfully about the screen, with open-mouthed toothy smiling and laughing to help indicate his optimism and disbelief of the ominous circumstances that Knock is sending him into. This sunny disposition only fades during the nights, after he's warned off from where he's going, and reads some disturbing material about the "presence" he's visiting. But it still revives with the daylight for a time, even surviving his first terrifying encounter with Orlok when he awakes and laughs off the bite marks on his neck as mosquitoes'. It takes a second scary night at Orlok's castle to wear down his resistance.

Greta Schroeder's Ellen has a wide-eyed sombre intensity that is contrasted with her husband's light-heartedness early on in the scene where he brings her flowers and she asks why it was necessary to kill them for her. She has a painfully acute sense of the morbid, and seems to detect Orlok's evil at the same time that her husband loses any doubts about him, despite the large distance. This heightened awareness of approaching evil and death, along with fear for her husband, is what appears to cause the continuing mental distress she suffers from throughout most of the film.

One of the most vivid of the support cast is Knock, the facilitator of events, who appears as almost a caricature made flesh, with goblin-like features, a vaguely Humpty-shaped body and slithering malevolent body language. He's later identified by the villagers as the cause of their woes, which is true in one sense, but misapplied in that he's not the main danger by himself, just a servant.

But the most striking and well known element of the film is its Dracula equivalent, Count Orlok. He's depicted as an out-and-out monster here, with grotesquely elongated and enlarged hands, ears and nose, sunken Zombie eyes, and a body that even seems to move unnaturally - almost gliding rather than walking, and particularly notable here is the scene where he rises from his coffin in the ship's hold as if being raised on a plank. There's little of the urbanity often associated with the character here - Max Schreck's Orlok is fuelled by all-too-evident wolfish lustfulness (he eagerly seizes on Hutter's miniature portrait of Ellen and spends much of the rest of the film heading in her direction).

The various sequences of Orlok on the prowl are some of the most powerful in the film, helped by some excellent use of light and shadow, as well as the music track's sensitivity to the moods requited. The use of techniques like stop-motion also helps to give him an unnatural feel. His appearance in the half light, looming up toward the gothic arch that frames him, the sinister shadow he casts when ascending the stairs, and even his first encounter with Hutter, glowering at him from beneath a feathered cap, with masked horses. The negative lighting for the forest in one shot is also an interesting way of symbolising how Hutter has crossed into a netherworld where the horrors of the mind are real.

The symbolism of Orlok is made fairly clear by the scavenging rats in the corpse's earth he has himself transported in, and the plague they bring. He's a pestilential and parasitic infection entering the system of a previously funtioning organism (the village). This analogy is also made explicit by the scenes in Bulwer's laboratory demonstrating the effects of carnivorous plants on unwary animals.

It might be significant that Ellen's selfless actions at the end (effectively sacrificing herself) prove more useful than the scapegoating of Knock, which is ultimately chasing an easy target, and not a solution to the problem in itself.

A couple of aspects don't quite come off for me. The speeded-up sequences are a little unfortunate now, as it's become a technique more associated with comedy (Murnau intended it to reflect the unnatural), and there is something a little odd-looking, on the verge of parodic, about the sight of Orlok carrying his coffin about with him through the village.

Overall though, quite a memorable and atmospheric film.

[Captain Tancredi]

Although if you're a vampire you might find my full flow quite refreshing! It's full of iron you know!

That'll be the Guinness, then.

Being Carol's near contemporary (and Granada children to boot) some of our experiences seem remarkably similar. I too have strong (if latent) memories of the Vorvon, as I think it was called, from Buck Rogers- in fact, the memories kind of suppressed themselves for about 15 years until BBC2 (I think) repeated them and there it was- and it all came back to me in a rather disturbing way.

Same with 'Dracula-Prince of Darkness'-as I remember it, BBC2 did a Hammer retrospective at some point when I was in the middle of my A-level years and already into late night B-movies so it was a logical progression. Curiously, although I've read it twice, the novel itself has never quite worked for me- I think a large part of its effect derives from the sexual psychology which was only just beginning to be understood in the 1890s, but because I don't have that aspect to my personality it's difficult to find something to hang it on emotionally- hence the book often leaves me cold, but I then again I do remember reading some passages while staying with friends at their house in the Kent countryside, and reading it early on a misty autumn morning is perhaps the closest it's ever come to working for me. The introduction to the old Oxford World's Classics edition was essentially an essay on vampirism as sexual perversion as I recall, but part of the point of Stoker's original is that there are so many influences under the surface that you can pick and choose which ones to run with. Sexual psychology I've mentioned, but also a fear of being overrun by Eastern European infiltrators which was a concern in late Victorian society, the fear that lack of belief in God would leave the field open for the forces of evil to take over- and one I didn't know until I went on the Ghost Bus tour in Dublin, the appearance of the victims of cholera epidemics in Ireland in Stoker's youth. But it's a badly organised novel which borrows its structure wholesale from Wilkie Collins without having quite the same self-discipline- in fact, it's probably one of the most influential badly-written books ever.