Robert Eggers's "Nosferatu"

P

parmalee

peripatetic artisan
Valued Senior Member
Haven't seen it yet, comes out tomorrow.

I'm looking forward to it, but... so far everything I've read about the film has made no mention of this aspect: the antisemitism of Stoker's Dracula and Murnau's Nosferatu and the anti-antisemitism of Herzog's Nosferatu The Vampyre. I dunno, maybe there's something in Eggers's film and it's just that noone, with privy to screeners, has mentioned it yet.

It just seems weird to me to make a Nosferatu in this day and age and not have that be a central feature of it. Not saying every Dracula film has to address antisemitism, but if you're gonna make a Nosferatu film it just seems obligatory. I'm sure there's all kinds of other stuff ripe for cultural, philosophical and aesthetic analysis in the film, but this just feels like a missed opportunity.

Of course, maybe all the viewers so far just overlooked these aspects? Plenty of people have watched The Shining completely oblivious to the central themes of the Holocaust and the genocide of American Indians, so it's possible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: C C
parmalee said:
[...] It just seems weird to me to make a Nosferatu in this day and age and not have that be a central feature of it. [...]
Click to expand...

For the sake of the new antisemitism prospering on both sides the political fence, maybe they've figured out how to squeeze anachronistic metaphors about the Gaza War into a Victorian milieu.

Nope. Very unlikely, if development began in 2015 and filming commenced in the first part of 2023, well before October 7th.

So Nosferatu the vampire looks more like Billy Corgan this time around? I.e, yet another Nordic actor (Bill Skarsgård instead of Shreck), but farther north and without the prosthetic hooked nose?

"But, but -- but Count Orlok is an evil character. Now that the horrible stereotyped aspects are gone, surely we can't be accused of somehow ironically flattering Germanic heritage!"

Also -- presumedly Knock won't be a Jewish realtor in this remake, and be played by a Jewish actor. And the dirt in the coffin or the odor of the cargo will not "smell of old Jerusalem".

The 1922 film was written by Henrick Galeen (who was Jewish). Though the 2024 version is scripted by Eggers, a repeat of that same type twist can't entirely be ruled out. Since Eggers does not know who his biological father is. And he does have a known, fractional degree of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry from the maternal line.

Murnau was gay, thus according to Tony Magistrale's theorizing: '...presumably more sensitive to the persecution of a subgroup inside the larger German society'. As such, it has been said that perceived associations between Orlok and antisemitic stereotypes are unlikely to have been conscious decisions on the part of Murnau."

OTOH, could sound a tad like presentism, or projecting the current-day outlook, social alliances, and motives of a member of a marginalized population group upon a corresponding individual of the "remote" past.
_
 
Last edited:
C C said:
For the sake of the new antisemitism prospering on both sides the political fence, maybe they've figured out how to squeeze anachronistic metaphors about the Gaza War into a Victorian milieu.

Nope. Very unlikely, if development began in 2015 and filming commenced in the first part of 2023, well before October 7th.

So Nosferatu the vampire looks more like Billy Corgan this time around? I.e, yet another Nordic actor (Bill Skarsgård instead of Shreck), but farther north and without the prosthetic hooked nose?

"But, but -- but Count Orlok is an evil character. Now that the horrible stereotyped aspects are gone, surely we can't be accused of somehow ironically flattering Germanic heritage!"

Also -- presumedly Knock won't be a Jewish realtor in this remake, and be played by a Jewish actor. And the dirt in the coffin or the odor of the cargo will not "smell of old Jerusalem".

The 1922 film was written by Henrick Galeen (who was Jewish). Though the 2024 version is scripted by Eggers, a repeat of that same type twist can't entirely be ruled out. Since Eggers does not know who his biological father is. And he does have a known, fractional degree of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry from the maternal line.

Murnau was gay, thus according to Tony Magistrale's theorizing: '...presumably more sensitive to the persecution of a subgroup inside the larger German society'. As such, it has been said that perceived associations between Orlok and antisemitic stereotypes are unlikely to have been conscious decisions on the part of Murnau."
_
Click to expand...
To be honest, I think I'm going to be disappointed no matter what. In fact, I'm going to submit my review without having seen the film: It was OK.

Thing is, with Nosferatu The Vampyre, Herzog ushered in a new form of meta-commentary and self-referentiality--and, both presciently and anachronistically, Herzog birthed the hauntological. (With respect to the latter, Ken Russell would probably be a distant second.) No disrespect to Eggers--and I think The Witch was fantastic--but I don't think anyone can top that.

Nosferatu, arguably and somewhat facetiously, is a franchise, and Herzog's hatred towards franchises makes it all the more so. Florian Fricke/Popol Vuh released the first part of his Nosferatu soundtrack as On The Way To A Little Way (I'm thinking he was going through a Heidegger phase) and the second part as Brueder Des Schatten--Soehne Des Lichts; but this second half was also long available through a Japanese bootleg (debatable?) label entitled Nosferatu 2. And, of course, the late great Klaus Kinski lamentably appeared, some years later, in the honest-to-god crapfest that was Vampire in Venice--the unofficial sequel to Herzog's film.

Both Herzog and Kinski were enamored with the idea of making a film about making a film, wherein the identity of the actors, directors and characters become wholly obscured--from Burden of Dreams to My Best Fiend to Kinski's final crapfest Paganini--in which Paganini is more Kinski and Kinski famously wanted to bang his daughter, Nastassja (she declined to appear in the film)--to EE Merhige's Shadow of the Vampire--with none other than Willem Dafoe portraying Shreck. The references and deferences run deep throughout all of their work, in ways both hopelessly self-conscious and pretentious, as well as very 'umble and relatable.


That said, I do think Eggers's marginal Jewishness--which he shares with Herzog, not Jewish but the name usually is--offers me some hope. Fortunately, I am "allowed"(as a "proud" Mischling) to say what some cannot: even absent the cultural components, sometimes it's just in the blood. What are you gonna do?

Had Herzog only extended his tiny trek across middle Europe to include all of the Saharan Desert and perhaps Antarctica, maybe Lotte Eisner could have lived to see this "sequel". It would inspire her to write a companion volume to The Haunted Screen (wherein the influences of Expressionism and the Jewish theatrical tradition are rigorously debated). Though she'd hate the fact that Nosferatu looks like Billy Corgan.

 
Last edited:
Can't see it working. The whole point about old films is that they are old so everything that goes with that is the thing about it.

Ridiculous close ups, strange edits/jumps, sinister orchestral music crackling sound and great screams.
Remember Fay Ray?
The 1960s 1970s had their fingerprint.

The Italian Job was magical, the remake was an ok film but it did not feel Italian Jobby at all, how could it?

Imagine remaking "it's a wonderful life?" I'm watching it now (Xmas day so....)

So my advice would be to enjoy the film and forget about Nosferatu.
 
Clearly not the cinephile some here are. But isn't Christmas an odd slot for release of a vampire flick? Wait, looks like this is also the first day of Hanukkah. Hmm. In any case, I was blissfully unaware of possible antisemitic tropes in such films. Presentism does seem a pothole easily stepped in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: C C
The antisemitic tropes in Murnau’s film are borderline parodic—seriously over the top in places— but I think much of the commentary on such followed Herzog’s reimagining. Interestingly, Lotte Eisner—who fled Germany for Paris after Hitler assumed power—doesn’t address this much in The Haunted Screen or elsewhere. So possibly presentism, but actualized more some 40-odd years ago.

I like Eggers, and this will probably be an adequate film. I wouldn't describe Eggers as any sort of purist, but his approach is reliably naturalistic. Like David Lynch, I suppose, he's got no time for CGI or any of that shit. (In principle, I've got nothing against CGI--it's just that in practice it's always crap and seems to be employed mostly by filmmakers who only make marketable garbage.) And The Witch and The Lighthouse are fantastic, and Eggers is clearly an aficianado of long takes and Italian shots (or extreme close-ups).

For me, the foreseeable issue with Eggers’s film is partly that Herzog's Nosferatu The Vampyre is the definitive response and reaction to Murnau's Nosferatu, but also simply the very nature of the previous productions and participants was of a radically different nature. Murnau's film was a pretty contentious production, and that's pretty well documented (by Lotte Eisner and others), and every Herzog film--especially if it involves Klaus Kinski--is a contentious production. It's difficult to say this without sounding like I'm advocating for abusive and exploitative work environments, but anything that's worth a damn typically involves an abundance of blood, sweat and tears. Often literal. I'd say that if your body isn't covered with scars, half of which you cant' even remember how you got, then you haven't lived--but I think maybe that's just me. The point being, quality creative endeavors demand something qualitatively similar. Like, if you’re overly concerned with maintaining a decent set of chompers, you’re unlikely to be a good reeds player--or rather, you're just gonna have to visit the dentist a lot.

Also, incidentally, both prior films involved “difficult” personalities. Sadly (not really) I never met Klaus Kinski, but back in the day you could really get into it with Herzog over just about anything (he's mellowed some with age). Just bring up storyboards--or, in my case one time, his failure to properly credit Bruce Chatwin--and an intense ordeal of abusive language and threats to kill one another would ensue. It would all be in good fun, essentially, but that's partly how you work through shit—well, if you’re of a certain temperament. That kind of stuff just doesn't fly anymore, understandably, and I hardly think it essential, but it certainly does impart a certain quality onto the films.

The Christmas/Hanukka/Nosferatu release timing could very well be a new phase of the never-ending War on Christmas/Christians:

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: C C
TheVat said:
Clearly not the cinephile some here are. But isn't Christmas an odd slot for release of a vampire flick? Wait, looks like this is also the first day of Hanukkah. Hmm. In any case, I was blissfully unaware of possible antisemitic tropes in such films. Presentism does seem a pothole easily stepped in.
Click to expand...
Oliver is antisemitic too but I don't think it promotes something real, not today.
I'm not offended but then again I'm not Jewish.
I am more cringed out by Lenny Henry's early comedy routines.
 
Another great film in which Welles appears is The Third Man. Up there with other Classics 101 stuff like Sunset Blvd or Rear Window.


parmalee said:
It's difficult to say this without sounding like I'm advocating for abusive and exploitative work environments, but anything that's worth a damn typically involves an abundance of blood, sweat and tears. Often literal.
Click to expand...
Fitzcarraldo?
 
parmalee said:
To be honest, I think I'm going to be disappointed no matter what. In fact, I'm going to submit my review without having seen the film: It was OK. [...] That said, I do think Eggers's marginal Jewishness--which he shares with Herzog, not Jewish but the name usually is--offers me some hope. [...]
Click to expand...

Thanks in part to what the excerpt from an earlier Hey Alma article zeros in on [see Footnote#1 below] -- along with Eggers' diluted Ashkenazi heritage -- maybe we can finally construe what his chapter of Nosferatu is adding to the "traditional" antisemitic symbolism of these vampire chronicles. IOW, Bill Skarsgård's Swedish face (sans the racist hook-nose of Shreck's vampire) can controversially represent the century-long transition of American Jews to "white" classification.

In turn, this would even capture the Palestinian narrative that Zionism is a form of invasive European colonization -- the film inadvertently and indirectly touching upon the Gaza War, after all.

There are other aspects of the film that could mark the transition. Eggers emphasizes how his Count Orlok is a "folk vampire" that predates both the stereotyping Jewish metaphors and possibly Christian connotations, also.[2] That's a trip back to primeval origins, including the myths of pagan white Westerners.

In effect, by eliminating the classic Jewish subtext from this movie, Eggers still makes a statement about the current perception of Western Jews. With respect to how they are viewed by certain oppressed population groups (like the Palestinians) and even amongst themselves.

And Eggers' attention to period folklore jibes with his research on 17th-century anecdotes and beliefs about magical conjurers in "The Witch".

- - - footnotes - - -

[1] The Antisemitic History of Vampires: How did the vampire go from an antisemitic dog whistle, sporting a hook-nose and an Eastern European accent, to the American teenage dream [The Twilight film franchise]? Is it possible that the construction of the vampire in the United States, a country that many Ashkenazi Jews (including my own family) fled to after pogroms and the Holocaust, is reflective of what felt like a lack of antisemitism (at least on the surface)? Inadvertently, these authors have turned the vampire white at the same time that Ashkenazi Jews have assimilated into whiteness.

Like other European ethnic minorities (see the Italians, Irish and Germans, for example), Ashkenazi Jews, typically defined as being from Eastern Europe, have shifted their self-identification into something resembling whiteness over the last 75 years or so. According to a poll done by the Pew Research Center, 70% of third-generation Jews (i.e. those whose ancestors emigrated at the end of the 19th century and early 20th century) identify as white.

There is more focused discourse on this (like Emma Green’s 2016 article in “The Atlantic” entitled “Are Jews White?”), but the 20th century saw large swaths of American Ashkenazi Jews entering the middle class, abandoning the use of Yiddish and ultimately assimilating into whiteness. By this token, it is fitting that the vampire shifted from a cruel Jewish caricature to just another white guy with a complicated political history. As we began to benefit from white privilege, so did the vampire.

[2] Interview with Robert Eggers: (VANITY FAIR) You’ve kept your Count Orlok hidden away so far, but what can you share about his look? It’s quite different from the Nosferatu seen in the silent film.

(EGGERS) This Orlok is more of a folk vampire than any other film version. That means he's a dead person. And he’s not like, “I look great and I'm dead.” Folk vampires in some ways are more visually similar to zombies.

How will Nosferatu deal with the antisemitic origin of the [Stoker descended] vampire?: His modern physical depiction of the creature is more similar to “folk vampires” than it is true to Murnau’s film or Stoker’s description, appearing less human, less connected to notions of antisemitism, more undead. This conjures the image of a pre-Christian vampire, far before our time, before the first “Nosferatu,” even before Bram Stoker. I’m excited to see what this version of the movie has to offer when it comes to expanding the vampire canon — I expect something less likely to offend and more likely to thrill.

Thing is, with Nosferatu The Vampyre, Herzog ushered in a new form of meta-commentary and self-referentiality--and, both presciently and anachronistically, Herzog birthed the hauntological. (With respect to the latter, Ken Russell would probably be a distant second.) No disrespect to Eggers--and I think The Witch was fantastic--but I don't think anyone can top that.
Click to expand...

In contrast, I've never seen the Italian Nosferatu in Venice, that's supposedly a "bogus sequel" to the Herzog classic. The clunky thud of the former sounds like Caminito could have used some of Ruggero Deodato's explicit animal cruelty (a la the cannibal films) to at least spice things up trash-wise. Given Herzog had already set a "mild" precedent with rats, etc in Nosferatu The Vampire. Though that was, of course, purely insensitive off-screen treatment of the vermin; no crude shock value to blemish the film itself. (Also clarifies why the rats were still hopelessly white -- not a deliberate flip-flop social statement at all.)
_
 
Last edited:
C C said:
In contrast, I've never seen the Italian Nosferatu in Venice, that's supposedly a "bogus sequel" to the Herzog classic. The clunky thud of the former sounds like Caminito could have used some of Ruggero Deodato's explicit animal cruelty (a la the cannibal films) to at least spice things up trash-wise. Given Herzog had already set a "mild" precedent with rats, etc in Nosferatu The Vampire. Though that was, of course, purely insensitive off-screen treatment of the vermin; no crude shock value to blemish the film itself. (Also clarifies why the rats were still hopelessly white -- not a deliberate flip-flop social statement at all.)
_
Click to expand...
Just a quick note on Nosferatu in Venice: It's notall band, just kinda mediocre. Kinski refused to cut his hair or do the makeup, so he just dons some rat teeth. Christopher Plummer turns in a decent performance. Donald Pleasance--well, I think after Halloween, he was like, Well, I'm that guy now, nothing I can do about it. If you watch it without the production notes, it's just an ok film. With the notes, it's nuts--but that goes for every Kinski film.

Kinski assaulted several women on set, as one does. Interestingly, one of the assaults actually made it into the film. (For completists: it's when he's chasing the blonde chick, grabs her, and rips off her clothes.) This, of course, is nothing new--well, maybe the making it into the film part--as Kinski assaulted hundreds, if not thousands, of people, mostly women, over the course of his career. By all indications, he was criminally insane. The weird part is that everyone else just goes along with it because he's such a tremendous screen presence--and he really is!

As for my contention that he was criminally insane? The military ruled as much decades prior, and most every source on Kinski suggests the same. But the best source, albeit perhaps a tad unreliable in places, is his aptly titled autobiography, All I Need Is Love. An uncanny masterpiece, if ever there was one, and completely unparalleled. But be aware: you need to read the earlier un-redacted version. A lot of people sued over the book, and contemporary edits are lame.

To be clear, I don't condone Kinski's behavior; but I also think that he was completely insane and not wholly accountable for his behavior.
 
TheVat said:
Fitzcarraldo?
Click to expand...
Also Aguirre. With Herzog, it's always hard to parse fact from confabulation. In most instances, the guy getting injured on set was Herzog. He made a lot of crazy bets and dares to inspire the crew, and, as they usually succeeded, he paid the price. Gleefully. I think he once jumped onto a barrel cactus from atop a ladder, or something like that. The cast and crew begged him not to, but he insisted.

My sources--a couple of people who know him well and have known him for decades--insist he's pretty decent guy overall. He's made mistakes, but, generally, I don't think he knowingly puts others at great risk.

But real risk does make for a better film. In Deliverance, there were no stunt actors or doubles. They did all that on their own. None of the main cast are particularly admirable or respectable folks, but I respect them for that, at least. And the film is all the more compelling for it.
 
C C said:
Thanks in part to what the excerpt from an earlier Hey Alma article zeros in on [see Footnote#1 below] -- along with Eggers' diluted Ashkenazi heritage -- maybe we can finally construe what his chapter of Nosferatu is adding to the "traditional" antisemitic symbolism of these vampire chronicles. IOW, Bill Skarsgård's Swedish face (sans the racist hook-nose of Shreck's vampire) can controversially represent the century-long transition of American Jews to "white" classification.

In turn, this would even capture the Palestinian narrative that Zionism is a form of invasive European colonization -- the film inadvertently and indirectly touching upon the Gaza War, after all.

There are other aspects of the film that could mark the transition. Eggers emphasizes how his Count Orlok is a "folk vampire" that predates both the stereotyping Jewish metaphors and possibly Christian connotations, also.[2] That's a trip back to primeval origins, including the myths of pagan white Westerners.

In effect, by eliminating the classic Jewish subtext from this movie, Eggers still makes a statement about the current perception of Western Jews. With respect to how they are viewed by certain oppressed population groups (like the Palestinians) and even amongst themselves.

And Eggers' attention to period folklore jibes with his research on 17th-century anecdotes and beliefs about magical conjurers in "The Witch".
Click to expand...
Yeah, "folk vampire" makes sense. Eggers does folk horror very well, and very differently from most of his peers and antecedents. More attention to historic detail. There will be no "Landlord's Daughter" or "Willow's Song" (with some rando's butt, cuz Rod Stewart didn't want anyone seeing Brit Ekland's actual butt--but he was ok with the boobs?) in an Eggers flick.


One of my favorite scenes in The Witch is towards the end, when you finally get a glimpse of that wood pile the dad was working on--like ten cords, stacked against a tiny house. And the thing is, that's probably about right--no insulation, no double-paned windows, etc. Eggers should have had those little kids working on the stone wall, which serves no practical purpose other than to demarcate one's "property". Some 240 thousand miles of these throughout New England, and no matter how you crunch the numbers, it just don't add up. IOW people must have spent every single spare moment of their entire lives building those freakin' walls, or there were a whole lot more people in New England back in the day than we know about.

Apparently growing up, Eggers had to walk ten miles to and from school every day, all uphill both ways. At least John Wayne had a horse (seriously!) But Eggers does depict misery and drudgery very well.

---
To my knowledge, the antisemitic symbolism has mostly been confined to Dracula tales--at least within the context of media representation. Female vampires have always been hot, semitic or otherwise (and, sadly, I can name just about every single actress who has ever portrayed one), and typically lesbian, while non-Dracula male vampires have typically just been tools, and seldom essential. And I think much of the semitic aspect stems from Stoker's Dracula itself--Murnau's Nosferatu] is pretty Jewy, but Bela Lugosi, in Browning's Dracula, very much is not. Lugosi's Dracula is just a plain old foreigner. That said, Murnau's is much closer to Stoker's text, with respect to his physical depiction and temperament.

But I do like this idea of deJewifying Dracula. Most cultures have had their own versions of vampires, shapeshifters and walking dead, including the Jews, with the dybbuk. Dracula as just another dead guy--or undead guy--is refreshing.
 
The Critical Drinkers review just came out and he wholeheartedly loves it and highly recommends seeing Nosferatu.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top