A Symphony of Horror

Taking a look at the Dracula film which isn’t about Dracula…

In the spirit of Halloween, I thought it would be fun to take a look at one of my favourite classic horror films. My first exposure to Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror was at an open day for a local college (for the non-UK readers, I mean the two-year college that comes between regular school and university). I wandered into a film class presentation while taking a look at the campus, and on the projector was a truly chilling image. On a silent screen accompanied only by eerie music, a young man hid in his bed. Through a castle door, a creature glided along a corridor towards the viewer. It was a strange bald man, with long fingers and wide, piercing eyes. Those eyes stared through the screen straight at me, and I was mesmerised. It was such a striking image that even though I didn’t have time to stay and watch the rest, the film stuck with me. I asked the teacher what it was called and eventually tracked it down so that I could watch the entire thing.

Since studying at film school I’ve learnt much more about Nosferatu and the genre it belongs to, but even before that I considered it an amazing piece of early horror. I never expected to find a silent film from the 20’s particularly scary, but it turns out the right imagery can leave an impact without the need for dialogue or sound effects. Nosferatu is a German expressionist film, which means it is part of a genre of early films made in Germany that rely on heavy contrast and shadow to create striking images and fantastical stories. These films usually focus on symbolism and are usually heavily stylised. The style lends itself well to a certain style of horror. While Nosferatu isn’t particularly gory or suspenseful, especially to a modern audience, it does leave a huge impact. Many of the shots are bold, and between the excellent makeup and heavy shadow, as well some interesting locations, each frame seems to stay with me long after I watch it.

The film has an unusual history. The director, F. W. Murnau wanted to shoot an adaptation of Bram Stoker’s book Dracula. However, Stoker’s widow wouldn’t sell him the rights and so he simply altered the plot slightly and renamed all of the characters. As such Count Dracula became Count Orlok, and Johnathon Harker became Thomas Hutter. If you have watched any film versions of Dracula and/or read the book, the similarities are easy to spot. Stoker’s estate still noticed the film and didn’t think the changes were enough, so after a legal battle most of the copies of the film were destroyed. The only reason this film has become such an influence is thanks to a few copies surviving and making their way to the USA in 1929. Personally, I’m very glad that someone saved the film. It might be copyright infringement but it is nonetheless a damn good silent film.

The cinematography is not as surreal as other expressionist films like The Cabinet of Dr Caligari, but the emphasis on shadow and contrast leads to some excellent gothic imagery of castles, empty towns and dark corridors. Murnau seems to want to make the scene around Orlok seem normal and comforting; shots of nature and comfortable houses. This creates greater horror when we are taken to the castle, filled by clocks with skeletons and other strange architecture. The makeup for Count Orlok is brilliant. The strange tufts of hair, the pointed ears and teeth and the heavy eyeshadow all frame a strange face that is downright unsettling to look at for too long. Max Schreck, the actor playing Orlok has amazing eyes that seem to be tailor made for this kind of role. He stares unblinking and often seem to hold other characters spellbound. If you wanted to argue that the film is not a rip off of the book, the character of Orlok is where you could make your case. Unlike the intelligent aristocrat of the book, who looked mostly human with a few strange differences, Orlok is a monster. He looks like some kind of hellish rat who never takes off his clothes. His character is a leering sadist who spreads like a plague to Hutter’s home town to give his curse to his wife. Schreck is fantastic in the role. His expressions seem almost inhuman, twisted in hatred or hunger. If there is one plot hole in the film, it’s the fact that Thomas Hutter doesn’t run the hell away the second he sees the Count for the first time.

“May I take your coat sir?”

The film is hugely influential, having several remakes and reimagining over the years, including one directed by Werner Herzog and a fun meta horror starring Willem Dafoe. It demonstrates how important stylised and gothic imagery would be to many films in the horror genre and in particular, vampire movies. The film created a creeping tone and unnerving atmosphere in a way that no other medium could achieve. Apart from the style and genre, Nosferatu would also have an enduring legacy in vampire fiction. Before this film, vampires could go out in the sunlight without dying. Dracula himself had no issue walking down the street on a sunny afternoon, albeit without his powers. After Nosferatu ended with the Count being destroyed by the light of dawn, most vampire fiction, including future adaptations of Dracula would make sunlight the vampires most potent weakness. I think that tells you just how inspiring this film has been over the years.

This strange silent film is a testament to visual storytelling. It has survived through the years because the imagery it presents is striking and refuses to be forgotten in a hurry. Thanks to a superb performance from a character actor, unnerving makeup, strong emphasis on lighting and an eye for unsettling scenes, Nosferatu is a unique experience to watch. If you’ve had enough of vampire films that lean into the sexy image that has become so prevalent then I have just the film for you. You definitively shouldn’t find Orlok sexy, although I won’t judge if you do (I will). Happy Halloween everyone!

Netflix’s The Witcher

A very promising start…

Since the last review I made was of the Witcher game series, I thought that I would finally cover the Netflix show. I am admittedly very late to review this; however, I was reminded how much I love this series while re-watching with my dad. As a big fantasy nerd, I have been starved of content from films and TV for a long while. Once you get into the fantasy genre, it doesn’t take long to watch all the big films and shows and have nothing left. Sure, there are lots of urban fantasy shows and Sci-fi, but for that doesn’t quite scratch the itch. So, I was stoked when Netflix released the Witcher, as I cannot get enough of swords and magic. Spoilers will be frequent from this point on.

This series tries to do quite a few things, and I would say that despite a lot of mediocre reviews from more snobby people, it manages to do them successfully. It pays light homage to the game series without borrowing ideas, adapts much of the tone and plot of the book series while avoiding aspects that might make it come off too ridiculous, and succeeds in creating its own style and tone separate from the Game of Thrones trend. Of course, people still compare it to that show, because apparently there is only one fantasy show out there, and everything else is copying it.

To start with, the acting across the board is great. Henry Cavill, a fan of the source material, puts a lot into his role and manages to get across Geralt of Rivia’s inner humanity and kindness with as little dialogue as possible. My only real complaint about his characterisation is that he is too mean to his companion Jaskier. Speaking of the Bard, he is a highlight for the entire show. He brings a lot of high energy, several good jokes and a unique take on a character that otherwise could have come off as a complete sleaze. He also has a great singing voice (yes, toss a coin is an amazing song). Anya Chalotra is given much to work with, as Yennefer’s backstory is greatly expanded on and it is very interesting to get such an insight into her character. Chalotra does a smashing job of showing us the emotional journey Yen goes on to form the character we are more familiar from in the books and games. Freya Allen is decent as Ciri, and I have a feeling we are going to see a lot more memorable moments from her as her character develops.

The structure of the series is interesting. Rather than adapting the first full length story of the book series, showrunner Lauren Schmidt Hissrich chose to adapt the collection of short stories set before the start of the books. This was confusing to me at first, but once enough context clues are dropped it becomes obvious that each of the characters are in their own timeline. By halfway through the series we have a firm grasp that only Ciri’s story is set in the present time of the show. While this feels a little strange it gives the characters a chance to go through development that was otherwise only hinted at in the books, and makes the series less about one character and more of a trio of protagonists. This change in focus gives the audience more opportunity to engage with different characters and take in some of the world building, and I really enjoyed it. Of course, the timelines converge in the final episode and so next season will undoubtably all be set at the same time, but it was a fun way to include the short stories and not burn through all the books too quickly.

The soundtrack for the show is incredibly well put together. While many of the musical themes and leitmotifs are reminiscent of the game series, they don’t simply copy them. Rather they both come from a similar inspiration. There is a good amount of Slavic chanting and singing, as well as a focus on folk style. Many of the songs are in universe creations by Jaskier, that he sings himself. The music has a unique tone which goes a long way to giving the Witcher its own feel, apart from other shows in the genre.

The action choreography is superbly done and very visually entertaining. Geralt fights in a very acrobatic way, using the reflexes his mutations provide. There are a number of excellent set pieces that demonstrate his skill and limitations. The sorcerers all get to do a lot of very creative magic. The effects might be limited in the first season, as is usually the case, but they manage to look mostly pretty cool. The design of the monsters and creatures are really creative, leaning heavily on the horror aspect of the story. Some of the creatures are legitimately terrifying. The striga in particular is a horrible highlight. The only criticism I would raise about the production design is the costuming. While I love the style of most of the outfits, there is a strange trend in fantasy shows to use mostly black and grey clothing, which really saps the series of a lot of colour. I love colours, why do costume designers hate them? This, when added to the colour graded of the footage, which seems to ramp up the contrast and adds a gritty filter to everything, makes a lot of the show murky and dark. It is sometimes hard to see what is going. The only exception seems to be when magic is performed, in which case the colour is heightened. That might be to draw attention the difference between mundane reality and magical illusion, but it leaves the rest of the show feeling drab.

However, that minor quibble aside, this show is a godsend. It provided me with that rare fantasy fix, and as it seems to have been very popular it will hopefully encourage a lot more fantasy TV in the future. The writing is enjoyable, the acting fantastic and the music special. Add all that together and you have a show that has started out very strongly indeed. I can’t wait for season two. Eventually.