Shadow of the Vampire is a strange "vampire" movie for sure. It doesn't pigeonhole neatly into the genre, as it's mostly about other things. But then most vampire movies are really about other things.
The main conceit of this film is that when F.W. Murnau made Nosferatu he cast a real vampire in the role of Count Orlok. It's a clever idea, but a bit clumsy to make work in places.
The best parts of this flick are the acting which is top notch in nearly all respects, though I do confess a small dose of John Malkovitch does go a long way in his overwhelming role of Murnau. Willem Dafoe is masterful as "Count Orlok", the vampire, at times scary and at others quite funny. Cary Elwes and Udo Kier are great in this one, doing some fantastic bits of business.
The setting is pretty dang fine too, as apparently they used a real castle in Luxembourg and its battlements to frame the movie. It works really well, and gives the whole affair a real authenticity.
I really enjoy this movie, but the storytelling is pretty spare and you have to really fill in some holes to make the thing string together. Characters disappear without comment and that's a bit annoying. It's got some great scenes, but the territory between them is undeveloped a bit.
But as commentary on movie making itself as a being akin to vampirism, the movies main theme seems a bit unproven to me. I get what they want to say, that the camera "sucks" life and keeps it for all time, but I don't see that immortality in the same way as being a vampire. You are reduced to a shadow of your true self, I get that, but it's the inevitability of time that does that, not film. The move makes the connection, but doesn't necessarily prove it's by itself bad, just transformational.
All in all this is a fun flick, though one that takes itself way too seriously.
Now while I was watching this one, I dug out Nosferatu again and watched it through. I haven't seen it in several years, and it was in many ways fresh again. The version I have is not pristine by any means, and I keep meaning to get a good one, but this one served well enough.
I noticed this time how long it takes for the protagonist to get to Orlok's castle, a long set up, longer than I remember. Because of having seen the other flick, I was pretty sensitive to setting this time through and they work quite well.
I have always found the horror of the ship in the story to be a highlight, and I really like seeing movies that deal with that part of the story. Many drop it out entirely or merely allude to it, and I understand why, but it's among the scariest parts of Stoker's novel. This movie does the best with that material of any I've ever seen.
All in all a nice day of vampire watching.
Now I've got to dig out my VHS copy of the Werner Herzog version and give it another look. It's been many years since I watched this one through.
Rip Off
Thanks for the review, Rip! When I first saw "Shadow of the Vampire," I came away disappointed to anger, because the movie didn't seem to do much of anything with the idea that Max Schreck had been a real vampite, a notion by itself as silly as Ray Bolger really having been a scarecrow.
ReplyDeleteBut that irritation eventually led me to consider that the real vampire of the piece was Murnau himself, who (in this telling) gained his immortal life in the shadow-land of film at the cost of everyone else.
That's my final take on it, anyway.
Randy