To the modern viewer,
F.W. Murnau's Nosferatu, a silent adaptation of Bram Stoker's Dracula,
needs not be viewed. It is in black and white, the acting is more like
pantomime, there is no spoken dialog, and the camera moves as much as a
sea urchin. The modern viewer that would say this, however, is
incorrect. It is true that by modern standards, there is little to be
scene in this film. It is slow moving and without the compelling
performances found in today's best movies. But it is a piece of
cinematic history that does, each and every time it is viewed for the
first time, lend itself greatly to the modern film, and particularly
the modern horror or monster film.Visually,
the film is impressive for its time. The close ups on text throughout
go a long way to establish montage between the characters gaze and what
they are looking at. This technique is commonplace in today's films
(with some films, like "The Mission" toying with the convention, as it
so very standard). In 1922 however, the idea of montage was in its
early stages, and capturing the gaze of a character, even if only to
show the text they are reading, was a big deal.By
today's standards, a Vampire movie without red ought to be impossible;
what is a vampire without blood.
A vampire without blood, or at least
red blood, is Nosferatu. Being filmed in black and white lends an
eeriness to the entire film that modern films often cannot capture.
Without special effects and with ingenious techniques, such as the
negative image shots and purely diagetic lighting, Nosferatu, while
remaining a film about a vampire, is a film about darkness, and by
being such, is a film about light. The original movie poster, perhaps,
says it all:
Without
any real mention of a vampire, the poster suggests that the film is a
representation of darkness and evil. To this end, Nosferatu, with the
surrealistic vampire and dark corridors is making a statement about the
nature of humanity through the lens of Stoker's novel. What,
however, is darkness, without light? All of the "good" meaning,
non-vampiric characters, are represented in stark white, with high key,
flushed out scenes abounding. The contrast created allows for the
assumption that people are full of both good and evil. This may seem
oxymoronic, if the good are clearly good and the evil are clearly
evil. However, Renfield represents the possibility of any person going
either direction. Falling in between the pure evil of Nosferatu and
the good of the Harkers and other characters. Because Renfield, prior
to the events of the film, was in the same position as Johnathan, he
represents what Johnathan could be. With no real suggestion of an
innate flaw within Renfield, the only plausible conclusion is that any
of the characters, in their extremeties, could become any of the other
characters.While
the technology may be less than is available today, the still camera
allows for framing and lighting effects that accentuate the dark
overtones throughout. Because of the inherent frame present in a still
shot, the shadows are allowed to move through the frame, giving a
feeling of creeping horror throughout the scenes.Setting
up a dichotomy between light and dark in the representation and actions
of the characters, as well as with the lighting and still camera,
Nosferatu is a tour de force in silent film making. There is a level
of beauty in silent films, in how they capture the art as frames, as a
visual art portrayed within the screen. While today's technology
allows for visual spectacle as far as the mind can invent, silent film
technology follows a set of rules. To this end, the art of silent film
is like a brilliant gymnastic performance. The rules must be followed,
and, as a result, beauty becomes, to a certain level, objectified.
Were silent films judged like olympic gymnastics, Nosferatu would be
tantamount to Alfred Flatow.
-Zachary R. Belcher
Post a Comment