"Nosferatu" (1922)

The first horror films are apparently very surreal and disturbing, and in ways owe their visual appearance to expressionist painters, as well as spirit photography and gothic literature of the 1860s. They relied on the folklore and legends around Europe. Spirit photography was using double exposures (which is the repeated exposure of a photographic plate or film to light, often producing ghost images) or superimpositions (the placement of an image or video on top of an already-existing image or video, usually to add to the overall image effect, as well as sometimes to conceal something) to depict ghosts within a frame of film. Such an idea became popular from the 1860s onwards. During this time, audiences enjoyed seeing ghosts captured in still photography or magic lantern shows. The magic lantern used a curved-in mirror in back of a light source to direct as much of the light as possible through a small rectangular sheet of glass. On this was the painted or photographic image to be projected. The lens was adjusted to focus the surface of the slide at the distance of the projection screen, which could just be a white wall, creating an enlarged image of the slide on the screen.

I find Nosferatu very interesting just because of how old it is. It’s a silent movie, which means the visual must be all the more impactful to give audiences the horror required, which, might I say, is quite well achieved. It’s actually based on Bram Stoker’s “Dracula”, and was the first vampire film to be made. In this case, the vampire is named Count Orlok, and he uses his long fingernails to curl around the limbs of many hapless victims.

Despite the first moving pictures usually being action or comedy, early filmmakers also used photographic trickery to unearth darker stories with psychological and supernatural elements. These would have been known as the first horror films. I imagine they were quite limited in what they could do with the technology of the time, and would have had to create very powerful stories so much so that it was enough to cause audiences to suspend their disbelief. Darkness and shadows (which are so, so important in horror films nowadays) were of course impossible to show on the low quality of film available at this time. In Nosferatu there is a scene with a vampire leaping amidst gravestones in what would appear to be broad daylight, which of course is not norm for modern horror as a lot of scenes are expected to be in pitch black to create the desired tension. However, the early contributions to the horror genre were very influential and established many recognisable principles today.  

I find all this absolutely fascinating, so I was so disappointed to realise that because of how fragile the early films were, and due to the manner in which they were archived, many of the earliest horror films have been lost forever. I would love to be able to see them. There are, as far as I know, some which have still survived though. The first on record is a silent supernatural film called “Le Manoir du Diable” ('The Haunted House'), made in 1896 by a fellow named Georges Méliès. The overall running time is just over 3 minutes but manages to incorporate many typical elements such as bats, devils, witches, skeletons, ghosts, and puffs of smoke! I think it’s quite remarkable to watch, really. It’s just amazing to think how this is what horror film, or indeed any film, started off as, and now look at what it’s become today! It just shows how strong people’s imaginations were back then, because of course, this is where it all started and anything we have today has been influenced by what was created and envisaged back then.

WATCH IT HERE:

Now going back to Nosferatu:

Apparently, the director, F.W. Murnau, had a bit of conflict with Bram Stoker’s widow over the rights to the Dracula story. He changed the names of the central characters but didn’t alter the story, meaning because of legal technicalities some of the movie was destroyed. In addition, he lost control of the film and it is only recently that a version similar to the original has become available to the public.

In many ways, though I can’t say for certain as I have not seen Dracula or any other related film, but I think this adaptation of a form of vampire is nearly more frightening to watch. There is a huge amount of eeriness to just the way he moves across the screen. Compared to what we’re used to nowadays, obviously the quality is a great deal poorer, but in ways I actually nearly think this adds to the eeriness. It could never be achieved in quite the same way using the modern technology we have today. It can’t indulge in the ability of using light, because obviously it won’t show (although there is one scene involving a shadow which is very effective), and it doesn’t rely on any much special effects or, I suppose, “boo-moments” so the horror is achieved purely from what you see in front of you as it is. There is a huge creepiness about it. I don’t know exactly what it is. Perhaps it nearly leaves more to the imagination, which can be a lot stronger as our imaginations tend to go to dark places given the right amount of suggestion...

One scene worth mentioning is the one on the ship. The cargo is a heap of coffins filled with earth while crew members get sick and die. Someone goes to open one of the coffins and rats tumble out. Count Orlok then rises straight up, stiff and rigid, making it extremely eerie, from one of the coffins. Apparently in its time this shot was just as frightening and famous as the 360 degree turn of the head in “The Exorcist” (audiences lost their heads over that). The ship arrives in port with its crew dead. Lovely.

I don’t think the fact that it was a silent film bothered me. I suppose, just because I’m not used to silent movies, I couldn’t engage myself completely in the story and my attention span expired a bit faster than if there was dialogue. I had to look up what the story was actually about while watching it because I couldn’t quite grasp what was supposed to be happening, but that might be just me. It’s not going to scare you because of course it includes no modern-horror threat so to speak, however big of a break through it was in its time. That being said, even though I found it that bit harder to watch and follow, I was still able to appreciate it for what it is. Certainly, it is designed to be watched in silence and I don’t think dialogue or colour could add anything to it, but rather instead, just take from it. As I say, the quality and the black and white aspect only added to it for me. It is certainly very effective.

I won’t say whether it’s one that should be watched or not because it’s really more of a personal taste. I just wanted to watch it because I find all this information so interesting and I was curious. So it really depends. If you have an interest in cinematic history – go for it and see what you think!

TRAILER: