When the American industry got around to making it's vampire entry they must have felt that U.S. audiences needed their monster to be softened. What a difference between the two interpretations!
While Hollywood was smart enough to cast an east Europe type (Lugosi) they lessened the dread factor considerably by dressing him up in formalwear and giving him no real teeth to speak of. Orlock has teeth and they look very, very sharp indeed. The hollywoodized Dracula looks less like a monster and more like a romantic leading man when contrasted to the Orlock character of this German film. No one will ever attach 'romantic' to their description of Count Orlock.
Where Lugosi would attempt to convey his brand of menace by means of a penetrating, hypnotic stare and holding up his fingers, Shreck has no need of such staginess. Where 'Dracula' (1931) has fake, vaguely European sets, 'Nosferatu' (1922) is truly Europe. In it's silence Nosferatu feels more ominous than does Dracula, what with his slow, deep-voiced, stilted speech which seems contrived and even unintentionally funny at times (how often have comedians utilized it since?) And wolves and bats are far less creepy (almost noble by comparison) than are rats and spiders. Nothing noble about rats.
I didn't set out to write a disparaging review of 'Dracula'. I've loved the Lugosi version since childhood, but when I saw 'Nosferatu' many years after numerous viewings of the Universal series I realized very quickly that the fear factor of 'Nosferatu' was leagues ahead of the American version, and frankly, I was initially dumbstruck by this fact. I would never have guessed that a silent-era horror film could be so much more striking than the films made over the next five decades!
Whereas Hollywood gave us a fun, not very scary, but deservedly much loved movie classic, F.W. Murnau has given us a fascinating, visionary masterpiece of horror cinema. Students of film art will likely explore 'Nosferatu' more than once.
While Hollywood was smart enough to cast an east Europe type (Lugosi) they lessened the dread factor considerably by dressing him up in formalwear and giving him no real teeth to speak of. Orlock has teeth and they look very, very sharp indeed. The hollywoodized Dracula looks less like a monster and more like a romantic leading man when contrasted to the Orlock character of this German film. No one will ever attach 'romantic' to their description of Count Orlock.
Where Lugosi would attempt to convey his brand of menace by means of a penetrating, hypnotic stare and holding up his fingers, Shreck has no need of such staginess. Where 'Dracula' (1931) has fake, vaguely European sets, 'Nosferatu' (1922) is truly Europe. In it's silence Nosferatu feels more ominous than does Dracula, what with his slow, deep-voiced, stilted speech which seems contrived and even unintentionally funny at times (how often have comedians utilized it since?) And wolves and bats are far less creepy (almost noble by comparison) than are rats and spiders. Nothing noble about rats.
I didn't set out to write a disparaging review of 'Dracula'. I've loved the Lugosi version since childhood, but when I saw 'Nosferatu' many years after numerous viewings of the Universal series I realized very quickly that the fear factor of 'Nosferatu' was leagues ahead of the American version, and frankly, I was initially dumbstruck by this fact. I would never have guessed that a silent-era horror film could be so much more striking than the films made over the next five decades!
Whereas Hollywood gave us a fun, not very scary, but deservedly much loved movie classic, F.W. Murnau has given us a fascinating, visionary masterpiece of horror cinema. Students of film art will likely explore 'Nosferatu' more than once.