#ALSO not to keep harping on the public's reaction to Ellen's disability/neurodivergence BUT

[the-crooked-library]

This might be a silly question, but I'm interested in your opinion about why most people saw Orlok as gross and ridiculous, "not scary at all". They emphasize this contrast: this monster is "just" a corpse with some worms on it, it's not scary at all, and those moustaches are hilarious.

I don't get it. We have for example zombies, they are literal corpses, very very gross, but nobody says they are ridiculous or not scary. And besides, a vampire is dead. A corpse is an accurate depiction.

No I really don't get it, I mean, I know we have been fed this narrative of vampires as very sexy and hot human being, with nothing even remotely gross in their look, but... is it just that? 🤔

Honestly, I think there are a number of reasons for it, but primarily: the majority of the viewers are desensitized to rotting corpses in film, and ascribe to modern beauty standards.

In regards to the first -

Disgust and fear are two very distinct emotions that often go hand in hand, but are in fact separate. The zombie subgenre of horror, which famously uses both, tends to also either be stereotyped as slasher fodder, or lean heavily into the "numbers" types of violence - zombies, in most depictions, are slow, shambling, and easy to avoid. Naturally, they do absolutely spread infection (which Orlok also does); but, years into a pandemic that is now being steadfastly ignored worldwide, I think we all know how the general public feels about disease (they think it won't affect them bc they're special/god protects them/they eat vegetables or whatever the fuck). In the end, to these viewers, Orlok is just one person. They wouldn't go to a desolate castle in the Carpathian mountains. They aren't psychic and wouldn't draw his interest. They wouldn't be working on a ship, or living in a city - oh, wait, hold on. Better ignore that last part. Haha. The point being, a lot of people only find horror "scary" if they can plausibly imagine themselves in the specific situation shown to them onscreen - that's why you see these endless, mindless cycles of "WHY would you go into the BASEMENT??" or "I would check if there's anyone in the back seat", "I wouldn't read this obviously cursed book lol." In the case of a story set in 1838, the historical distance alone renders that immediate projection-fear ineffective; and to these viewers, a walking corpse becomes a harmless curiosity, even if the disgust remains. They've seen all sorts of monsters on a screen.

The second -

Yes, it's the moustache. By and large, they are considered unattractive, antiquated, or funny - in American cultures, specifically, a big moustache tends to be also associated with 70s era bikers, Westerns, and sometimes lumberjacks; essentially, the sort of things nobody tends to take very seriously in the modern age. Even though it fits Orlok, it makes perfect sense historically that he'd have it, a lot of viewers will draw that visual connection in their heads regardless, because they don't actually have a preexisting foundation of "knowledge about medieval/early modern Romanian nobility." I've seen some people argue that they liked Gary Oldman's moustache in the 1992 Dracula, and Orlok's was just "too goofy" - but Oldman's Dracula had the sort of facial hair that isn't too uncommon in the 21st century, not anything even remotely similar to the historical figure he is supposed to be. Beauty is an extremely subjective, constantly shifting standard, and most filmmakers tend to sacrifice historical accuracy for mass appeal. Eggers isn't one of them.

TL;DR some people are incapable of taking a film seriously if it "looks weird" or makes them uncomfortable in some way. Just take a look at the online reactions to The Substance, or the box office earnings of a good number of "cult classics."