#Nosferatu Spoilers

[gabitzart]

Nice stache bro

[staff]

Tumblr Tuesday: Nosferartu

Gothic vampire art, let's go! Nosferatu hit the big screens, and you hit your drawing boards. The art is creepy, dark, and delicious. And there's lots of it!

(this post may contain mild spoilers and mild gore, please proceed with caution if you dislike these things)

@janebroe:

@postnutperfection:

@uhhh-ghouls007:

@meltyimp:

@bajingo:

@mirandakat:

@winterofherdiscontent:

@idiotwithanipad:

@1nd1gnant:

@nosferaboo:

@siebeobachtetdich:

@mychemicalraymance:

@jbsdrawings:

@fxckingfantasy:

@velisveilka:

@snail-shell2335:

@tati-and-art:

@camiliar:

@setamalvada:

@albertvictoria-art:

@jojoseames:

@hellothisisangle:

@eggos-esper:

@chrollc:

@aicosu:

@kikicolors:

@kpmeat:

@korovaoverlook:

@skullisa:

@melonchews:

[idreamtofmanderleyagain]

I have not yet seen this but I'm already seeing the obnoxious debates unfortunately.

All I will say is that I'm noticing a huge trend of younger audiences not fully understanding that sexuality itself for a very long time was placed in this "sinful evil frightening" category, and so a lot of horror fiction that deals with sexuality throughout history, especially vampire fiction, deals with sexual desire as a dangerous force. This often in the form of a demonic other come to tempt innocents, or otherwise dealt with via supernatural punishment (slasher films).

Notably, the innocent victims of this sexual force are virginal christian women, who according to society should not be thinking about sex ever outside of making christian babies for a husband.

I think for a modern audience who is more comfortable with non-marital and even queer sex being a reality, and female sexuality as acceptable, something may be getting lost in translation here. They see a story depicting sex as a dangerous force and translate that immediately into predator/abuse narratives because that is smack dab directly where our most current sexual anxieties are in the cultural consciousness. And while we should be concerned about abuse in our culture, it's fairly obvious that we have often directed them inappropriately (fandom/fiction policing and purity culture, transphobia/trans panic, etc.) , so it's quite frankly particularly telling that so many responded to Nosferatu by having a moral panic about what people feel and believe when they see it (or like that one gal on TikTok, literally accusing people of having psychological commonalities with sexual predators if they even happened to like it as a film).

I've even subsequently witnessed folks retconning the cultural meaning in Coppola's Dracula, which was clearly intended as a more feminist take on Dracula imo (you can debate the merits of that all you like).

To the folks that don't understand what I am talking about, I would recommend doing research on Carmilla and learning about its place in the history of depictions of queer experiences in horror fiction. Understanding that so much of this started with a story of forbidden lesbian desire framed as predatory is eye opening.

Spoilers: Eggers' Nosferatu

There's a lot of debate right now on if Count Orlok represents Ellen's shame/trauma/abuse, or if he represents her repressed erotic desires, and in turn there's debate on whether or not viewers who find the Ellen/Orlok dynamic alluring are "missing the point." Eggers and Lily-Rose Depp have both said in interviews that there's a mutual pull between Ellen and Orlok, and even that there's a love triangle element, but obviously the experience is terrifying for Ellen. How can we reconcile the sexual tension and the horror?

I think the broader theme is that Orlok represents everything in a woman's inner world that men refuse to acknowledge and accept - fear and shame and trauma, yes, but also our appetites . After the prologue, the story starts with Ellen begging Thomas to stay in bed with her; she says "the honeymoon was yet too short" and tries to pull him in and kiss him (obviously trying to start some nuptial bliss). But Thomas is anxious to meet with his boss and get his promotion, because he has a narrative he's going to fulfill: he's going to pay Friedrich back, buy a house, and then start having kids (he and Friedrich touch on this a bit later. Notably, Friedrich discloses Anna's pregnancy to Thomas before Anna has made it public.)

It's the start of Ellen and Thomas' married life and she just wants him to prioritize her sexual desire, but he chooses to focus on his ideal of success, which sets him on this path to confronting Orlok. We know Ellen doesn't care about having a house or fine things and she begs him not to go, but Thomas listens to Herr Knock and Friedrich, who tell him that as a husband he has to provide materially. He ignores Ellen's stated desires, and so fails to provide sexually and emotionally. When Thomas gaslights her about her nightmares and calls them childish fancies, he shuts down her vulnerability, which kills the intimacy she was enjoying in the literal honeymoon phase.

On a related note, there's a defence in here for Aaron Taylor Johnson's performance, which I've seen a few male critics call "over acting." In this story Friedrich represents the masculine ideal of the time, he's a rich business owner with a beautiful wife and kids. Thomas clearly looks up to him and wants to emulate him - he wants to give Ellen the life "she deserves." But Friedrich's elevated masculine status is why he refuses to listen to Ellen's "hysterical, sentimental" worries, he's too rational for all that of course. And his stubborn "rationality" leads to the death of his entire family. Friedrich IS the patriarchal ideal that crumbles when confronted with nuance and uncertainty. Some people see Friedrich and assume that a character like him is meant to come across as dignified, and that Aaron Taylor Johnson is messing up by making him look annoying, but really he is giving a great portrayal of a really common, annoying kind of guy. The kind of guy who melts down and has childish tantrums whenever they lose control of a situation, or their manly skills and values are shown to be irrelevant.

The men in the movie (excluding Professor von Franz) frame Ellen as childish for speaking about her dreams candidly, but their own childishness is revealed when her dreams manifest in the form of Orlok and become unavoidable. Ellen (partially? possessed in the moment by Orlok) tells Thomas how "foolish and like a child" he was in Orlok's castle. In the literal context that's cruel, and obviously that shit was scary as hell, but it hits on Thomas' failure in the metaphorical reading. He was a child playing house: 'I'll be the husband and make money, you be the wife and make babies.' When it came time to confront his wife's inner world and all the scary, traumatized, lustful complexity of it, he was completely inept. The message isn't that Orlok is what Ellen really needs, or that Thomas is a wimp, but he's not a perfect husband either. I think "the point" is that a real healthy marriage with sexual, emotional, and spiritual mutuality is impossible in that society with Thomas/Friedrich's ideals. In that kind of society, a spiritually and sexually potent woman like Ellen ("in heathen times you might have been a Priestess of Isis") will always be caught in a "love triangle" with her husband and her own inner world.

[voluptuarian]

I'm trying to avoid people's dumb takes on Nosferatu but I keep being exposed to the tip of the iceberg and am annoyed enough about it to rant about it.

There's nothing in there that implies she was a kid. She lived in her family home, in the room she had lived in her whole life-- very typical for an unmarried adult woman at the time, especially in a well off family. Everyone determined that this had to be Orlok "grooming" a "child" are just fixated on that interpretation because it's nasty-sounding enough that they can condemn the relationship as "irredeemable" and "problematic" without sounding like pearl-clutchers. It's the magic word that lets them look vindicated in writing the whole thing off. She's not played by a child, she is dressed and styled as an adult, and the needs she's expressing, for attention, for recognition, for physical and emotional intimacy, are in no way limited to children. She's a young woman yearning for things that everybody wants and she's been denied. Ellen having been neglected, lonely, and starved for affection doesn't negate her adulthood. Her walking into a bad situation as a result of all that doesn't make her "groomed." Plenty of grown adults wind up in bad relationships because they're naive and desperate for love.

Similarly, everyone determined that one side of the triangle here wasn't "real" or that she "actually" only felt a connection with one of them and nothing for the other is similarly ridiculous. Thomas is the relationship Ellen chooses intentionally and conscientiously and which provides her the future she wants while satisfying her physical and emotional desires in a safe, secure, loving environment. Orlok is the first love, the first major relationship that she fell into because she was reckless and desperate for affection, that at first satisfied her needs but turned sour and dangerous-- that relationship becoming scary, unpleasant, coercive, doesn't erase the good things they had together once. Ellen and Orlok is the bad breakup between people who's freak matched too well. In the normal world it'd be a bad breakup with a toxic partner; in hers he's unfortunately also a an amoral inhuman manifestation of consumption.

And as for "Orlok doesn't love Ellen blah blah he's only an appetite blah blah." Love is an appetite. Need is an appetite. Loneliness is an appetite unmet. It's all hunger!! Why the FUCK is a zillion year old ghoul aristocrat holed up in a ruin in Eastern Europe tuned in enough to immediately respond to the random calls of some nameless unimportant woman he's never met a thousand miles away?? Because he's as desperate as she is, and for similar things. He was already listening, was already looking for someone-- he was desperate and searching first. His needs are twisted because he's a literal monster, but they still echo hers. The freak is matched, the freak in this case being deep emptiness and desire to be wanted and embraced. Unfortunately for him, Ellen can look elsewhere to satisfy those desires when he no longer makes her happy and find people who will-- and she does. Orlok can only go where he is called, must be chosen under special circumstances, which, seemingly out of everyone within his considerable reach, only she has offered. If what Orlok feels isn't love, its the survival in his mockery of life of what would have been love. But what ends in real love with union, ends for him with destruction and a return to lonely solitude-- that's his curse.

Ellen saves the man she chose by rejecting their future together, by breaking their marriage vows, and by sacrificing herself. She chooses the sacrifice as an act of autonomy, but one that subverts her own desires and victimizes her. It's a tragedy, but it's also a victory. It's a succumbing to the predations of the lover who wouldn't let her go, but its also making peace with him, taking into her embrace a figure she hates and fears but still feels connected to. It's fulfilling the monster's insatiable need, granting him the union he craves the only way it can be: through his death. Orlok is loved, and betrayed, and saved. Thomas is loved, and betrayed, and saved. Ellen chooses love for both of them, betrays them both, saves them both, betrays and saves herself. All of those things can be happening at once, just as tenderness, rejection, repulsion, evil, and love can all be happening at once. Is it comfortable? No. That's the point! But expressing your discomfort with that story as "I will willfully misinterpret this movie and dismiss its themes in whatever most easy to excuse way I can because I feel uncomfortable" is the path of the hack and the coward, and I think that's the what the majority of these "takes" are really about.

[newesthope]

•Sun Bleached Flies, Ethel Cain, 2022•

•Nosferatu, dir. Robert Eggers, 2024•

[writebythecside]

This is my eternal bride, my destined equal, my undoing, she who calls to me with a soul and power older than time and a connection no mortal could ever comprehend.

And this is our pet real estate agent.

[kazoosandfannypacks]

@curiouscornfieldcryptid

in dracula there is a cowboy and the female lead lives. in nosferatu there is no cowboy and the female lead dies. ergo, the existence of a cowboy is highly important for the survival of the female lead in a gothic vampire story.

[feralgodmothers]

I’m actually surprised that I haven’t seen a post yet that points out how Robert Eggers’ lighting choices in Nosferatu matches the color slides of the original silent film

[aestheticforzoe]

La petite mort

[maggieannemillerart]

"yet I cannot be sated without you."

Work in progress: "Sated."

[marquisedemasque]

I saw Nosferatu a few days ago and I just HAD to paint this scene. It took my breath away, the actors performances were so terrifying and beautiful. A modern gothic masterpiece of cinema.

[distort-opia]

It's interesting to me that both times Thomas sees a vision of a demonic Ellen, she's blank and wide eyed, chin stained red and crying blood. The first time, it makes sense she'd have blood spilling out of her mouth. Orlok called upon Ellen ("Dream of me. Only of me"), and she's in a trance, sleepwalking outside and mirroring Orlok's own movements-- appearing to straddle Thomas as Orlok prepares to feed on him:

Ellen is there as Orlok drinks Thomas' blood. When we're shown her falling down, it's implied she was levitating just as Thomas and Orlok were levitating. So, whenever Ellen is in a trance, she and Orlok are one (as the actual possession moment that Von Franz witnessess implies too, when Ellen's words are essentially Orlok's words). And so, in a twisted way, this scene is a threesome (a la Hannibal/Will/Alana in Hannibal NBC, for people with similar tastes). I mean, if Thomas moaning and naked Ellen showing up above him wasn't enough of a clue to the sexual nature of the interaction, Orlok naked and grotesquely grinding on top of him as he drinks his blood is the nail in the coffin (heh).

But the second time Thomas sees a vision of demonic Ellen, it's while the two of them are having actual-and-not-implied sex. Clearly Ellen is under Orlok's influence before it, knowing exactly what buttons to push... but even though she says "He told me how foolish you were. How fearful. How like a child. How you fell into his arms as a swooning lily of a woman," none of these things were actually said by Orlok. We know because we saw them talk, and the only information Orlok passed on to Ellen directly was how Thomas "sold Ellen for gold". It's another way through which it's reinforced that Ellen was there as Orlok fed upon Thomas, seeing his behavior. By showing disdain for it, she's prodding Thomas' biggest insecurity, and what cowes him most about Orlok: a presence so intensely and overpoweringly masculine. So when Ellen delivers the last blow by insulting Thomas' sexual prowess and downright comparing him to Orlok, he takes her roughly and she calls on Orlok to see them do it (much like Orlok called upon Ellen to see how he was feeding on Thomas). But in the middle of it when he recoils, Thomas doesn't get a flash of Orlok. He sees Ellen, blood pouring out of her mouth and crying blood.

I can't help but see a parallel with this:

Ellen is clearly in a trance when Orlok is dying, expelling all of the blood he drank from Ellen out of his eyes and his mouth... She is one with him as it happens. So is the vision Thomas sees both times a sort of premonition of Ellen and Orlok's death? Orlok's dying moment superimposed onto Ellen, blood streaming out of her eyes, mouth open in a silent scream? Even the blood on demonic Ellen's chest, in that first vision, is similar to the stain of blood she has in the final scene where she sacrifices herself.

Maybe I'm just reading too much into it, but it's yet another subtle way in which Ellen, Thomas and Orlok are intertwined, and it's been on my mind the past couple of days. Sex and death, death and sex... There's many other parallels for their dynamic: the way Ellen and Orlok's final scene contrasts with the very first one between Ellen and Thomas (Thomas being asked to stay and give Ellen what she wants but still leaving, Orlok being asked to stay and give Ellen what she wants and staying), but also the scene in which Orlok feeds on Thomas too (Thomas being forced to lay on the bed while Orlok drinks his blood, Ellen willingly laying on the bed and allowing Orlok to drink her blood). So I like to think Thomas saw those glimpses of demonic Ellen in that specific form because she and Orlok were dying as Thomas held her hand-- a truly powerful psychic, broadcasting her shared destiny with Orlok to the one person they'd both loved and hated, cared for and terrified in turn.

[scre6m]

nosferatu (2024) dir. robert eggers / babygirl (2024) dir. halina reijn / dog years, halsey

[tehgvicious]

this is my new year's resolution

imagine being so horny that you summon an ancient demon to get obsessed with you, posses you, kill your loved ones, and completely destroy your city.

anyway i loved nosferatu deeply.

[goblins-riddles-or-frocks]

If anyone is “abusing” and “grooming” Ellen in this story it’s 19th century society, not the demon who’s archetypal Death and metaphorically her sexual freedom (like pretty much every demon in the Gothic genre). These characters are archetypes, which is something Robert Eggers is very fond of. Also these takes of “child abuse” tells me you saw this movie and understood nothing.

came across this in the Nosferatu tags and idk man maybe i'm fucking stupid because i don't agree with the above take 😭

“like pretty much every demon in the gothic genre” oh, okay so this person just has no fucking idea what they’re talking about

all these mental gymnastics happening because people are too terrified to admit to themselves that they thought the dynamic between a rapist and a victim was hot lmao

it’s really funny though because there are some incredibly straightforward ways to portray society and its stifling norms as the main point of conflict and a monster as representation for sexual desire and liberation. that’s not how to do it. like if someone wanted to purely write a story like that, and then they ended up with the nosferatu script… then they’ve failed spectacularly!

idk if you want a story about a romanticized vampire lover go watch 1992 dracula, it’s literally that simple

[kermit-official]

Nosferatu Spoilers!!

So a detail I really liked in Nosferatu (2024) that I'm not sure means a whole lot but stuck out to me for some reason is that Count Orlok's (I hope historically accurate) costuming is so big. It gives him a large, imposing silhouette that stands out from most vampires. But then, at the end of the movie, when we see him bare, he's... Literally just skin and bones. He seems so small and frail. And of course, he's decrepit and decomposing. But it feels almost symbolic in a way that I can't quite place, or maybe I just don't have the vocabulary to express. When he's pretending to be alive and playing house, he's large and imposing because he is "a Count", as he loves to remind Thomas (and the audience), but underneath the bravado and bite is a rotting shell of what used to be a man.

Anyways, probably nothing. I just can't stop thinking abt this movie. Can't wait to watch it again!