#dracula x mina | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

apoloadonisandnarcissus · 21 days ago

Text

“Sacrifice” and “Covenant” in “Nosferatu” (2024)

Or: how Robert Eggers took the “bride of Dracula” theme to the next level, and no one noticed? And how his adaptation of “Nosferatu” is so widely different from the previous ones? Let's make cinematic comparisons.

First things first: “Nosferatu” and “Dracula” are the same thing. The silent 1922 German movie “Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror” was an unauthorized version of Bram Stoker’s 1897 novel “Dracula”, and Stoker’s widow even sued the film makers and won, and all copies should have been destroyed but made its way to the US, and the rest its history.

Count Orlok is Count Dracula; Ellen Hutter is Mina Harker; Thomas Hutter is Jonathan Harker; Knoch is Renfield; Bulwer/Von Franz is Van Helsing; Anna/Ruth Harding is Lucy Westenra, and Friedrich Harding is Arthur Holmwood.

The relationships between these characters are the same in the 2024 adaptation; Mina/Ellen and Jonathan/Thomas are married, Lucy/Anna and Arthur/Friedrich too. Von Franz/Van Helsing is called to help against Dracula/Orlok. And Renfield/Knoch is Dracula fanatical servant who wants immortality. Why Dracula wants the female characters (Mina and Lucy) varies from story to story: in some he only wants their blood, in others he wants them as his brides.

In the 1922 version, Orlok brings plague and rats to an European city, and unlike Dracula, his victims don’t turn into vampires, they just die. There is also no “brides of Dracula” here. This is also the case in the 1979 adaptation.

To analyze the 2024 adaptation of “Nosferatu”, we need to have this in mind.

Cinematic context

"Nosferatu" adaptations

The climax of the “Nosferatu” story is Ellen Hutter (Mina Harker) sacrificing herself to save Wisburg, because she reads a book that says a vampire can be defeated if a pure-hearted woman distracts him from the approaching dawn with her beauty and by offering him her blood of her own free will.

This is what we see with the 1922 and 1979 adaptations (yes, I’m ignoring the 2023 remake because it’s almost a rehash of the 1922 film):

Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror (1922)

This woman is already dead. Rest in peace in advance. She’s on her back, she completely accepted she’s not getting out of this alive, and she’s selflessly sacrificing herself.

Nosferatu the Vampire (1979)

The same vibe as the first + unnecessary boob grab. This adaptation uses the Bram Stoker names, but she’s “Lucy Harker” (not Mina), and is married to Jonathan Harker (Thomas Hutter).

These women are metaphorically and literally “sacrificial lambs” in these scenarios, there’s no doubt about it. They just lie there, at the mercy of Orlok/Dracula, waiting to die, and for the sun to rise and kill him. But more on that later.

"Dracula" adaptations

There have been so many “Dracula” adaptations in cinema and television, it’s impossible to address them all in this post. This story has been told and retold so many times already, from horror to comedy to drama to romance. We had the brides, the daughters, the sons and even the granddaughter of Dracula. The list is endless, cinema and television has gone through all of Dracula family already.

The most iconic cinematographic adaptations of “Dracula” in cinema history (even though some have no resemblance to the actual book), besides 1922 “Nosferatu” are: “Dracula” (1931); “Horror of Dracula” (1958); “Dracula” (1979) and “Bram’s Stoker Dracula” (1992).

Béla Lugosi 1931 Dracula pretty much solidified Dracula iconography in pop culture

These films are considered cult classics mostly because of their cast (Béla Lugosi, Christopher Lee, Frank Langella, Gary Oldman) and legendary directors (Francis Ford Coppola).

In this story, Dracula is usually killed by a hero male character (Van Helsing, Jonathan Harker, Arthur, Quincey, etc.), which is what happens in the novel. “Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror” (1922) introduced his death at the hands of a female character (Ellen/Mina), even if indirectly (distracting him until dawn so the sun can kill him). “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” (1992) is the exception to this rule, with Mina being the one to kill Dracula at the end, to give him peace (which probably explains why there are so many references to this film in Robert Eggers’ adaptation).

"Her willing sacrifice thus broke the curse"

The main differences between the 2024 adaptation and the previous ones is, indeed, Ellen Hutter and Count Orlok psychosexual connection (like Robert Eggers himself has said) and Ellen’s entire character.

In previous adaptations, Orlok took an interest in Ellen because he saw her portrait (which Thomas Hutter carried with him). In 1922, he wanted her blood, because she’s pure of heart (metaphorical “sacrificing a virgin to the Devil”, probably), and in the 1979 adaptation, he wants the love Jonathan has, but he, himself, can't ever have.

In the actual novel, Dracula bites Mina and wants to turn her into a vampire as revenge (she’s the one who uncovers his plans). Mina Harker is also the literary antithesis to the “she-vampire”, she represents the pure and virginal Victorian woman.

This is also the case with Ellen Hutter’s character in the original 1922 “Nosferatu”, and the reason why she’s the one who selflessly sacrifices herself to save the world from Nosferatu curse. It's her purity which allows her to do this. She’s almost Christ-like, taking this role for herself after reading about it in a book.

In the 1979 adaptation, Lucy/Ellen is the one who can defeat Dracula/Orlok because he’s in love with her, and she weaponizes that to bring him to his destruction. Like the 1922 film, Lucy is also the one who discovers how to defeat Nosferatu. But unlike 1922 Orlok, this vampire is a tragic, depressive and pitiful creature, tired of immortality and loneliness, who takes no joy in the destruction and death he brings.

This is not the case in the 2024 adaptation. Eggers’ Ellen does not represent the “pure and virginal Victorian woman” and as such her “sacrifice” at the end can’t possibly have the same meaning as previous adaptations of this particular story. Because that’s not how storytelling works, and why many are scratching their heads at this ending. The film itself talks about “sacrifice” to “redeem” the townsfolk of Wisburg and save them from Nosferatu curse/plague, but why?

Eggers’ Ellen is a subversion of Mina Harker/Ellen Hutter character. She’s not the God-fearing, devoted and pure-hearted Mina, neither she tries to be. She’s ostracized by society, she doesn’t fit in, she’s been diagnosed as a “somnambulist hysteric melancholic” (hiper-sexual depressive sleepwalker), it’s implied she has been institutionalized (probably in an asylum) before. She outright rejects God and His intervention when talking to Anna about life (it’s destiny, not God). There’s a lot of crosses in this film but none are around Ellen’s neck. She loves Thomas but wants more passion and hunger from him. This is a completely different character from the OG Ellen Hutter/Mina Harker.

On a superficial level, it appears Ellen takes advantage of Orlok sex blood lust to bring him to his own destruction (he’s an appetite who can’t be satisfied without her… blood?), a mix of the 1922 and 1979 adaptations? However, this explanation is not “it” because of a not so smaller detail: their covenant (almost everyone keeps forgetting for some reason). Which didn’t exist in the previous films, this is a plot Robert Eggers introduced but has no pay off?

To me, it’s clear. This talk of “sacrifice” is a red herring and a MacGuffin in the narrative, and it doesn’t mean anything, it’s irrelevant. It’s just there as a Easter egg and reference for previous adaptations of this story. And the true Chekhov's gun of the story is the covenant between Ellen and Orlok. What is a narrative “Chekhov's gun” you ask? It’s a plot that’s introduced early in the story, and whose significance will only became clear later.

Why not the other way around? Because all the foreshadowing of the story points to Ellen joining Death (Orlok), not only freely (out of her own will), but how happy she is in doing this. Hence her dying alongside Orlok at the end can’t possible be an actual selfless sacrifice to save Wisburg or Thomas, nor is she a “sacrificial lamb” like the previous adaptations of this story. There is zero foreshadowing for this happening. Them both (physically) dying in a context of a covenant has to mean something else in this story.

Also the fact that Eggers’ Ellen and Orlok have an entire backstory going on between them, which is also unique to this adaptation. Here, it’s Ellen who “awakes” Orlok from his grave with her summoning prayer, in her teenage years. The guy has been dead for centuries until she brings him back, basically.

She develops a spiritual connection with him, which turned sexual (what we see in the prologue is their relationship already developed, when Orlok reveals himself).

“At first it was sweet, I had never known such bliss. Yet it turned to torture, it would kill me. [...] He is my shame! He is my melancholy! He took me as his lover then, and now he has come back. He has discovered our marriage and has come back!”

“Remember how once we were? A moment. Remember?”

We also have the whole ordeal with the lilacs, throughout the film, which are meant to represent Ellen and Orlok's relationship.

A little historical context here for “Ellen’s shame”: this story is set in the Victorian era, where women weren’t supposed to have any sexual desire whatsoever, and even within marriage they were supposed to be modest and restrained. Ellen engaging in sexual activity without being married is highly scandalous for Victorian society (it has nothing to do with “abuse” or whatever wild inaccurate historical interpretations are out there.)

In the novel, Mina does develop a mental connection with Dracula as a consequence of him biting her and feeding her with his blood (cursing her to vampirism). This allows the heroes to track down and destroy Dracula. In the “Nosferatu” adaptations, this connection is more related to Jonathan himself. The only adaptation I can recall that has this sort of astral fuckery going on is “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” (1992), with Lucy's character.

The Covenant

Orlok: “You are not for the living. You are not for human kind. And shall you be one with me ever-eternally. Do you swear it?” Ellen: “I swear."

The thing is: vampires in this “universe” (sort of speak) aren’t made like in the original “Dracula” novel and every vampire story ever since (where the vampire bites and feeds his blood to another, and turns them into a vampire). Orlok victims don’t turn into vampires, they just die. So, what does this “covenant” mean, and implies?

We have to look into the other character in the story, who also wants to make a “covenant” with Orlok, and is his fanatical servant: Herr Knock (our Renfield).

“The compact commands she must willingly re-pledge her vow. She cannot be stolen.”

First piece of information: this "covenant" ("compact"; "pact") has to be made of free will.

The next clue we got is when Von Franz and Dr. Sievers break into Herr Knock’s office and find books and a cryptic writing:

“His thunder roars from clouds of carcasses, I feedeth on my shroud, and death avails me not. For I am his.”

“Thunder roars” and “clouds of carcasses” appear to be a reference to Orlok? Or to other deity? “I feed off my shroud and death is of no use to me, because I’m his”: seems to be what this means.

Von Franz also finds out Orlok is Solomonari, student of the Devil (from Romanian folklore).

Later, Von Franz studies the book he took from Knock’s office, which contains the instructions in how to defeat Orlok: “And so the maiden fair did offer up, her love unto the beast, and with him lay, in close embrace until the first cock crow. Her willing sacrifice thus broke the curse, and freed them from the plague of Nosferatu.”

When Thomas, Von Franz and Dr. Sievers go to Grünewald Manor to destroy Orlok’s sanctuary, it’s Knock on the sarcophagus, and Thomas stabs him with the iron spike before he can see him. And he wants to be killed, as he pushes the stake deeper into his body:

“I relinquished him my soul. I should have been the Prince of Rats – immortal... but he broke our covenant... for he cares only for his pretty bride [...] She is his! [...] Strike again. I am blasphemy!”

Knock's final words are: "Deliverance." Which is... odd to say the least, because “deliverance” has Christian religious meaning with “salvation”, or even “exorcism” (“deliver us from evil”). But it also means “to be set free”. Interesting enough it’s what Von Franz tells Thomas to do, before they open the sarcophagus: “Go forward Thomas. Set free the daemon’s [demon] body!”

In 1922 “Nosferatu”, Knock remains loyal to Orlok until the bitter end, and even tries to warn him about the rising sun while he’s feeding off Ellen. He also dies as a consequence of his master’s death. In the 1979 adaptation, he leaves before any of this happens, so there's no point talking about that in connection to this.

This leads me to a few questions:

Why would this fanatical follower of Orlok have a book in how to destroy his master, on his own office? In previous adaptations, this knowledge was with "good" characters, not with the second antagonist of the film;

Why does Knoch wants to be killed? Nothing in his character suggests he had a "chance of heart" or is seeking punishment for his “sins”, or absolution, or anything of that sort;

And if 2024 Knock is loyal to 2024 Orlok, until the bitter end (like his 1922 counterpart), what does this mean for the narrative?

The obvious explanations are: (1) Orlok ordered Knock to have that book there for the “vampire hunters” to find and let him have Ellen; (2) or it’s one of those extraordinary coincidences where one of the villains just “kind of forgot”, which seems extremely unlikely in a movie that has been in preparation since 2016.

This also tells us, Orlok might have prepared his own physical demise (because not even demons want to be a rotting corpse, probably), so his soul is set free and returned to Hell? the Underword? Some astral place other than the material/physical world, where he's forced to be a walking corpse. And he wants to take Ellen with him.

As the abbess tells Thomas:

“A black enchanter he was in life. Şolomanari. The Devil preserved his soul that his corpse may walk again in blaspheme.”

This is a horror supernatural film, physical death means nothing in this context, where demons, ghosts and vampires exist. Physically killing Orlok, will only set free his spirit, really.

Harding: “I cannot yield to being haunted by some ghost!” Von Franz: “No, no, no, please, no. It is no mere ghost, for it can manifest physically, and with the most foul intent.”

And so, we return to the cryptic text Von Franz found in Knock’s office (“His thunder roars from clouds of carcasses, I feedeth on my shroud, and death avails me not. For I am his.”). Like Orlok, he sold his soul to the Devil and isn’t afraid to die, because he knows he’ll return as a vampire. And death appears to be a part of this pact, as well. Only, he’s killed by a iron spike and his corpse set on fire, so… there’s no coming back from that.

“Clara asked me today if Aunty Ellen has become a ghost.” Anna tells Friedrich, foreshadowing Ellen’s fate (these kids are like “foreshadowing bombs” in the narrative)

Bride of Dracula/Orlok

“He cares only for his pretty bride [...] She is his!”

“And shall you be one with me ever-eternally.”

Come on, it doesn't get more obvious than this.

Orlok: “Do you accept this, of your own will?” Ellen: “I do.” Orlok: “Then the covenant is fulfilled. Your oath re-pledged.” Ellen: “Yes.” Orlok: “As our spirits are one, so too shall be our flesh. You are mine.”

I already explored why Ellen and Orlok are “fated” and why she’s “promised” to him in another post, so I’m not going to talk about that topic here.

It’s “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” (1992) that established Mina as Dracula’s lover and bride (and reincarnation of his wife) in pop culture (not sure if it was the first film to actually do this, but in previous decades it was Lucy’s character, not Mina, because she’s the one who’s more progressive and liberal). Not only that, but this Mina is more complex and "grey" than previous adaptations: “Perhaps, though I try to be good, I am bad. Perhaps I am a bad, inconstant woman.”

This film had such an impact and it’s so iconic, it has spawned several similar stories in its aftermath.

"I've crossed oceans of time to find you." Dracula to Mina, "Bram Stoker's Dracula" (1992)

“I have sought a creature from the depths. A Eve that remembers her Eden. You are such one.” Orlok to Ellen, "Nosferatu" 2016 script (too bad Eggers didn't keep this)

There is no way Robert Eggers wasn't inspired by Coppola's adaptation of “Dracula” to create his own version of “Nosferatu” (even if he doesn't acknowledge it, publicly), only more demonic and macabre, and less "on-your-face-romance". He went with the dark and gothic route. Dracula tells Mina: “Then I give you life eternal [...] Walk with me, to be my loving wife, forever.” Plus: “to walk with me you must die to your breathing life and be reborn to mine.”

And Van Helsing very dramatic line about Lucy: “She is a willing recruit, a breathless follower, a wanton follower. I dare say, a devoted disciple. She is the devil's concubine!”

And both Ellen and Mina saying “I’m unclean!” because of their connections to Dracula/Orlok.

Only Orlok's “eternal life” is death, in this adaptation. So, Ellen must die in order to join him and be one with him “ever-eternally” aka complete and fulfill their covenant. She's relinquishing her soul to him, she is the “devil’s concubine”. "You are mine."

Ellen is very much aware of what’s she’s signing for here. She knows she’ll die and she’ll be with Orlok forever, in the spiritual world. Odd thing to do if hatred is the only feeling she has for him, or if she’s doing this to save others.

Yes, her “willing sacrifice” saves the world from “Nosferatu curse” but that’s not exactly the point, it’s more of a colateral, a consequence. But at no point in this film this “sacrifice” is described as “selfless” from her part. She’s the one who says to Von Franz she “needs no salvation” and all of her life she has been true to her nature. Which is what happens at the end, as she embraces her own wickedness (“does evil comes from within or from beyond?”).

2024 Orlok is unapologetic evil. He makes no excuses for his behavior, nor he rationalizes his own actions. He’s not a tragic, romantic nor a tormented figure. He’s an appetite, a beast, a devil, and he doesn’t conceal his own nature. Which is what Ellen herself reconciles with, at the end. By accepting him, she’s accepting herself.

2024 Ellen entire demeanor and behavior in her final scene with Orlok is completely different from previous adaptations. She’s not lying there like a “sacrificial lamb”, at all. Not only she’s getting sexual pleasure out of this, she embraces him as the sunlight kills his physical form, and he’s suffering, and in terrible pain, until they die in each other’s arms. It doesn’t get more horror gothic romance than this.

She wouldn’t have any reason to act this way if this whole ordeal was a mere “selfless sacrifice” to save everyone else, like in 1922 and 1979: where Ellen and Lucy are just there waiting to die and not caring less about Orlok/Dracula pain under the sun, because they want to destroy him. In the 2024 adaptation, Ellen is silently and tenderly comforting Orlok as he dies, instead, compelling him to look at her. They are acting like lovers in a suicide pact, nor as prey and predator.

And I have to laugh when I read folks saying this film finally made justice to Mina/Ellen and Jonathan/Thomas love story from the “Dracula” novel, because Robert Eggers not only made another cinematic addition to the whole “Dracula x Mina” universe, but he took it further than Francis Ford Coppola by having them actually ending up together, forever united in some spiritual realm.

“The VVitch”

And this ending of "Nosferatu" is not surprising coming from Eggers, because this is almost the same ending as "The VVitch" (2015), and he started to working on this script after that movie.

“The Devil is in thee and hath had thee. You are smeared of his sin. You reek of Evil. You have made a covenant with death. You bewitched thy brother, proud slut! Did you not think I saw thy sluttish looks to him, bewitching his eye as any whore? You took them from me! They are gone! You killed my children! You killed thy father! Witch! WITCH!” Thomasin's mother accuses her.

Black Phillip/Devil: “Wouldst thou like the taste of butter? A pretty dress? Wouldst thou like to live deliciously?” Thomasin: “Yes.”

Thomasin was accused of being a "witch", a “whore” and having a pact with the Devil by everyone around her, until she actually became one at the end. It's pretty much the same with 2024 “Nosferatu” Ellen: she was also seen as “deranged”, “diseased” and often compared to supernatural beings ("changelling girl", "sylph", "fairy", etc.) until she became just that at the end, too.