#nosferatu 2024 meta

[distort-opia]

There's a fascinating aspect of Ellen's character that I've seen some people touch on before, but now that it got into my head I need to go through to it too-- her nature not being of human kind. It's actually one of the very first things Orlok himself says: that Ellen is not human, and he reasserts it later. But then what is she?

"Almost a sylph," Knock says of Ellen. "His little changeling girl," Ellen says her father had described her as, when she wandered off into the forest as a child. "You mustn't be caught up in her fairy ways," Harding admonishes Anna. Hell, in the 2016 script, when the Hardings accompany Ellen on her walk along the sea shore, she and the children dance in a circle while Ellen cries out "round and round the fairy ring". Furthermore, there's more than one explicit reference to Ellen loving the sea in the scripts. Prior to the sea shore walk, Ellen fervently asks Anna to go there, because "it calms her". Later on, Anna herself says that "she loves the sea so". While this didn't make it to the movie in such direct terms, we still see Ellen looking out windows and yearning, again and again... visiting the sea twice, having a seizure in the water itself. "Look at the sky! Look at the sea! Does it never call to you? Urge you?" she cries to Anna.

It's clearly an intentional implication on Eggers' part: that Ellen is some kind of fairy-like nature elemental. The term sylph originates from the works of Paracelsus, and described as a female air spirit, though over time water has been conflated with it too. Changeling also refers to a child kidnapped by supernatural beings (interestingly birthed by the Devil or a water spirit among others, in German mythology) and replaced with... something else. And we could leave it at that-- Ellen is not entirely human. She was born with witchy and fae-like characteristics, an attraction to the wind and the sea.

When she called out in the dark, it's possible Orlok answered also because he recognized this within her. But. There is a type of female nature spirit in Romanian folklore (which ultimately pervades the mythology of Nosferatu) that has specific parallels and a particular relationship to the Solomonar, the kind of sorcerer/supernatural creature Orlok was in life. It feeds into the overarching theme of destiny and fate so beautifully. I find it all very interesting, but I got pretty long already, so I'll put the rest under the cut.

Female nature spirits can be found all over the place in European folklore, and Romania is no different. They can have many names, though the most popular one is probably iele, a name that is literally derived from the female plural "ele". Iele are fae-like feminine spirits associated with the winds and the sky, often seducing and luring men away. What attracted my attention though, is the variation/subtype of vântoase (root word vânt = wind) or the associated vâlvă. In some accounts [1], this supernatural creature is a marked human who was born with the capacity for their spirit to leave their body at night and then go towards the sky, where they wrestle with other vâlve or balauri (which are a Romanian mythical equivalent of dragons, alongside zmei). Their fights are said to be what cause storms, and rains, and other catastrophe-related weather events. When put in contrast with Ellen, the similarities are obvious... especially when it comes to her affinity for nature and her spirit "wandering off". It also must be emphasized that these spirits are not inherently evil: they can do both good and bad, bring luck or misfortune, aligning with Ellen saying that "her spirit cannot be as evil as his [Orlok's]" and that all her life she has "simply heeded her own nature".

But the thing is... a marked human born with powers is also what a Solomonar is: children able to control the weather, ride balauri or zmei, control and turn into different animals-- who are then recruited by the Devil into the school of Șolomanță/Scholomance. Although despite this demonic current association, initially Solomonari were also more of a neutral figure in Romanian folklore. They are theorized, among other hypotheses, to be a later version of Geto-Dacian ktistai, who were selected from priests or kings (Orlok is a count, a prince or voivode) and might've worshipped Zamolxe, a Geto-Dacian God associated with the sky as well as immortality (Ancient Dacian is what Orlok speaks; Zamolxe is written within Orlok's heptagram sigil; on his coat of arms, sigil and coffin there's Dacian wolves as well as balauri-- a serpent-like creature with the head of a wolf which is on the Dacian flag). Some Solomonari were believed to be protecting villages from calamity, and influenced the weather in order to grow crops more easily. But of course, when Christianity spread in the region, things from Pagan times began to be associated with the Devil, hence why the Christian Orthodox Abbess we see in the Nosferatu movie calls Orlok a "black enchanter". More importantly for us though, the Solomonar was also said to leave their body at night in a trance, riding up into the sky to fight the weather spirits. Orlok's Shadow, that we hear so much about, is an integral part of a Solomonar's powers: the ability to project one's spirit away from their body. Them riding balauri is a metaphor for them taming winds, summoning vântoase.

So. Vâlvă, vântoasă, ială and Solomonar share quite a lot of characteristics, don't they? A source I found made the comparison directly, which is what set me on this path [1]. Humans born with powers-- one typically male, one female. But the male one is schooled and part of a cult or hierarchy, taking control of the nature element, while the vâlvă/vântoasă/ială is the nature element.

Yet the expected dynamic between summoner and summoned is so deliciously subverted with Ellen and Orlok! Orlok definitely recognized someone of his own nature in Ellen. Someone born with magic, essentially. Someone not of human kind. But Ellen's power is something Orlok's kind traditionally controls. A Solomonar tames and summons the winds (vântoasele)... and don't we see Orlok's spirit call to Ellen more than once? Orlok asserts his influence through the lilac-scented lock of hair, latching onto Ellen through it. He trespasses in Ellen's dreams, brings her spirit to him in the Castle when he feeds on Thomas, and we see her naked and on top of Thomas too, eerie and with blood spilling out of her mouth (very female-spirit-who-preys-upon-men coded, which is even more directly spelled out later in the scene where Ellen provokes Thomas into having sex with her). All along, we see Ellen overcome by seizures and trances, writhing under Orlok's Shadow. This is the power he has over her.

Hah. But Orlok is not just a Solomonar, Ellen is not just a spirit of the wind, and here's where I think another fascinating layer comes in. In the movie, ultimately, Orlok is a strigoi. The strigoi is a Romanian folk creature that can be vampiric, though that's not always what it does. It's a troubled spirit that rises from the grave to prey upon the living (especially their loved ones, to whom they return to first), by eating/killing their animals, poisoning their crops, drinking their blood and creating all manner of disaster. One can become a strigoi in many ways, including a life of sin, suicide, being cursed by a witch, etc. But importantly, there's also two types of strigoi-- the alive strigoi, and the dead strigoi [2]. The alive type is a sorcerer who in life already slips into these evil behaviors with intent, while the dead type rises from the grave and mindlessly feeds upon their loved ones and their village (the revenant we see killed by the Romani vampire hunter in the film). Orlok is a mix of things that make him unique, much like how Dracula was described as atypical multiple times in Bram Stoker's novel. He was a sorcerer and a Solomonar in life (an alive strigoi, something a source from the 19th century asserted-- that Solomonari were strigoi), who was then risen from the grave by a witch (becoming a dead strigoi). As a result, he has retained all his mental faculties and his magical powers.

But the enchantress who calls upon Orlok as a strigoi is partly an air elemental. She caused him to rise from the grave, and that is how she asserts her power over him. Yet she's of the air, of the wind, of the sea... all the things a Solomonar is a master of! So I think this is a contributing factor to the Covenant Orlok makes with Ellen. When they first meet there is not only recognition of someone similar to himself ("You... You..."), but also of a specific connection between what the two of them are. He immediately seeks a Covenant with Ellen, and then when she breaks it, comes after her in person. When they first talk and Ellen rejects him, he says "You will submit."

As Eggers pointed out too, there is a huge need for possession on Orlok's side. It's left ambiguous if he wants to own her or destroy her or if he loves her... To me, this added aspect illuminates a big part of why Orlok also resents Ellen ("You are my affliction"). It isn't just that a woman has him in her thrall, a man and a Lord who wielded great power in life-- but also that she is air, a vântoasă, the element of his dominion. It's so delicious how there's a bidirectional supernatural element between them... Orlok may feel he is owed possession of Ellen, with the deeper layer of the male sorcerer taming the unknowable chaotic female elemental. But Orlok is a strigoi risen from the grave by Ellen as an enchantress, hence she is owed possession of him as her summoned Creature. So there's two tethers between them, each connected to a different aspect of their natures; Orlok is holding one end, Ellen is holding the other. (To be honest, my headcanon is that when we see Ellen levitate, that's not Orlok, it's her air-related power. She levitates upwards in the very first scene of the film right as Orlok says she isn't human, as if it's a manifestation of that. When Orlok feeds on Thomas and she is there in spirit, we see them levitate; except it's Ellen we see fall down to the ground, while Orlok and Thomas are shown to have always been on the ground. And in every scene with Orlok in person, it could be that she gets on her tiptoes progressively to get closer and closer to his face; but it also looks as if she's floating upwards.)

This ended up a way too long honest-to-God essay, but I just adore all the complexities of this movie. You can tell how much Eggers researched, how many details and references he wove into the story, all meant to connect but kept ambigous enough that multiple theories are possible. While the association between Solomonar and strigoi and vampire was something Stoker did too, that Murnau did too, none of them thought to take it as far as creating a connection to Ellen steeped also in folklore. The vampire has a supernatural hold over his bride, but now so does she. The Enchantress summons the undead Strigoi, the Solomonar summons the Vântoasă. How much more fated can you get?

I'm supplying two more in-depth sources I used below as downloadable pdfs, but fair warning, they're in Romanian:

[1] Mituri pluviale românești în context universal, Silvia Ciubotaru

[2] Șapte Eseuri Despre Strigoi, Marineasa, 1998

[the-crooked-library]

Nosferatu (2024) is unquestionably a multifaceted work, but what I personally consider to be the unifying idea behind its facets is that, for Ellen, Orlok represents validation.

Her fears are dismissed and called childish?.. He's a nightmarish manifestation of them.

She is consistently disrespected by everyone around her?.. He considers her his only equal. She never uses his title, it's permitted.

She is told to fix herself, misunderstood, and always isolated?.. He knows all the darkest parts of her and is delighted by them. He wants her just as she is, so much that he will lie, kill, and cross the ocean to find her.

The scene in their death/wedding bed is a direct parallel to the scene of her waking in that bed at the beginning of the film. She complains to Thomas that the "honeymoon is yet too short" and tries to pull him down with a kiss - however, he is worried about being late for work, and so he extricates himself and leaves. Cut forward to her sharing the same bed with Orlok, similarly early in the morning; he is startled by cock-crow and begins to rise, but she guides his head back down - and, even though he knows that he will die, he stays. He is her sexual and emotional desire, realized.

Given that there is a plethora of emotions Ellen is forced to suppress on daily basis, there is no singular correct interpretation of her relationship with Orlok. To erase any one of them is to render it shallower than it actually is; but there is no doubt as to why their attachment is mutual. To each, the other is something they’ve never had before.

[thecarnivorousmuffinmeta]

But how would Bella and Edward react to watching Nosferatu?

They'd both be very into the aesthetic of it, the cinematography and set design, the 19th century German setting in general, and the story.

Bella, I think, would be taken a little too out of the movie by comparing the vampires she knows to the walking plague that is Orlok. She gets it's a metaphor, she does, and she gets that they know nothing about vampires but because of all of that she really can't project herself into the character the way she does Romeo and Juliet or even... Cathy and Heathcliff for some reason.

While Bella's more than down for having affairs with the creatures of darkness that man fears--Edward also isn't something she fears or wants to fear and her life isn't like this.

So, in the end, while she'd appreciate the artistry of it, I think she wouldn't think much about it again and it'd be shelved for her as "unrelatable vampire media", which to be fair is most media for Bella.

Bella's also not really a movie person, she always gravitates towards books when she can, and when she does do movies it's either when she's at her lowest (New Moon) or she had to for class.

Edward would think it's great, especially the part where vampires are inherently evil creatures of destruction and plague who hunger for purity they were never meant to touch. And also that part where Orlok dies because he makes love to a beautiful maiden and we see his dead body in the sunlight at the end.

Edward would really relate to this movie and feel that it says everything he would ever want to be about vampires and how Ellen is just like Bella, for real, and how if all was right with the world that would be how Edward dies.

[murfpersonalblog]

IWTV Musings - LDPDL & Nosferatu 2024 (Pt3: I Was Seen)

"Now look, with your Vampire Eyes."

--Lestat de Lioncourt, Interview with the Vampire (1994)

[ladykatibeth]

Another thing I like to think about: Imagine stumbling across these three married vampires and one of them is like “I am so powerful a sorcerer that I literally beat death itself and can pass it down to my kin” and the other is like “I’m such a powerful sorceress I enthralled a demon and I can walk the line between worlds effortlessly, and see premonitions” and you ask the third what his deal is and he’s like “Um….I used to be a real estate lawyer. I was decent at it. That’s something, I think.”

[tempural]

Just Gorly Thingz #46: Denial part 1.

Yumejoshi meta in which I have no horse in 🐎

Just thought it's funny when people try to defend the morals of fake cartoon villains, because the fake cartoon villains you like reflect on your personal morals of course, because conspicuous consumption is the only way to display morality in our Joker Society that intentionally tries to distract from real world issues by shifting energy and emotion to fake stuff 😜🤪😵🥴

ANYWAYS changing color schemes of my comic after 46 pages... Very smart and well organized I am. 🤔 I'll just leave the other pages in the warm color scheme and randomly start doing everything afterwards all purple. Wanted to post these panels first to see how the new colors look... i'll finish inking the next parts sometime whenever I feel like it. yap yap yap

[ceccolia]

⚠️Warning⚠️ spoilers for Nosferatu (2024) and The Queen of the Damned by Anne Rice

Underdeveloped meta/thinking out loud:

There’s something so interesting to me in holding up The Devil’s Minion chapter and Nosferatu (2024) side-by-side. Both portray a kind of attraction to death, where a very young and naive person actively seeks it out, as represented by a vampire. And as our protagonists wrestle with “l'appel du vide”, they deal with madness and visions, repressed desire and sexual deviancy, and their own desire to live against the pull of the vampire. If you believe The Devil’s Minion chapter is an allegory for HIV/AIDS, then death comes as an epidemic in both. And in the end, both succumb to it as well.

One of the main differences is, of course, that Armand and Orlok are very difference kinds of vampires. Armand appears young and beautiful. He hides the reality of what he is. He obsesses over the modern age, walks among mortals, attends shows, and runs the Night Island. He does his killing in darkness and hides the body disposal from Daniel.

Orlok makes no such pretense. He is old and rotting. He still wears the decomposing clothes of his era. His death doesn’t wait in silence, it is putrid and obvious. Ellen knows what she is confronting.

And of course, how they die is very different as well. Ellen chooses to die at the hands of Orlok, with no resurrection in sight. Daniel drinks himself to near death, which forces Armand to turn him.

I’m still chewing on how these differences, especially the endings, affect my interpretations, but damn is it fascinating to compare and contrast.

[a-darling-thing]

The most frustrating thing about this Nosferatu 2024 fandom battle royale over themes and how to interpret the work, is that all the sides are at least partially right, and if they would just big brain their reads together, they would finally get at what the film was really about.

[hollowingearth]

hey a lot of projection going on there, friend, why did you think any sense of moral superiority was ever even implied in my post? quite the contrary, im criticizing that very attitude, where whenever such romantic depictions (with big monstruous man x tiny dainty girl) get their turn in the sun in pop culture there's this collective effort from said fans to gaslight everyone that actually its revolutionary and everyone who hates it and point out the abuse/inequality usually baked in such media are just too vanilla™/dumb too understand. you dont need to be transgressive in every aspect of your life and i'm certainly no arbiter for good taste or what you should enjoy in your spare time, however, it is disingenuous to not call a spade a spade.

my take on Nosferatu and a lot of the discussions on those same sort of ships that get popular around these parts is that so many people want to be cool girls™ so bad but the truth of the matter is that liking amplified heterosexual dynamics does not make you any different than the Colleen Hoover girlies, except they at least aren't pretending to be transgressive

[distort-opia]

Have we talked about how bonkers it is to get married to someone else while wearing the symbol of your fucked up bond with the undead dark wizard corpse you rose from the dead? It's probably been discussed already, but I need to exorcise all my thoughts on Nosferatu (2024)... so yeah, I just find it such a deliciously insidious choice. When Ellen wears her wedding dress at the end of the movie, welcoming Orlok, she has dried lilacs in her hair from her prior wedding to Thomas, as the shooting script itself confirms. And Ellen had to know that marrying Thomas would break her Covenant with Orlok, right? She swore to be with Orlok ever-eternally, and then swore the same thing to Thomas at a chapel. Later, she tells Thomas, "He took me as his lover then, and now he has come back. He has discovered our marriage and has come back!" She must've had some inkling of what would happen, if she broke her Vow. So then what must've gone through her mind, to put those specific flowers in her hair as she was giving herself to another?

I got so long with this one, hence the cut. In fair warning, this interpretation is very Ellen x Orlok oriented, so if that's not your preferred view on the movie, you might not enjoy reading the rest.

It's almost mocking, her flaunting of lilacs as she marries Thomas. It's almost a "come back and get me". It's almost as if she knew she was preparing this dress for a different kind of wedding ("I have brought this evil upon us"). It's keeping in tone with that dark, eerie scene of Ellen clipping her hair and putting it in the locket, to give to Thomas... but as we know, the locket ends up with Orlok instead. And he uses that lilac-perfumed lock of hair to re-establish his hold on Ellen! It's as if she sent him a means of communication with her, because prior to Orlok obtaining the locket, we don't see him speaking to Ellen. The Covenant between them was broken by her, and Orlok needed to use earthly means of influence via Herr Knock in order to get to her and her husband. Of course, she has premonitions (her nightmare of marrying Death, steeped in the scent of lilacs once more) but it's not a dream induced by Orlok; it's part of her own psychic powers. And so, by putting a lock of hair inside the locket, knowing where Thomas was going... she gives Orlok a way to talk to her. Because we constantly see him use the locket as an anchor of some kind, as he spreads his influence towards Ellen. And then, all the while afterwards in her trances, Ellen moans "He is coming to me, he is coming..." Gleeful, orgasmic.

Am I saying Ellen intentionally and in full awareness did these things, so that Orlok would come to her? No, not entirely. I don't think it's something so planned and so conscious. She is as terrified and hateful towards Orlok as she is attracted to him, and that's the thing. It's a compulsion, a yearning. All along, through the entire movie, Ellen yearns. It's all over the shooting script; she pines and wants and hungers, in relation to Thomas, and to Anna, and to Orlok himself. And it isn't something spiritual. It's a yearning for touch.

"I frightened him [my father]. My touch..." Ellen says to Von Franz, when he consults for her. She feels the need to highlight that, as if her father recoiling from her touch was the hardest part she had to bear, the thing that made her the most lonely-- desperate enough to call out for any kind of companionship and tenderness. At the beginning of the film, before Thomas leaves, we see how much skinship Ellen seeks with her husband; she asks him to stay and make love to her when he was late for his meeting with Knock, they kiss each other ravenously after the Hardings depart to put the children to sleep. And both times, the script describes Ellen as "hungry". Even when Thomas leaves and gives her a small goodbye kiss, the text says "It's not enough for Ellen." Later in the movie, after Thomas is returned and dreams horribly due to Orlok's influence, Ellen is cuddling with him, but he pushes her away, asking her to "get off". She feels rejected enough that she seeks out someone else's physical touch-- Anna's, with whom we see her in bed next, and once again, the script uses "yearning" more than once to describe Ellen's behavior.

The theme of repressed sexuality and how in Victorian times, a female want for sex was demonized, has been discussed again and again in relation to Nosferatu (2024). Orlok is, indeed, a dark mirror to Ellen's desires: he is monstrous because she sees her own wants as monstrous. He destroys and brings disease, because Ellen sees that part of herself as destructive and unclean. But I do think there's a fascinating element to Ellen's nature that is not part of Orlok's symbolism, but rather extends to him as a character... her ravenous appetite for love. Her father deprived her of it, but the Shadow that came to her when she called was just that-- a shadow. A presence. It was not a person that could hold her, a person she might touch. Orlok, a spirit only, was not enough. He himself says it, while he's on the ship set for Wisburg. "Soon I will be no more a shadow to you." And this line was cut from the movie, but in the 2023 script, he also says, "Your spirit was never enough."

It was the script that made me think of this whole thing, really. Mostly because of how it describes their first meeting:

"...for the first time, she faces him in THE FLESH." It's emphasized. It's important, that Orlok is not a shadow here. That he is there, that Ellen can feel him and smell the blood on his breath. But the most damning thing she accuses him of? "You cannot love." As if that's the most important part for her, as if saying "That's what I need from you, and you can't give it to me". And Orlok admits that he cannot love her the way Thomas does, but that he hungers for her nonetheless.

I don't know, I just find this a much more compelling interpretation than a simple "Ellen is Orlok's victim and he is her abuser". Yes, Orlok is an appetite, but so is Ellen. Ellen is an active participant. She is the one to summon Orlok, the one to dictate his actions via his sheer want of her, the one to lure him to her so she could indulge her desire. Except, as it is a staple of dark and gothic romances, Ellen cannot directly act upon what she wants. Not like Orlok can. That's the point-- her desires are repressed, she believes them to be shameful, and so she needs an excuse to let them out. That's what characters like Orlok, who threaten and coerce, provide. A way to give in that preserves the heroine's "purity"; she sacrificed herself to save Thomas and Wisburg! She said she abhored him, she wanted Orlok dead! But then, why wear lilacs at her wedding? Why give Thomas the locket with the lilac-scented strand of hair? Why call Orlok her lover? Why wear a wedding dress and then cradle him in her arms as they died together, once again needing to touch him?

And I will say, it's great how this conflict, this self-hatred regarding her own feelings, is contrasted also in Orlok. "Till you did wake me, enchantress..." "You are my affliction." It's almost scornful, accusatory. You get the feeling he resents how much influence Ellen has on him, but he cannot help himself in the slightest. He denies that it's love, he says he cannot love-- but we have to keep in mind what he says prior. "Love is inferior to you." He considers love a weakness, something that he (as something inhuman, and something he believes Ellen is as well) is above of. But love is Ellen's craving, while life is Orlok's. Orlok is equated to Death. An all-consuming appetite, and they end up infecting each other with it, and then hating themselves for it. Ellen is oppressed by the society around her; her father had nearly institutionalized her, she had to marry Thomas to escape him. She is seen as strange and ill, as having "childish fancies", even by her own husband. She is tied to a bed and quieted down with drugs in the house of a man who's pretty much a representative of benevolent patriarchy. And so, does she not hate them all for doing this to her? Orlok bringing death and destruction on the society and people who stifled her is no coincidence, obviously.

But then again, Orlok ends up with a yearning for a person. Desire for someone's soul and body, not just their life-blood, which is ultimately something human... and he can't deny her, not even when he knows he would die. In that first scene in which Ellen calls upon him, he says "You are not for the living. You are not of human kind." It's the unspoken "You are for me. You are like me," that dooms him to an inescapable obsession, his own version of Ellen's yearning.

Ultimately, the human is a little bit monstrous, and dies for it. And the monster is a little bit human, and dies for it too. I, for one, am fucking obsessed with it.

[the-crooked-library]

Nuance, Narratives, and Nosferatu

As of today, Robert Eggers' Nosferatu (2024) has only been in theatres for 4 full days; and, coincidentally, that is about as long as I am able to let my thoughts marinate before they demand to be communicated. Before going into any further detail, let it be known that this film was made by freaks for freaks; it exists for the goths, the gays, the monsterfuckers, the historians, and for all those who delight in moral and thematic complexity.

With that being said - spoilers under the cut!

There are two principal narratives running through the flesh of Nosferatu, both of them rooted heavily in the cultural and literary origins of the story. It is a nightmare; it is also an erotic fantasy. It is horrifying, and it is also achingly romantic. From what I've seen so far, the vast majority of discourse that has already emerged around the film is caused by people misunderstanding or deliberately ignoring the relationship between these different lines of analysis; so please trust me when I say, from the bottom of my heart, that this duality is the very lifeblood of the movie.

The reason for that is, quite simply, that Nosferatu is a gothic horror film, set in 1830s German Confederation; and its plot relies on the same (sometimes contradictory) complexities often displayed in Victorian gothic fiction.

From the beginning of the movie, we are given to understand that Ellen Hutter met Count Orlok - the eponymous nosferatu - psychically, when she was very young. They spoke, she pledged herself to him, and was horrified to realize what she had done when he revealed his true visage to her in their first visual (and sexual) encounter.

Here, under the lilacs, the paths diverge.

The first reading of the film is perhaps the more straightforward. A young girl is essentially catfished and groomed by a much older, dangerous man. When they meet for the first time, she is a teenager; the lilacs that bloom where it happens become a trigger. He is the source of her madness and "melancholy" (depression), she has nightmares about him regularly enough that her husband is aware of them, and it is implied that she has been institutionalized in the past. Thomas Hutter is the physical representation of her one desperate hope for a normal life - but as the story progresses, she finds herself being denied even that. Orlok's psychic connection with her verges on demonic possession; in chilling, The Exorcist-inspired sequences, she writhes and mutters, prophesying a city-wide reign of death and terror. In pursuit of his claim on Ellen, Orlok terrorizes her husband, murders her friends - and, eventually, she gives her life to take him with her to the grave, saving the city from the plague he caused.

That is the horror element of Nosferatu; it deals with an exploration of childhood trauma, of PTSD, of difficulties maintaining a social life after the fact. It is easy to understand even from a modern viewpoint, and it pushes the film to its conclusion with a bleak, heart-wrenching punch.

The horror is not the only element of Nosferatu.

To contextualize the alternate - though just as correct - reading of the film, it is essential to understand that Ellen’s society was extremely sexually repressed, especially in regards to female and queer sexuality.

Both were severely medicalized, demonized, and restricted; and as such, when these topics do make an appearance in contemporary fiction, they are often inextricable from disgust and fear.

Dedicated as always to historical accuracy, Eggers maintains the same setting-based narrative coding.

In anticipation of morality arguments vis à vis monstrosity, depiction, and modern purity culture, let me clarify: this is something that works within his chosen genre. Horror, and especially gothic horror, invites a deeper analysis in regard to morality and motivation, and in this case, Eggers' homage to the origins of that genre grounds the narrative in its time and location, as well as fleshing it out much further than a purely modern cultural lens would permit. In this context, the details of Ellen's connection with Orlok become paramount to the understanding of the film.

As bits and pieces of their background become revealed, the audience realizes that her psychic gift did not begin with him - and neither did her melancholy, or her isolation. She was born with her abilities, and throughout her childhood, she was a bit of a tomboy by her contemporary standards, running wild in the woods near her father's property; however, once she foretold her mother's death, and once she was too old to get away with eccentricities, her father became frightened of her abnormality. She was isolated, confined indoors, and that is when her melancholy had begun. Painfully lonely and aching for some form of companionship, she called out into the ether; and Orlok responded.

Over the course of their story, he becomes the physical manifestation of everything Ellen perceives as dark and sinful about herself.

He is psychic, he is vicious, possessive, and blatantly sexual; her sensual affection with Anna parallels the evident and physical attraction he displays towards Thomas; and the social power he so easily commands is the same that she lacks, being a woman in a rigidly patriarchal society.

In the end, the severely questionable age gap, the murders, the coercion, the betrayal - all of that comes down to respect. Throughout the film, that is the one thing that Ellen is consistently denied. She is young when she meets Orlok, yes; but she is aggressively infantilized by her surrounding society even when she is a grown, adult, married woman.

It starts from the beginning of the film, when the Hutters visit the Harding family. During those scenes, the men are shown talking business - while the women play with children in the parlour; and the same social framing persists into the body of the film. When Ellen is suffering from what appears to be some form of mental illness, she is referred to as a child by multiple different characters; and when the condition progresses, she is swiftly diagnosed with hysteria and drugged - thus being forcibly removed from the discussion of her own illness. The general reactions to that illness - which is, in fact, a display of her psychic abilities - range from annoyance to fear to curiosity; it is seen either as a disability or a curse, rather than anything entirely innate to who she is. Her fears are dismissed. Harding tells her to learn some deference. Even closer to the finale, when Von Franz admits that she could have been a great priestess in another age, he does so with pity rather than anything else; in their industrial era, he cannot help but see her only as a tragic sacrifice - horrible, but necessary to save the city from a plague. Brought in to heal her, he instead guides her to her death.

All these aspects of Ellen's circumstances find a direct opposite in her relationship with Orlok. Unlike all other characters in the film, he only ever sees her as his equal, which is made even more evident when his interactions with Thomas and Herr Knock are brought into consideration. With both men, Orlok insists on being addressed by his lordly title, "as his blood demands it"; and yet, Ellen never calls him by any title at all, be it "My Lord" or even a simple "Herr." She argues with him freely, and there is a familiarity between them that he is demonstrated to never tolerate from anyone else. Similarly, while he disguises the covenant he makes with Thomas, the terms of his covenant with Ellen are laid out clearly, in full. He does not hide from her; she already knows the worst of him, the same way he knows that she is intelligent, that she is powerful, and that she is not meant to be demure and deferring. Again and again, Orlok insists that Ellen is not meant for humanity - and the true horror, the horror she cannot bring herself to face, is that he is right.

In a sense, he is a mirror held up in front of her own face. Ellen is painfully aware that she does not fit in, and that she never has. The "normal" society, epitomized by the Hardings (wealthy husband, pretty blonde wife, 2.5 kids), has no place for her - and actively dislikes her.

The film makes this ostracism impossible for the viewer to ignore. As the story progresses, it becomes evident that the other human characters - even those that do sincerely care for Ellen - never truly know her. Anna loves her, but wishes she would not talk of dreadful things - and lashes out as a result of that discomfort, scolding her. Sievers finds himself bewildered by her; Knock sees her as an object to trade; Von Franz pities her, Harding hates her, and Thomas cannot truly satisfy her, even after being touched by the supernatural himself.

Seeing a flash of a monstrous face while they are together, he flings her away. To him, his experience with Orlok is merely traumatic, and he wishes for nothing more than to leave it behind. However, to her, it is something she cannot help but crave; and she continues to wear her lilac perfume.*

All that to say - Count Orlok is, simultaneously, everything Ellen wants and everything she is terrified of being.

That specific dichotomy reaches its climax during their mutual finale. As it is to be expected from a vampire wedding night, they rejoin in a sequence of sex, blood, and renewed vows - and what is particularly notable is that (unlike Murnau) Eggers makes it clear that this Orlok never intended to kill his Ellen, despite his inability to resist her blood. Though he drinks from her through the night, he stops at cock-crow; and she guides his head back down herself, distracting him long enough for the sun to rise. It is a duet of accident and intention. He drains her; and she holds him as the sun drains him. They cling together as they end - on a bed that serves their wedding and their death.

It is romantic. it is unquestionably romantic. However, that does not mean that the horror isn't also present; Ellen's consent, under these circumstances, is highly debatable, and Orlok is cruel, amoral, and murderously possessive. At the same time, the characters are also acting out folkloric archetypes, with precious little adjustment to that framework - which further removes them from a modern understanding of morality. He is Death, a Koschei the Deathless, a monster; she is the Maiden, a Vasilisa, a damsel. I hesitate to liken them to the Beauty and the Beast, largely because in the original premise of that story, the Beauty falls in love with the kindness that the Beast consistently displays; and it is essential to stress that Orlok has none. He does care for Ellen, in his own way, but he admits to being incapable of love as she defines it in human terms;** and, curiously, that seems to be her primary concern when it comes to the idea of accepting his proposal - rather than all the blood and carnage.

What I'm trying to say, I suppose, is that there are multiple ways of following a story, and multiple different stories in a film as nuanced as Nosferatu. Yes, it is about grooming and trauma. Yes, it is about finding love outside of the cage that is "polite society." I'm sure that it is many other things besides, with as many meanings as there are people in the theatres; after all, I am only one person, and the film grossed something over $40M in its first three days. The point is, really, that this is a story in which a rotting vampire is woken from centuries of deathlike slumber by a lonely voice asking him to be her friend; and whatever these two strange and aching souls do with that can go down any myriad of paths. The film trusts the viewer to interpret the narrative they choose.

* LILAC PERFUME - in fact, it is such a consistent favourite of Ellen's that Orlok smells it on her hair in the locket she sends with Thomas to the castle. Thomas never really learns the reason she likes that scent - even though he knows that preference well enough that he gifts her lilacs in the beginning of the film.

** ORLOK'S OBSESSION - this is a side note, but: the vampire wedding sequence reminds me strongly of the third season of NBC's Hannibal. I suppose that was to be expected, considering that Hannibal is also a Dracula offshoot, much like Orlok himself. When Ellen snaps at Orlok that he cannot love, he responds that "no; but only with you, I can be truly sated." Similarly - "Is Hannibal in love with me?" asks Will; and Bedelia responds - "Could he feel a daily stab of hunger for you, and find nourishment at the very sight of you?" I'd say if you liked that series, you should try and see the film. It works with a familiar blend of aesthetic horror.

[murfpersonalblog]

IWTV Musings - LDPDL & Nosferatu 2024 (Pt6a: Loustat & Thorlock)

"He rushed me headlong through the encounter as if it were something to put behind us. Death, rebirth, coming out, homicide--too many firsts for one night."

-- LDPDL: Interview with the Vampire (2022 - )

[angstandhappiness]

Interesting

In a lot of stories (especially older ones that Nosferatu 2024 draws from) the leading woman is the passive recipient of the story, things happen to her, rather than as a result of her actions. The leading man, in contrast, is the active force—his decisions push the narrative forward.

The leading woman is also often the source of driving motivation to continue (maybe to keep her safe, or maybe because she’s his emotional center) for the man, but not a partner.

Part of what compels me in Nosferatu is the flip of this dynamic gender wise. Ellen’s decision to call out to any entity in her loneliness is what ultimately sets the plot into motion. Her decision to marry Thomas is what drives the count to lure Thomas to his castle and then reap havoc in Germany. Not giving into Orlok’s demands leads to death, and her decision to sacrifice herself is what saves everyone. She has more power of force in the narrative than any other character.

Even her failing at her goal is active. She puts her all into convincing Thomas to stay. After not hearing from him for a while she has to stop herself from storming into the solicitors office to demand information. When she chooses not to act it’s not a given, it’s explicitly a choice. She could act.

Thomas fairly gets called pathetic and useless (with affection), because he’s the passive character the story happens to. There is a choice that Thomas makes which impacts the story which is leaving for Orlok’s castle, but even that’s somewhat coerced because his employment might be on the line if he refused. Still that wasn’t the only way Orlok could have gotten him there (a more direct kidnapping by Knock for instance).

Other than that, the impact of Thomas’s decisions are all tied up in Ellen’s previous action. Him marrying her only creates the plot’s conflict because she summoned a vampire. Also he goes in with zero knowledge of this risk, unlike Ellen. Thomas goes into Orlok’s castle completely unaware of any of the context Ellen would have for why he’s being psychologically tormented. He fails to kill the monster and ends up in more peril.

He escapes and returns but is so completely wiped out he can’t really do much for a few days after. Him being alive isn’t a detriment to Orlok’s plan or something Orlok’s plan hinges on. I don’t even think the contract actually did anything except give Orlok manipulation fuel.

He’s essentially a chip that Orlok uses against Ellen in the third act. Whatever choices he makes don’t make a difference, and the narrative mostly acts upon him, rather than his action creating the narrative. He’s a passive (though not undynamic) character.

He is Ellen’s motivation though. Ellen loves him so she marries him despite the risk. Ellen sacrifices herself to keep him safe. He is her emotional center, the person who helped keep the darkness at bay, he’s her emotional support while she fights against the antagonist, and he’s the comforting presence as she passes on. She’s the protagonist, and ultimately the hero.

[excusethequality]

My 2024 in Film: October, p.1

Every October I do my annual 31 Days of Spooky Movies challenge wherein I attempt to watch a spooky movie every day of October and I can't count anything I've counted in a previous October.

It started many years ago as my attempt to spread the fun of Halloween into the rest of the month. And has become a fun way to force myself into broadening my Horror horizons.

Unfortunately for me I watched a lot of them this month and so listing them all is going to take some time. So I suppose I had better get started.

* = rewatched

207.

You Are Not My Mother

(2021)

— Horror Directed by: Kate Dolan

A strange incident forces an Irish teenager to question whether her mother's increasingly erratic behaviors are the result of mental illness or something far darker.

On one hand it feels great to start the challenge off with a banger.

On the other hand it can be tough when you begin a challenge with the bar set extremely high.

I loved this movie. The performances, the mood, the themes, the way they build the horror; all of it was phenomenal.

Reminds me a lot of one of my favorite films Pyewacket (2017). With that one I've noticed that there's a big difference between how people thought about that one based on what their childhood was like. And I suspect there might be a similar reaction to this one.

As someone who definitely can relate to being a kid and being routinely terrified of what a parent might do and never knowing which version of them you might be seeing, this film hits me on a really primal level.

I really hope Kate Dolan goes on to make more movies because she's got a ton of talent.

208.

She Came From the Woods

(2022)

— Horror Comedy Directed by: Erik Bloomquist

It's 1987 and a group of summer camp counselors accidentally-on-purpose revive the killer nurse from the camp's ghost stories.

I started off the month on the high note then immediately came crashing back down to earth.

I watched this entirely because I saw William Sadler was in it and was curious what he was up to, but I was quickly made to regret that decision.

The writing is just truly, truly painful. Nothing really makes any sense. The villain is terrible. And there's this character named Dylan who just makes you want to throw your TV out the window.

209.

Scooby-Doo

(2002)

— Spooky Comedy Mystery Directed by: Raja Gosnell

The Mystery Inc. crew reunites after a long break up to solve a mystery at a spooky-themed island resort.

I watched the Scooby-Doo cartoons back in the day, so I was never inclined to watch this thing. But I know a ton of people with a lot of nostalgia for it.

It's also funny to me that I've met a lot of people who were introduced to Matthew Lillard from this movie. This has always been funny to me, because when this had come out I was already a fan of his because of his performances in SLC Punk (1998) and Hackers (1995) [and possibly Scream (1996), but I can't remember if I had seen that one yet at this point].

My friend and I decided this year we'd finally get around to seeing what the fuss was about.

The casting for this movie is pretty phenomenal, but I just couldn't get into it. It is both trying to stick to the format of the old cartoon while also doing a modern interpretation while also doing a meta twist on the cartoon? And I just feel like it would have been better to either fully commit to the old formula or fully commit to doing something entirely different.

210.

Nosferatu the Vampyre

(1979)

— Horror Drama Directed by: Werner Herzog

Warner Herzog's 1979 remix of F.W. Murnau's 1922 remix of Bram Stoker's 1897 novel Dracula.

Admittedly this was an odd follow-up to watch right after Scooby-Doo.

I don't really have a lot of thoughts on this one. And yet weirdly enough it ranked really high on my list of all the things I watched this month.

It's one of those movies that doesn't exactly vibe with me. There's no real characters that I was particularly interested in. The plot is basically just a stripped down version of Dracula.

And yet Herzog is bringing such a depth of artistry to it that I can't help but respect it.

Not the sort of thing you'll want to watch if you want a thrilling bit of Horror, but certainly a very well made film.

211.

Last Night at Terrace Lanes

(2024)

— Horror Thriller Directed by: Jamie Nash

On a bowling alley's final night before closing for good the people at the alley find themselves under attack by a strange cult out for blood.

This was also on the same day as Scooby-Doo and Nosteratu the Vampyre so clearly my friend and I are all about that that shuffle life.

After watching this I was pretty disappointed. It is not very good. Really a very messy story. They are trying to do somewhere in the ballpark of 4 different things in this:

Comedy

Family Drama

Romance

Horror

I'm of the mindset that anytime you add a genre to your story you are upping the challenge rating considerably, which is typically why good movies have either picked a lane or are just that talented.

Take Edgar Wright's movie Shaun of the Dead for instance. At certain times it hits all the same genre beats that this one was after. But it picked a lane. It is a comedy first and foremost. Whenever it hits one of the other beats it is for some flavor and either move the story forward and provide character development.

Here they are trying to do everything all at once. And they just don't have the talent to back that up.

However, it still was FAR from the bottom of my ranked list for the month (which probably says a lot about the quality of films I watched) and that's because its sin—in my mind—was one of being over-ambitious more so than one of being wholly untalented.

While the plot is a total mess, and the pacing is a mess, and they set themselves up as an ensemble and then killed almost everyone immediately, and they didn't have a decent budget; it is still leagues beyond some of the shit shows I've seen.

Which just goes to show that I am the wrong person to ask about bad movies, because the depths of film that I have encountered are far beyond where the casual movie watcher dares to tread.

The parts about the cult are terrible though. I've gotta admit that. They are so dumb and boring. But I kind of liked the main actress. And the queer romance bits and even the father-daughter stuff? Could've been better, but not too shabby for the minor leagues this film is running in.

...actually I kind of thoroughly hated every character other than the dad and the two main girls...

And yet I still put this movie at #22 out of the 56 movies I watched this month soo...

It was a bit of a rough month, y'all.

212.

Black Friday

(2021)

— Horror Comedy Directed by: Casey Tebo

Things are about to go from bad to worse for the over-worked retail workers trying to make it through a Black Friday at a toy store when a strange sickness starts to turn their customers into even more blood-thirsty monsters than they already were.

I watched this entirely because Bruce Campbell was in it.

It was a mistake.

Just a really dumb movie. It clearly cared more about its practical effects then it did its script. Because the effects were pretty decent, but the story and the characters are just awful.

Bruce Campbell is truly the only thing decent in the entire movie. And he's not in it enough to pull it back from the brink.

213.

Dance of the Dead

(2008)

— Comedy Horror Directed by: Gregg Bishop

On a dark and dangerous prom night it's up to a group of teenage outcasts to save their town from a zombie outbreak.

Filing this under films that didn't do any research and have a very limited knowledge of how anything works.

Nuclear reactors, public schools, pizza places, and more. They understand none of it. So when you do know more than nothing on those subjects a lot of the movie gets really distracting because nothing about this world is normal.

The plot is just this contrived incel wetdream about nerds winning the girls and never having to recognize that maybe the reason they were outcasts was because they weren't good people.

214.*

Night of the Comet

(1984)

— Horror Comedy Directed by: Thom Eberhardt

Two sisters are forced to confront the end of the world when a strange event seemingly kills or mutates everybody in the world but them.

I had already watched this in a previous October so it didn't count as part of the challenge, but I love it nevertheless. My friend and former coworker at the movie theater had talked about showing this after close one night for the longest time and we finally got around to doing it.

I tried to sum up my thoughts on this movie, but anytime I start I just wind up nearly starting an essay, so suffice it to say that I love it. It's just such a unique and wonderful film.

Much like how Reg and Sam are dismissed and underestimated by the people they come across, I think it's easy for people to do the same to this film. I can see how people can walk away from it thinking it was nothing more than a silly little movie. But part of why I keep coming back to it is that there's actually so much going on in here when you stop and look.

You've got really great characters with a lot of depth, you've got a story of 3 survivors in a post-apocalyptic world and not a one of them is a white man, you've got accurate sibling dynamics, you've got the romantic bittersweetness of these sisters who have the world laid out in front of them but what they want most of all is just to be loved, and more!

It's just such a gem of a film and I never get sick of it.

215.

In Fabric

(2018)

— Moody Horror Directed by: Peter Strickland

A strange cursed dress brings nothing but misery to the lives it touches.

Oh, A24. I've long said of the studio that I tend to either love their films or hate them, and there's very rarely any grey area. So, I certainly appreciate that they're a studio that isn't afraid to take big swings, but it does mean I'm making a sort of all-or-nothing gamble when I try something of theirs.

It certainly does have more artistry than most of the other movies I really didn't like this month. But I also just thoroughly don't care about any part of it. It all just seemed to be arty and weird for no other reason than to be arty and weird.

I could see someone grasping onto some themes I was missing and being able to decipher it and really like it. But by the end of it for me I was just bored out of my mind and just waiting for it to be over.

216.

Tremors: Shrieker Island

(2020)

— Monster Attack Horror Sequel Directed by: Don Michael Paul

Does it really matter? You know you aren't about to watch the 7th Tremors movie if you haven't watched any of the others. And if you've seen the other 6 you know you don't really need a reason to want to be a completionist.

I thought I had seen watched all the Tremor movies earlier in the year and I was wrong! I had missed the most recent one.

And to my complete and utter shock, it is actually one of the better Tremors sequels? How did that happen?

I should point out that the original is a perfect film and not a single one of the sequels is anywhere even close to being in its league. So I'm not by any means saying this movie is great.

But damn. The sequels range from some that are enjoyable in the way that it's fun to watch silly bad movies with your friends. And others are almost completely unwatchable direct-to-dvd cash grabs.

217.

Suck

(2009)

— Rock n Roll Horror Comedy Directed by: Rob Stefaniuk

A rock band must confront some tough questions when one of their members is turned into a vampire, but greatly increases the band's popularity by doing so.

I went into this one fully ready for it to be an absolute trainwreck.

But you know what? I actually kind of enjoyed it.

It's not one I'd necessarily recommend anyone run out and go see. But if you come across it streaming somewhere and you're bored? You could do a whole lot worse.

218.

Cat People

(1982)

— a fucking disgrace Directed by: Paul Schrader

I am a HUGE fan of the 1942 film Cat People. That movie is a brilliant piece of queer horror and a personal favorite of mine.

As such I've avoided watching this one, because I had heard that it is a pretty wild departure from the original.

But since I had already watched a ton of shlock this month, I figured now was the time to watch it, because it's not like I had far to fall.

I went in with a really low-bar of expectations for this and somehow it still managed to be even worse than I expected.

One of my biggest annoyances with the original is how many people see it, not as a queer story, but as a story of sexual repression. And this director is definitely one of those people.

This movie is so straight it hurts. It is so allosexual it hurts.

The people making this were just a truly uncomfortable level of horned up when they made this movie.

I truly despise it. I hate it for existing. And I hate it for attaching itself like a dirty parasite to something I love.

What a truly terrible piece of cinema.

219.

Dave Made a Maze

(2017)

— Comedy Horror Adventure Directed by: Bill Watterson

A man's friends go on a mission to rescue him after he gets lost inside a cardboard labyrinth he made in his apartment.

[I should mention that the director of this movie is a different Bill Watterson than the one that created Calvin & Hobbes. I just need to clarify that for anyone that is like me and saw that name and got really excited.]

It's certainly a low-budget independent kind of movie, but I can't help but love the sheer creativity that went into it. It's like a really bizarre take on House of Leaves.

The production design of all the cardboard sets are my favorite part.

I don't even know what to say. In terms of acting and plot it isn't going to blow your mind. But I think the worst thing a movie can be is forgettable and this is certainly one that I won't be forgetting anytime soon.

220.

Lisa Frankenstein

(2024)

— Rom-Com Horror Directed by: Zelda Williams

A teenage outsider has a crush on her idea of a boy who died in the 19th century. But when he winds up being raised from the dead the two will have to decide just what lengths they are willing to go to for love.

I really wanted to love this one. Diablo Cody wrote the script and Kathryn Newton is always fun. And at times I do love it! Ugh. It comes so close to being something great. It's just perpetually on the line. It's just missing...I don't know...a real cohesive hook?

Sometimes it feels like things are just happening to happen. If the story and character arcs were a little more developed and drove the plot more it would have made a huge difference.

I still had a lot of fun with it and will definitely be watching it again at some point. But there's just something so annoying about a film that comes so close to greatness!

221.

The Mummy

(2017)

— Fantasy Action Monster Adventure Directed by: Alex Kurtzman

I honestly can't even remember the exact nature of this bizarre plot and I refuse to bother looking it up. It's something like, an ancient evil enchantress from Egypt is inadvertently released from her prison and wants to use Tom Cruise's body as a vessel to bring a god of death to life.

There is an action scene that they shot in a zero G plane for real. And that was admittedly pretty cool. Everything else in this movie is just absolute madness.

Yet another movie of the modern age wherein any attention to plot and characters has been sacrificed on the alter of big names, special effects, and stunts.

222.

And Now the Screaming Starts!

(1973)

— Horror Directed by: Roy Ward Baker

It's 1795 and a newly married woman is horrified to learn that her new husband's family suffers from a dark curse and now a ghost fueled by ancient resentments is determined to get its revenge at her expense.

While not one to write home about it's not terrible. Very firmly in the middle of the road. After that last movie it was refreshing to watch something from that older style where the story came first and it actually makes sense. Good or not you don't have to spend the movie going, "What the fuck is even happening!?" And that's something I appreciate about it.

223.

Haunted Mansion

(2023)

— Spooky Family Comedy Directed by: Justin Simien

A group of people have been cursed after stepping foot in a haunted mansion. Now in order to be freed from the ghosts that live there they will have to figure out a way to defeat the evil specter at the center of it all.

TRASH. FILM.

So fucking dull. And there's a truly weird amount of product placement.

Just like The Mummy (2017) this is yet another modern movie that only cares about famous actors and special effects. The plot or any sort of character development felt like a complete after thought.

Truly a terrible watch. I was so utterly and completely bored. It's not even fun bad, it's just dulldulldull bad.

224.

Island of Lost Souls

(1932)

— Sci-Fi Horror Directed by: Erle C. Kenton

A shipwrecked man winds up stuck on the island of a mad scientist who is determined to learn where the line between man and beast truly resides.

I've seen a lot of versions of H.G. Wells' novel, but strangely never this one.

You know what? Solid. I think it holds up.

Is it my favorite bit of 30s horror? Not even close. But it's solid. It's got interesting characters, some great tension, a memorable premise, makes the viewer ponder some intriguing moral questions, has decent production, and comes in at a tight 70 minutes.

Watching it after the shitshow that was Haunted Mansion (2023) was like a breath of fresh air.

225.

The Swarm

(1978)

— Animal Attack Horror Directed by: Irwin Allen

A swarm of killer bees threatens to destroy the United States of America and only bee expert Michael Caine can stop them.

Definitely a movie to watch with a friend. I am convinced a great drinking game could be made out of this movie, because it's definitely not good.

Take a drink every time there's a snapple fact disguised as dialogue.

Take a drink every time someone sees a bee hallucination.

Take a drink every time you'd wish they'd get back to the bees.

Finish your drink every time Michael Caine eats sunflower seeds as if he was feeding a cat a pill and he's the cat.

I definitely rated it quite low though. It's like 2 hours long and has some truly bizarre pacing. There's just so much filler and so many scenes that feel like a public service announcement to teach people about the dangers of killer bees.

226.

The Hunt

(2020)

— Action Horror Directed by: Craig Zobel

A group of people wake up in the middle of nowhere and learn that they are being hunted for sport by a group of unhinged one percenters.

What a truly odd movie.

I'm really not sure who this movie was aimed it. It has that South Park energy of "Caring about things is stupid so we'll just sit back and make fun of everyone for caring."

HOWEVER, I'm a sucker for a survivor turning the tables on those who would do them ill through sheer brains and willpower. And Betty Gilpin is amazing in this movie.

She single-handedly straps this movie to her back and drags it up the mountain. So I had a good time watching it, but only because of her. Any scene that she's not in was wasted time.

227.

The Night Has Eyes

(1942)

— Mystery Thriller Directed by: Leslie Arliss

A woman searching for her lost friend on the moors takes shelter with a strange man who lives out there. She starts to fall in love with him but fears that he is hiding a dark secret.

I had a real problem this October with movies I had to reject from counting towards the challenge because I found them to not meet my qualifications for being a Spooky movie.

Personally I consider this to be a Mystery Thriller and not a proper Spooky movie, but that's just me.

I dunno. I've definitely seen movies of this type before and it probably suffers in my mind from the comparison.

I'll still put any solid older movie up against your average modern blockbuster any day though.

228.

The New Mutants

(2020)

— Superhero Coming-of-Age Horror Directed by: Josh Boone

A group of mutant teens are held at a psych ward to help them control their abilities. But something dark has begun to haunt the halls here and threatens to kill them all one by one.

This movie has suffered so much. It went through a true production hell and it shows.

The whole situation sucks so much because I've read the New Mutants' comic arc that this is based on so I was really excited when I heard this was being made. I've been waiting forever for someone to make a true Horror movie out of a superhero story!

The movie is really awkward. You can see the Frankenstein patchworking of its production all over it. Everything is awkwardly stitched together into an unnatural creation.

And if that wasn't bad enough almost all the actors are doing bad accents for absolutely NO reason

And yet I can't completely write it off because I can see beyond the surface to see how this could have worked. There are moments where you can see what this movie originally wanted to be and in those moments it's actually really interesting!

I would definitely file this under movies that I like more than they deserve and so I wouldn't recommend anyone else watch it, but I'm definitely going to be rewatching it at some point because it intrigues me.

229.

Thirst

(1979)

— Horror Thriller Directed by: Rod Hardy

A woman is kidnapped by a vampiric secret society who are determined to force her to join their ranks by one way or another.

Yo, the 70s were a weird ass time.

I can't say I particularly liked this movie, but I also can't say I don't respect it.

This thing is out here absolutely swinging for the fences. It is extremely artistic, weird, and memorable.

I can't say I'm dying to see it again anytime soon, but definitely glad I watched it.

230.

Renfield

(2023)

— Action Horror Comedy Directed by: Chris McKay

Dracula's manservant Renfield begins to question if there isn't more to life than luring unsuspecting victims to be eaten by his master.

You know what? Respect where respect is due: I liked this far more than I thought I would. It's a pretty solid character-centric action comedy.

I definitely wished they hadn't gone to the Mortal Kombat school of blood effects though, because it is weirdly distracting how much blood they think the human body can hold.

I don't really have any solid opinions about this. It's fine. I would definitely watch it again, but I wouldn't ever pay to watch it again. So take from that what you will.

——————

——————

Previous months’ posts:

JAN | FEB | MAR p.1 | MAR p.2 | APR | MAY | JUN | JUL | AUG | SEP

[ceccolia]

my beloved mutual @mi-kitamura keeps sending me devastating Armand meta and headcanons so it’s up to me to restore order to the universe. here are five Armand headcanons that are happ(ier)y in nature:

⚠️Warning⚠️ I’m not good at headcanons this just came from a place of deep need that we have some balance in the ecosystem. Have my half-baked ideas.

He goes all out for date night. This one is barely a headcanon. But I think showmand in particular has really demonstrated a love for the cheesy romantic shit. He’s lighting candles and scattering rose petals on a white table cloth. He’s drawing a bath with carefully selected oils and herbs. He’s taking Louis to a fairground with a detailed itinerary. He will get irrationally mad at a carnival game that’s obviously rigged because he has to win that stupid stuffed bear for Louis to prove his worth

It makes me happy to think maybe he has a little secret sketchbook. This is not based in anything really except his history as an artist except now he just doodles for fun. Magnolias are a reoccurring theme.

While I’m on the topic of hobbies I’ve been screaming this from the rooftop for months but HOROLOGIST ARMAND. He was DEFINITELY part of the clock craze in the 90s. He would love taking them apart to see how they work. I just know he’s got a workshop in that penthouse somewhere.

He’s weirdly defensive over Nosferatu (2024) because it commits so deeply to its aesthetic and we know that a cohesive aesthetic in art is important to him. He’s definitely not still mad about Santiago backseat directing and suggesting to get rid of the projections. It has nothing to do with that at all.

I think he convinced Malik to “accept” that he “wanted” to die by bullying him so hard about the sunglasses. Which he then immediately stole 😭

[distort-opia]

I keep pondering the nature of the Covenant in Nosferatu (2024), and here I think Eggers made a great choice in his use of Knock's character. His role is usually pretty simple-- he jumpstarts the chain of events by sending Thomas to Count Orlok's castle. And yet, in the original story of Dracula, there was no Covenant or Pact to speak of between them. Neither was there one in Nosferatu (1922). However, the very first thing we see in Eggers' version of the story is Ellen and Orlok forming a Vow: she swears to be his, ever-eternally. Then years later, this Covenant is broken; Orlok has to actively pursue Ellen in order to have her re-pledge it, as she is not within his sphere of influence anymore (not until the locket with her hair in it falls in his grasp). But what exactly broke their Vow? What does this Vow entail, and how does it work?

I think the most revealing are Knock's scenes, in this regard. Knock boasts while in the lunatic asylum, "‘Twas He that invoked me! ’Twas I that was chosen to serve Him, for I know what He covets." Which means that Orlok was the one to call upon Knock, simply because he was convenient. Knock's firm had contracted Thomas for business for approximately two years, and so it had power over where he went next. Orlok demanded that Knock deliver him Thomas, which Knock manages to do successfully... while he remained in Wisburg, "near the object of thy Contract."

Originally I thought that Knock meant Orlok's Contract with Ellen, but it's more logical that Knock is talking about his own Contract with Orlok, and that Ellen is the condition that it hinges upon. And if ultimately Knock delivered Ellen to Orlok... the Count would give him what, exactly? After Von Franz and Sievers rifle through Knock's papers, we find out the terms: "His thunder roars from clouds of carcasses, I feedeth on my shroud, and death avails me not. For I am his."

So it's immortality, obviously, like in all previous iterations of the story. Orlok made a Covenant with Knock, that he would turn him into a vampire like himself. But what's fascinating is the particularity of it-- immortality, but only if Knock belongs to Orlok. Later in Grunewald Manor after Orlok's arrival to Wisburg and Knock's escape, Knock is so eager to serve. He insists that he bring Ellen, "thy pretty possession", to Orlok.

But Orlok shocks him by betraying him. "The compact commands she must willingly re-pledge her Vow. She cannot be stolen." And that's when Knock realizes that Orlok never intended to make him his. That he had always wanted Ellen... though to be fair, it can't come as that much of a surprise, as Knock showed jealousy towards Ellen before. It's even likely that Knock left the means of destroying Nosferatu within his own possessions for the vampire hunters to find on purpose, as insurance. But at that moment he still says, desperately, "Yet my Lord, I beg thee." It's to no avail. Orlok strikes him and tells him to "crave nothing more of him", uncaring of his pleas. Later Knock is the one to die in Orlok's place-- a decoy within the Count's coffin, eager to be killed, heartbroken. Before he dies, he tells Von Franz, "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." In doing so, he alerts Thomas to Orlok's real intentions, which arguably is one last shot at Orlok for his betrayal.

It's quite sad, in the end. It's also fascinating, because this means Orlok can bestow immortality... but the very foundation of the Covenant is made up by emotional belonging. It seems as if vampires can only make one other vampire, in Eggers' world-- mutually agreed upon and exclusive, like marriage vows. And if Orlok broke his Covenant with Knock by choosing Ellen, it means that Ellen broke her original Covenant with Orlok by choosing Thomas, and marrying him. A different type of Covenant, also steeped in belonging. Ultimately, Orlok had to trick Thomas into "signing Ellen away for a sack of gold", because she was bound to him, as per her own choice. And so, if Ellen hadn't kept Orlok with her after the third rooster crow, Orlok would have made her a vampire too.

It's just my personal interpretation, but I love this idea... vampires only being able to make one other. Being forced to respect the terms of a supernatural deal that works like marriage vows, which can be easily broken by infidelity-- you've got eternity and you can only find someone else to spend it with if that person wants it too. You cannot make another vampire if they are unwilling, which is why the others bitten by Orlok simply die, and don't turn. It must be something desired.