#nosferatu text post

[borgialucrezia]

[aarontaylorjohnsonappreciation]

Beautiful character interpretation 👏

Spoilers: Eggers' Nosferatu

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

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

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

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

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

[bump-inthe-night]

People accept gore and violence in horror media but draw the line at sex and everything related to it. They perceive sex as a “special” type of “immoral” that deserves condemnation.

Horror disturbs you and makes you uncomfortable through different means, including sexually. Creators explore sexual horror through incest, rape, pedophilia, and other dark topics to show how horrific and traumatizing these acts are. However, creators can include sex and sexual acts just for the sake of eroticism, which doesn’t make it “unnecessary” or render a piece of media “worthless.” If violence and gore don’t take away from a media’s value, then neither should sex.

If you believe portraying sex and sexual topics in media is “evil,” then you need to look into why that is instead of making your discomfort everyone’s problem.

EDIT: Nice Addition from the Notes-

[softstrawberrycreamcake]

Yeah….I loved this movie.

[inganikki]

Seeing Nicholas Hoult in any movie is like. I am not immune to a tall man with big big big eyes. I want him whimpering shaking crying scared pale drained of blood. Put that man in a situation and let me watch.

[puddicure]

Imagine the most learned doctor you know of came to you and said “listen bro. You need to allow your wife to fuck the Nosferatu. It’s the only way we’re gonna cure this plague”

[nessa007]

i have now seen two viral tweets about how you see nosferatu’s dick in the new movie

[nedlittle]

rip ellen hutter you would have loved weighted blankets and vibrators

[melomancy]

frankenstein has finished filming, there’s a new nosferatu trailer, the creature from the black lagoon remake has a writer, wolf man film next year…monster movies are BACK

[cosmicluci]

Another thing I really like about Nosferatu is Orlok’s high-and-mighty attitude. A large part of the film has to do with power structures. How Thomas is distant and even sometimes dismissive of Helen’s feelings because he’s the supposedly rational man. Frederick is even worse. The doctor just gives her ineffective cruel medicine.

And then along comes Orlok. Is he different? Nope! On the contrary. He’s the epitome of uncaring. The epitome of cruel. He can’t love, he’s just a hunger, he brings plague, and threatens to hurt Ellen and everyone she cares about to manipulate her to be with him.

But the thing I like is how it appears right from the start. In most Dracula media, when Jonathan arrives at the castle, the count apologizes to him for the emptiness of the castle, saying it’s because the servants are asleep. He asks him to not leave because he is sick and the journey is perilous. He offers him drink because he seems tired or unwell.

Orlok doesn’t do that. He reprimands Thomas for being so late that the servants are asleep. He commands him not to leave, justifying it simply with his authority. He offers him drink, and then commands him to drink. He even demands Thomas refer to him as Lord, because of his title.

Beyond that, when explaining why he wants to leave for Germany, he justifies it as being because he’s looking to live among better people, less superstitious, throws around some racism against the Romani. And while it’s clear that he’s going because in Germany people don’t know about vampires, don’t know what to do, or how to kill them, he frames it specifically as his superiority to the peoplee who do know. Almost a sort of “how dare they know or act on how to kill me and my kind? I am superior to them, they have no right”.

And in the end, just as the Romani, who Orlok and Thomas see as ridiculous or superstitious, the ones who know how to kill him aren’t the men in prominent places, or the doctor. It’s the outcast and the woman. And of them, only the woman is even capable of doing it. No wonder he wants to control her. And by the end, she makes him think he has, makes him think she wants him, and he believes it, because she’s connected to him, she belongs to him. Except she doesn’t. He underestimates her and she kills him.

In the end, his pomposity, his self-importance, his high-and-mighty attitude, are his destruction. And in a way it parallels Thomas. Thomas thinks he can save her, but she saves herself and everyone while pretending to let him do it. And Orlok thinks he can claim her, and she kills him while pretending to let him do it.

[am-i-making-you-feel-sick]

they better fucking resurrect david bowie for that labyrinth sequel

[borgialucrezia]

— nosferatu (2024) written and directed by robert eggers

[aarontaylorjohnsonappreciation]

Beautiful character analysis 👏

Anna and Friedrich in Nosferatu (2024)

In a previous post I mentioned how important I think Friedrich is in the story as a representation of the patriarchal ideal, and how it/he crumbles when confronted by everything that has been suppressed in Ellen (manifested in the unavoidable, terrifying form of Orlok). I also think he is a mirror to Orlok in some ways: he says twice how he just cannot resist Anna, he subtly frames his desire for her as an unwilling "affliction." He also defiles Anna's body and his sacred marriage vows by engaging in necrophilia, because his appetite for her is so consuming - he can't resist her even when she's not even there anymore. Ellen's necrophilic act with Orlok represents her unification with the parts of herself that are suppressed/rejected by the men in her life, good and bad. It's dark and fucked up but metaphorically transformative, and consent is absolutely central. Friedrich's necrophilic act involves no consent, no Anna, and it lacks any metaphorical power. He didn't accomplish anything, he just succumbed to his own horror and amplified it.

Friedrich's unhealthy approach to his relationship with Anna consumes them both, and I think this theme is especially evident in the way Anna's pregnancy is discussed. Friedrich tells Thomas that they are expecting but doesn't want it mentioned in front of Anna or Ellen, probably because it wasn't supposed to be public yet. In victorian times people would rarely confirm a pregnancy before the woman was "showing" both because it was considered a private matter and because miscarriage was way more common. But Friedrich tells Thomas early anyways, because he is excited and proud, which is understandable but also selfish in this context. Furthermore, Anna says that "little Friedrich" is "very hungry, just like his father" and later on after Orlok has fed on her, she passes it off as feeling drained by the baby. Even though she seems happy and loves her family, she associates pregnancy with being drained.

This alienated way of understanding parenthood is also evident in the way Friedrich and Anna treat their girls (Louise and Clara I think?) They obviously both adore the girls, but they ignore their terror and assume the monster they see in their room is totally unrelated to all the other scary shit going on, because they're just silly little kids imagining things, right? One girl literally says "I can hear him breathing under my neck!" and they beg Anna not to leave them alone at night, but they are just hushed and told that they're totally safe. It's exactly the kind of dismissal Ellen has been getting her whole life, and so it's not surprising that the girls are haunted by Orlok before anyone else. It's not enough to adore little girls, they will never be safe until they are heard and believed.

Anna as a character apart from her role as wife and mother is a bit harder to parse out, but I think she is also a mirror for Ellen. Ellen's spiritual power is the catalyst for everything that happens, and von Franz says that "in heathen times you might have been a Priestess of Isis." Anna's spiritual inclination is less obvious, but it's there: she seriously listens to Ellen and believes that she is perceiving something real, she just assumes it must be God. Later when she lets Ellen stay with her for the night, she says "God is with us Lenny, I know it." On some level Anna is also in touch with that supernatural, suppressed feminine truth, and she seems to see through the patriarchal facade that Friedrich represents to some degree. But ultimately Anna wants to convince herself and Ellen that the night terrors were just caused by Thomas' absence, and that Ellen just needed her husband back and all would be well. When Thomas does return and Ellen has her faculties again, Anna is very eager to put it all behind them; 'no more talk of demons please, let's just focus on Christmas and being a happy family'. Anna's downfall is that she puts all her faith in the Christian patriarchal narrative even when she can clearly see that there's more going on. Her faith in the Christian God contrasts Ellen's "heathen" spirituality - both women have an innate spiritual sense, but one is more willing to make it fit into the values of their society. Ultimately Anna was consumed by the horror of their alienated position in society just like Ellen was, she just died with less agency.

[bump-inthe-night]

Prudes started the discourse surrounding Nosferatu, believing that being a monster fucker and liking dark fiction should be a “crime.” They believe disliking the movie makes them better than the people who enjoyed it.

I genuinely hate how people believe their discomfort is "evidence" that a piece of media is "immoral" and those who like it are "criminals." Instead of just accepting something isn't for them, they make it into a morality contest, where they shame and harass people for loving what they don't.

[softstrawberrycreamcake]

[cannibalmukbang]

researching Victorian and early 20th century fashion for Kingmaker reasons has made me aware of something in the movie Nosferatu (1922) that I now consider one of the funniest things about Nosferatu (1922) and that is the fact that they chose to style Ruth Landshoff Like That.

See I had, between viewings, kind of forgotten that, unlike Dracula, which is set contemporaneously in current year Eighteen Ninety Whatever, Nosferatu is specifically meant to be set in 1838. And everyone else in the movie is like, as period accurate as you were probably going to get in a movie from 1922 that was aiming to be deliberately surreal and non-representational. The men have their cravats and tail coats and tight pants and Ellen has bell sleeves and a floor-length hoop skirt. Orlock's jacket is kind of atemporal but he's a vampire, that works for him. But then you have Ellen's friend Ruth.

Because I know many of you are not freaks in the way that I am I will break down the look. We have a flared bob. We have an ankle-length a-line day dress with a v-neck collar. We have paired this dress with a pair of pumps. So, in summary, very extremely EXTREMELY late 1910's-early 1920's. Why did they style her like that.

Like look at this group shot.

This is the 1920's version of ipad face, to me. To put it into perspective- 1838 was 83 years before they started shooting Nosferatu. 83 years ago from now times was 1941. literally can you imagine how funny it would be if this year they released a movie set in WW2 and there was one recurring cast member who is wearing a hoodie and yoga pants and it's never addressed.

And I'm not pointing this all out to be like 'cinemasins ding! immersion broken!' because I know Nosferatu is not meant to be a realistic-looking movie. It's German expressionism. It's supposed to be weird. I am pointing this out because like, this character has the same name as her actor, and she's not super plot-essential, and she looks extremely contemporary, so I think it's funny to imagine they put her in the movie last minute. like she's some rando who just showed up on set one day and they didn't have a costume for her but they let her be in the movie anyway.