Review of Nosferatu (1922) by Tash O — 18 Dec 2011

With tributes to the era of silent films like "The Artist" and "Hugo" currently in theaters and gaining favor with academy voters this awards-season, and vampires being all rage both on TV ("True Blood") and in film (the latest "Twilight" installment), now seemed like as good a time as any to revisit a bona fide classic of both genres; F.W. Murnau's 1922 masterpiece, "Nosferatu".

It is perhaps fitting that the film's full on-screen title is "Nosferatu, a Symphony of Horror". Silent films were, of course, not silent at all. They relied on music to tell their stories and convey changes in mood and tone. There was no dialog, and with the exception of a title card featuring a brief quote from one character or another here and there, the music is what told the story. The film is essentially a symphony with accompanying moving pictures.

And oh how those pictures move. For all the film's primitive limitations, Murnau captures some stunning images; some so influential they are still being mimicked today. And despite the fact that the film either used a lot of footage that looked washed-out even at the time, or certain scenes and prints have simply aged that way, there is no denying Murnau knew how to do more than simply prop up a camera. His work with shadows, close-ups, establishing shots, and widescreen (before such a term - or concept - existed) is a testament to a director far ahead of his time. The film is visually stunning and a pleasure to watch from a revisionist standpoint, but any other as well.

And then there is Max Shrek as the title character. Rumors still persist that Shrek so wholly immersed himself in the character that he teetered on becoming an actual vampire, terrorizing the cast and crew (see 2000's "Shadow of the Vampire"), while other tall tales assert that Shrek was credited the part but it was in reality another, better-known actor who played the part and the make-up was simply so good no one could tell. As far-fetched as this all may sound, it is always a testament to a truly great performance when it not only becomes the stuff of Hollywood legend, but cultural folklore. Shrek is magnificent here, creating a character as chilling and eerie as any that has followed in the nearly one hundred years since this film was released. And he does it all without any dialog, much less a machete, chainsaw or some booming soundtrack. His make-up is truly haunting. Not shockingly scary per se (though showing the film to a 3 year-old might not be wise), but grotesque in a reserved and detailed way that renders it all the more realistically effective.

Whatever "Nosferatu" may lack in production values or any steam it may have lost after years of increasingly explicit horror films, the movie is still a marvel of technique. It is so well crafted, shot, paced and performed that its very quality has rendered it timeless. While any film that is nearly a century old is bound to elicit a few chuckles, "Nosferatu" holds up remarkably well. This film could be remade tomorrow with today's technology and film stock, but with every scene in tact, shot the exact same way (and perhaps a few less stagey performances; but again, in the silent film era, they were essentially filming theatre) and it would not feel the least bit dated. In fact, it would probably be one of the best horror films in a long, long time. But, as Gus Van Sant proved with his shockingly wrong-headed, shot-for-shot remake of another horror classic, "Psycho", it would be pointless for anyone to try such a thing. Murnau captured lightning in a bottle with "Nosferatu". It is a true classic of its time, or any other.