Ok, here's the silent version of that Nosferatu film I wanted to watch when I got the 1979 version that wasn't so good. Now I've seen it, and I guess I've got another one under my belt. Though I understand why people revere this film as a historical icon (first major horror film; though others came before it), when judged on its own merits, it really misses here and there.
The pacing here was better than the newer version, but it still was quite slow is several areas. Some attribute this to being a silent film, but I don't think so. Neither Metropolis nor Intolerance had this issue of super-slowness (ok, I never finished Intolerance, but I watched some of it, and it didn't have pacing problems), so it isn't the silent aspect of the movie that does this, nor is it the film's age (Intolerance is 6 years older). Pacing is a universal medium within storytelling, and this goes back to the stage which is centuries older. And don't throw the suspense card at me either -- this wasn't suspenseful, it was slow.
Ok, anyway. As a Dracula adaptation, loose is a term that fits rather aptly, but really fails to begin to capture or describe how un-adapted the film is from its source. It uses some elements but has enough of its own that the movie is not Dracula by any means at all. It has a Transylvanian vampire in it; that's about it.
Plotwise, it's really strange. We still have the realtor going to Transylvania to sell a house to a count, but it makes the dramatic mistake of shifting the role of the lead from Hutter to his wife right before the end of the film so that she is the one who makes the dramatic decision to save the world as opposed to Hutter himself, who started out as the lead. Renfield's counterpart, Knock, has more of a role here, but still serves as mostly a throwaway character.
Of course, we have the silent-movie-running-chase-scene. It wouldn't be a silent movie without it. Sorry, I had to laugh at this, because nearly every silent film I've ever seen has this scene where someone is chased through the streets by a large mob of people wanting to kill (or apprehend) them. It's like an obligatory addition. Anyway...
From a freakish point of view, they did do a good job with Count Orlock (aka Dracula). His features were very pointed and he looked creepy. I wouldn't want to run into him in a bright alley, much less a darkened one, so he was really the high point of the film, and the aspect that is not only the most memorable, but served to elevate this film to the status it has. His image is the one that stays with you; everyone else is forgetful.
From a character point of view, they did a fair job keeping everyone straight. I knew who everyone was throughout, and though I did have the same problem with the Van Helsing character (Professor Bulwer here) being completely ineffective and "throwawayable", that's more of an adaptation complaint than anything else. He popped in at the end and we really had no idea who he was.
It's a piece of cinematic history which makes it kind of worth viewing to see what all the fuss is about, but as a standalone piece, there are several films of that time period that are far superior.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment