News
|
FILMSShadow of the Vampire (2000)It is neither necessary to know the history of film nor is it necessary to have seen the original Nosferatu, F.W. Murnau's 1922 retelling of Bram Stoker's Dracula, to understand and enjoy Shadow of the Vampire, but it definitely helps. Someone watching this film with only a vague notion may miss out on the details that, quite frankly, make this film wonderful. I'm positive that I don't know all of the history or behind-the-scenes knowledgebut the little I do know greatly augmented my enjoyment of this film. The real-life F.W. Murnau wanted to film Stoker's novel. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your view) the widow Stoker denied him the rights and license to use any of her husband's copyrighted materials. Murnau said, "Fine," and then proceeded to changed the name "Count Dracula" to "Count Orlock," "Mina Murray" and "Jonathan Harker" to "Ellen" and "Thomas Hutter," a few of the locations were moved (if memory is serving me correctly), and then he condensed much of the book, to make it ready for film. (I don't know the exact reason why the widow Stoker refused Murnau the rights to Dracula. I suppose if I wanted to do a real, informed review that I should probably look that up. But I'm not going to. We can just say that she didn't want to; or perhaps she considered the cinemaa medium still in its infancy in 1921 and 1922a vulgar thing unsuited for her husband's masterpiece. Or maybe she just didn't like Murnauby all accounts he was quite eccentric. Or maybe she denied him access because he was German. Or perhaps she was the first, and possibly only, person to stand up to Big Movie Dollars in order to protect the integrity of something that she felt belonged only in a book. Who knows?) The premise of this film could be considered a cross between a documentary, a period piece, and a real-life horror story. Apparently, during the filming of Nosferatu, Max Shreckthe actor who played Count Orlock in Nosferaturefused to be in front of the crew when he was out of make-up. A real method-actor, I guess. Shadow of the Vampire posits the theory: what if the guy that Murnau hired to portray Count Orlock was actually a vampire, and that Murnau just made up the name Max Shreck. I supposed, then, Murnau (in this film) would be entering cinema veritas countryfilm imitating life. And vice versa. The beauty of this film lay in it's subtlety, attention to detail, and performances. I almost described the performances as "powerful," but that's not quite accurate. There's no raging dramatic momentswell, there is one in which Murnau gets upset with Orlock because the vampire-actor insists on nibbling and munching on the cast and crew. But aside from that, much of this film relies on subtleties. Hence my earlier comment about the importance in seeing the original Nosferatu. It'll go a long way into appreciating Shadow of the Vampire. Malkovich as the slightly mad, yet obsessive Murnau nails his part. The rest of the actors playing the various cast and crew all do a good job of recreating the filming environments of 80 years ago. But the standing ovation and golden crown for Pure Acting Talent really goes to Willem Dafoe for his portrayal of Count Orlock/Max Shreck. We never see him out of make-upjust like the real Max Shreck on the set of Nosferatu. (Of course, for the reality of the movie, Orlock is not wearing make-up. That's really his facebut we don't know this for certain until later in the film.) Dafoe's stiff movements, animalistic snarls, and creepy fingernail clacking all look as good, if not better, than the original version. It's something that I understood only because I had something with which to compare it. My wife, on the other hand, who hasn't seen Nosferatu did not seem overly impressed. Sure, she liked the film, but I didn't get the feeling that she was as wowed as I was. If someone had told me that it was, in fact, Dafoe who was the vampireand that he'd been alive (or undead, your choice) during the filming of Nosferatu (using the name Shreck back then, of course) and that he'd lived through the ages and was now re-filling the role of Orlock some 80 years later ... I might be inclined to consider that a possibility. But no one's offered that as a suggestion, so I'm only left with one other choice. And that is: Dafoe is a damn fine actor. If by chance, however, I'm correctand Dafoe is actually a vampire ... well, should he find himself a bit peckish doing take after take on the set all nightI see no reason why he can't eat the cameraman or the script girl. That's fine by me. It's not like he'd be the only soulless man in Hollywood. |