Before I Die #641: Vampyr (1932)

This was the 641st film I've seen out of the 1,222 movies on the "Before You Die" list that I'm gradually working my way through. 

Director: Carl Theodor Dreyer

A bizarre, fever-dream-like vampire flick with some impressive cinematic artistry for its day.

Inspired by the mid-19th century collection of horror short stories "In a Glass Darkly" by Fanu, Dreyer decided to loosely adapt some of the elements of the tale. It follows Allan Gray, a drifter who follows stories about the occult wherever they lead him. He goes to a small town, where he is immediately drawn into the strange goings-on surrounding Leone, a young girl who has mysteriously grown ill. Gray is initially alerted by what seems to be a dream, and he follows its directions into a nearby barn, where he sees shadows acting independently of their corporeal bodies, and other inexplicable and eerie interactions. Gray eventually falls victim to a vampire, and he is very nearly buried semi-alive, but a servant learns of what is happening, kills the vampire responsible, and frees Gray and Leone of their curse.

No synopsis or summary can come close to conveying what it's like to watch this movie. Frankly, I found it difficult to follow, narratively. I'm not sure how much of this was due to the fact that some of the original footage is still missing from the film, and how it was by design. Either way, the result was a tale that does not follow a typical structure in which the connections between the action is one scene and the next are clear. My hunch is that it was not meant to be so challenging, but it did create an almost dream-like air about the movie.

Even more than the creepy mood evoked by the story itself, though, was how striking the cinematic elements were, in terms of visuals. The framing and sets really stood out, compared to other films that I've seen around that era. Only the German impressionist films and a few others seemed to have had such a sharp eye for framing and the use of light and shadow so effectively.

I plan to watch a few of the supplemental materials available with this movie (a benefit of having the Criterion Channel), which I'm hoping will shed some light on the more puzzling elements of this film. Despite some befuddling aspects, I enjoyed it and recommend it for those who enjoy films from the era. The director, Dreyer, would soon go onto make many noted films with overtly religious themes, and Vampyr was a curious way to really get himself on the map before those later works. 

Before I Die #546: Nosferatu: Phantom of the Night (1979)

This great poster from the original U.S. release in
1979 has a great caption at the top. It suggests many
of the singular themes of the movie.

Original German Title: Nosferatu: Fantom der Nacht

Director: Werner Herzog

Scary, but not in a traditional horror movie sense. It is, despite being a remake, a visionary movie, however you look at it.

In 1979, maverick German director Werner Herzog decided to make a modified version of the 1922 horror masterpiece Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror by F.W. Murnau, a director whom Herzog greatly admires. The resulting film, though certainly faithful in many basic ways, bears many of the very best hallmarks of Herzog's finest movies.

It's worth looking at the two primary background sources for Herzog's version.

The novel Dracula by Bram Stoker was a tremendous hit upon its publication in 1897. Even if you have never read the book, you may know the original tale from Francis Ford Coppola's commendable film adaptation in 1992. Centuries-old Count Dracula of Transylvania was an immortal vampire whose prolonged life was fueled by the regular consumption of human blood. The original story sees this diabolical character descend upon London, England, as he seeks to literally leech off of the populace.

In 1922, German director F.W. Murnau sought to do a silent film adaptation of this classic horror tale. However, since Murnau could not acquire the rights to the novel, he simply altered the name of the title character - Dracula becomes "Orlok" - and followed the basic story. However, his alterations were equally striking and genius. Stoker's novel often presents Count Dracula as a stylish, debonair creature which is able to shift his appearance and demeanor in order to seduce his prey. Murnau's Count Orlok is a ghastly creature whose mere appearance is enough to strike fear into both fellow characters and us viewers. His deathly pallor, long and sharp claws and teeth, and bald pate give him the appearance of the ghoulish vampire that he is.

It was this major change to the arch vampire's physical appearance which Herzog most obviously emulated from Murnau. However, Herzog did not stop there. Even more than Murnau, Herzog presents Orlok as a creature both terrifying and pitiable. The utter loneliness of immortality, as well as the isolation of being a uniquely despicable inhuman, are on full display in the 1979 version. The pall of death that follows Orlok wherever he goes can almost be taken as a supernatural extension of his depression and despair. When seen this way, the rash of plagues and deaths that follow Orlok to the big city carry a slightly different weight. It all makes for a film that is more engaging and challenging than a tale that relies on more primal suspense and terror.

When it comes to the finer detail in the movie, I feel that it can be a bit uneven. There are elements of pure genius, such as Jonathan Harker's initial journey to Orlok's castle. His lonely trek across the countryside builds an amazing sense of quiet, slowly mounting doom. Also, the scenes of plague and death in the capital city carry the same visual power as the strongest scenes in Herzog's brilliant Aguirre, The Wrath of God. And of course, Orlok's appearance is just as hideous as in the 1922 original. Herzog film mainstay and all-around wack-a-doo Klaus Kinski was the perfect casting choice.

Would you be as composed as Harker looks in this scene?
I sure wouldn't, with that thing pouring my wine.

However, not all elements hit the mark to me. The reactions of certain characters to Orlok were often oddly subdued. The most notable is Jonathan Harker. While Harker is a tad taken aback by Orlok's appearance, villainous posture, and predatory actions, he often seems relatively blase. The same goes for certain other characters, resulting in an inconsistent emotional tone at times. These are, however, smaller details amidst what is an exceptional horror film.

For those who haven't seen it, you should not expect anything resembling most modern, popular horror movies. There is less use of darkness, shadows, or horror movie cliches that accompany them. On the contrary, a surprising amount of the film features vibrantly colorful scenery, sets, and costumes, often filmed in broad daylight. This all makes for a creepy openness about the horrors in Nosferatu: Phantom of the Night, which makes it all the more unique and fascinating.

New(ish) Releases: Snowpiercer (2014) & Only Lovers Left Alive (2013)

Director: Bong, Joon-ho

Sometimes, we could all use a flashy, violent allegory for the world's social ills. Snowpiercer gives it to us.

With a narrative and technique that can border on acid-trippy at times, Snowpiercer provides a fast-moving and creative commentary on class divisions. Playing the part of "the world" is a massive train, known in fact as "The World Train," which is perpetually transporting the few hundred remaining humans around an Earth which has been plunged into an unlivable Ice Age by a botched attempt to cure global warming.

This, of course, is a pretty big jump to make, as far as suspension of disbelief is concerned. But the explanation is satisfying enough, if not exactly the best science you'll find in science fiction. Once you can accept that, then the film grows more interesting as the plot builds. The primary story follows Curtis, a man who is old enough to remember life before the train, and who is relegated to the back section of it - the section designated for the lowest rung of train society. In th"the foot," as it's called, the people are treated as little better than herd animals, where they are fed only gelatinous protein bars and forced to suffer regular abuse.

Curtis and a handful of others from the rear mount a revolt towards the front of the train, in an attempt to find better treatment, as well as some children who have been taken from the rear. As the revolutionaries grit out their struggle forwards, the successive trains become both more luxurious and more horrifying and bizarre.

This is one of the earliest obstacles that Curtis and his rebels
encounter on their revolution towards the front of the train.
Things only get wilder and more insane as they go.

These basic concepts make for a solid framework, but it's a framework that could easily have been mishandled and resulted in a far weaker film. Not so, thanks to director Joon-ho Bong and the other writers. While there are certainly some elements that are strange merely for strangeness' sake, most of the oddities or seeming non-sequiters do represent grander ideas. These make for some curious food for thought, and many of the outlandish questions that we viewers may ask ourselves are, in fact, answered by movie's end.

The cast is excellent, featuring U.S. and British A-listers such as John Hurt, Tilda Swinton, Ed Harris and even Chris Evans (far better known as Captain America). The non-English speaking actors are just as good, with an especially great turn by Kang-ho Song. There's a great balance between manic caricature and appropriate gravity, which seems tough for so stylish a picture.

Snowpiercer is nothing if not gutsy. It might not surprise astute viewers as much as it thinks it should, but any lack of surprise from attempted plot twists are made up for by the execution of the tale. It tries a lot of things, and though some of them fall a bit short of the mark, most of them fly true and are sure to entertain.

You won't see most movie vampires doing this.

Only Lovers Left Alive (2013)

Director: Jim Jarmusch

From the modern purveyor of cinematic cool, we get a very "Jarmusch" vampire movie. I even hesitate to use the director's name as an adjective, given that his style is not easy to pin down, except that his films are all very confident, more than a little off-beat, and always take an interesting approach to well-worn cinematic story conventions. Only Lovers Left Alive keeps this tradition well alive. With the undead.

You will most likely not enjoy this film if you are a fan of the following: Anne Rice vampire tales, The Twilight Saga, or any vampire stories that rely on the gothic romantic, bloodier, more carnal aspects of the mythical creatures of the night. Only Lovers assumes that you are aware of the basic mythology of vampires, and it narrows its focus to two of their kind - Eve and Adam, who may, as their names imply, be literally thousands of years old. The two are married, and yet they live thousands of miles apart, Eve in Morocco and Adam in Detroit. When Eve receives a call from her husband, she senses that he is going through one of his periodic and deep bout of melancholy over the human race, and she heads over the Atlantic (on red-eye flights, of course) to see him.

The interactions between Adam and Eve are hypnotic in many ways. Their supernatural powers are rarely displayed directly, and we are often left to marvel over their implied abilities. There are more than a few of the cliched references to famous historical people who the two have known over their millenia, but they are still amusing. What is most powerful is what they have seen and the perspectives that they have. Having observed human behavior for countless generations, the pair have alternating respect, anger, despair, and love for people. And one gets the sense that Jarmusch actually captured the attitudes of such creatures with incredible accuracy, and makes them endearing to boot. Adam is eminently musical, constantly composing and performing dark and alluring rock music to sooth himself. Eve consumes books at lightning speed, gaining an almost sexual satisfaction from drinking in the endless perspectives of humans. Undead they may be, but in most ways they do more living than people. And Tom Hiddleston and Tilda Swinton (yes, her again) play every subtlety perfectly.

The title pair can make you envious of their wisdom and love
for each other, but just as sad for the sorrow at the human
condition which they have witnessed for so long.

While much of the movie is far slower than your typical vampire movie, with Eve and Adam lounging around Adam's dilapidated and remote Detroit home, there are moments of horror and action. Much of the dynamic energy is provided when Eve's "sister" arrives from California, bringing her hedonistic impishness along to spoil Adam and Eve's serene contemplation. Blood is let, arguments are had, and there is some vampire-on-vampire verbal abuse. These moments keep things lively enough, but I found myself just as relieved as Adam when the nuisance of his sister-in-law was banished.

Most definitely not your typical vampire movie, but certainly a great addition to the historical canon of such films. I'm sure plenty of horror film aficionados will despise the measured pace and meditative tone of the movie, but those who are willing to meet the characters halfway are bound to be rewarded.