Of Eggers’ works, I’ve only seen The Northman and this, Nosferatu.
I can confidently say that I like very much what these films are and where they are coming from. I’m almost guaranteed to see Eggers’ next film. And, without wanting to see Nosferatu again, I have a general longing to see a film like Nosferatu over the next few days just to dig into the vibe more (I should probably see his earlier films now).
All to say that this film basically delivers on what you’d hope, with probably some surprises and compelling parts.
But what compelled me to write this was that I walked away from Nosferatu with almost exactly the same feeling I had after The Northman … that I really wanted to see the better version of that film, that there was something missing, something perhaps slight and subtle but also essential for making the films truly great or to at least wash away an itch that there are annoying flaws.
I’m by no means qualified to describe what these things are or to work if they’re just me-problems, but I’m struck by having exactly the same feeling after both films and that Eggers is the sole writer of both films. Because what I think I struggle with probably comes down to writing choices.
Watching both films, I thought to myself that Eggers struggles to stitch the dramatic aspects of his films with their atmospheric parts, which in his hands are vital to his style. Sometimes I wondered if a scene really needed to be there or as long, or needed to interrupt the flow of what was cut from before, or couldn’t have better dialogue or more focused acting. It just feels like the moment he decides to have a straight dramatic sequence, with dialogue etc, he kind of doesn’t know what he’s doing nearly as much, let alone how to bind those components into a cohesive whole along with the more intense and supernatural components.
I’m curious now to watch The Lighthouse, which Eggers wrote along with his brother, to see if I can pick on a difference.
Thinking more broadly, as much as I liked an enjoyed Nosferatu, and will probably watch it again at some point, I do feel it is flawed. I could imagine a directors cut being interesting.
But generally, for me, it was downhill from about the middle onwards (basically after “Orlok’s Castle” sequence (which was brilliant I thought, and along with the film’s opening, easily the highlights I’d look forward to on rewatch).
Thinking about it along with “The Northman”, I wonder if Eggers struggled to adapt pre-existing stories. With Nosferatu, for me personally, it certainly took away from the strength of the film that I new the basic structure of the story ahead of time, which for a vibey horror film becomes a serious distraction at some point. And I don’t think Eggers really had too much to bring to the final act of the story TBH (apart from that shot/frame, I guess, which if you’ve seen the film you can probably guess). I certainly would find it interesting if the story told were only loosly inspired by Stoker’s and Murnau’s prior works.
Anyone else get where I’m coming from? Anyone with a better take on it than me?
As someone who has seen Murnau’s Nosferatu quite a few times, I appreciated Eggers’ ending. The original really kinda ends when Hutter returns home. You get a couple of comedic scenes with Knock causing a ruckus in town, but basically the plague is a backdrop and Ellen just stumbles into discovering Orlock’s defeat. Then it’s over.
Meanwhile, Eggers added a real sense of dread and drama to Wisborg’s plague. The physical + mental toll of the plague is reflected in a more interesting way.
I did get taken out of the moment briefly at the end:
spoiler
When the occultist/paracelsian tells Hutter “No man can outrun his fate” after they fail to kill Orlock in his mansion. The exact same line is from the original, where Hutter is hurrying down a street and encounters the paracelsian on his way to work.
Whenever I watch the original, this line seems out of place and kinda pointless. Then to encounter it again in Eggers’ version interrupted my immersion. Granted, I think the context of the line makes way more sense in Eggers’ version, but it just struck me as an obvious reference.
Interesting! I haven’t seen Murnau’s, but Herzog’s and Coppola’s (if that counts). Interestingly, I don’t remember much of Herzog’s at all apart from enjoying Kinski.
Which forces me to wonder if it isn’t that great a story, or at least not worth remaking. I’m not convinced that the whole “he’s coming” thing, after having literally been in his castle for a whole sequence, really works. I think in the three tellings of the story I’ve seen (including Eggers’), I’ve probably felt a let down from that structure.