Nosferatu, A Symphony of Terror (1922) (Movie Review)

  When it comes to famous horror related characters, it’s a safe bet that Count Dracula remains one of the most influential of all, and debatably the one who got the ball rolling. Naturally, the 1931 classic “Dracula” was the first sound horror film … but for todays topic, I’m going back even further to the oldest surviving Dracula movie ever made … the 1922 silent Horror movie classic “Nosferatu, A Symphony of Terror” ... or "Symphony of Horror", depending on the print. 

It was a German production directed by F. W. Murnau, and the titles original pronunciation was “Nosferatu, Eine Symphonie Des Grauens”. While this wasn’t the very first horror movie ever made, it’s debatably the moment when horror officially became a genera, with an established classic for all others to draw inspiration from. F. W. Murnau was enticed by twilight tales of vampires, and felt Bram Stokers classic novel “Dracula” would be a perfect base point to tell his own haunting tale. While I personally wouldn’t write this movie off as “scary”, it is still suitably “haunting”, with a distinct atmosphere and visual look that’s well worth admiring after one-hundred-years.

  Our story begins with a German realtor named Thomas Hutter, who’s overseeing the transition of properties with one Count Orloc. Upon visiting his castle in Transylvania, the Count takes an amidite liking to a picture of Hutters wife Ellen, and from that moment, the two share a mysterious psychic link. Soon after, Hutter is imprisoned, discovering that his host is in fact a horrific creature of the night, and has become infatuated with his wife Ellen. Orloc stows away on a ship for Germany, and brings with him a plague to infest the town. As the bodies pile-up, Ellen gradually discovers that a horrible creature of shadows is spreading it’s evil across the land, and that only she can put an end to this rein of terror … even if it comes at the cost of her life.   

  The film famously went into production without the rights to Bram Stokers novel, and thus, while the narrative is faithful, new details were added to the story, and many of the character names were changed around. Count Dracula was now Count Orloc, his human servant Renfield was now called Knock, and the female characters of Lucy and Mina from the book were combined together to create the character of Ellen for the film. 

Even with F.W. Murnau’s efforts to put distance between his film and the source material, Bram Stokers widow still sued against the picture, and tried to have every copy burned. It’s honestly kind of a miracle the film is still with us today … although, like many early silent films, there’s several different versions of it. Many have changed the character names to their proper book counterparts, with title cards referring to the Count as Dracula, as opposed to Orloc. The original presentation of the film switched between two different color tints of blue or yellow, which characterize weather a scene was set during the day or night. Most copies now days are presented in Black and White, which makes it look like our vampire is walking around during the day in some shots … as the scenes were filmed during the day, while narratively it’s supposed to be night time.   

  While the story is generally faithful to Bram Stokers novel, it still created its own original content, which have sense become staples in horror cinema, as well as vampire lore. The most striking alteration of all is the Counts repulsive and monstrous design, which was nothing like his more debonair description in either the book or other forms of media that would follow. Also, while Vampires were already depicted as creatures of the night, F. W. Murnau took it one step further by making his vampire a creature of shadow … one that can literally become one with the darkness. The most iconic visual of the film is the Counts wicked shadow draped across the wall, which in the film’s narrative is the monster taking on its natural form. Being a creature of darkness, its natural weakness is sunlight. While in Bram Stokers novel, sunlight weekend Dracula, it never killed him … it was thanks to this movie that we now have the staple of sun-light killing vampires.

  The setting naturally was also changed from Britten to Germany, and there were also a number of sequences that were never part of the original source material. There’s a lengthy chase sequence in which an angry mob purses the Counts servant Knock, after he escapes from an asylum. This made for a memorable segment in the film, and had been replicated in a number of other films down the road, including the 1945 picture “House of Dracula”. The most ominous alteration of the story is the plague, which Count Orloc brought with him on the ship full of rats. Personally, I find this detail the scariest content of the whole film, as the silent movie shots of the slow-moving pallbearers carrying coffins down the street like one big parade is absolutely chilling, and brings to mind footage of an actual plague infested town. The eeriness of this concept was elevated in the 1979 remake of “Nosferatu”, which featured people partying in the street, knowing that their all going to die, so might as well enjoy themselves as they perish.

  The performances were certainly of their time, but one thing that remains timeless is Max Schreck’s portrayal of Count Orloc. Everything about his demeaner, and the way he carries himself is still cryptic to this day, and he terrified many of his fellow cast and even crew members on the set. He was so famously freighting that many began spinning yearns about him being a real vampire. The brilliant 2000 movie titled “Shadow of the Vampire” took the idea and ran with it, focusing on the making of “Nosferatu”, but with a real vampire in the lead role. That too is another highly recommendable film, with Willem Dafoe knocking it out of the park in the lead role, and even receiving an Oscar nomination for his portrayal. Another fun little peace of trivia is Tim Burtons 1992 sequel “Batman Returns”, which featured an original villain named Max Shreck … even though it’s spelt differently, I don’t think it’s a coincidence … especially with Burton’s clear love of German Expressionist Cinema.

  In the end, I like “Nosferatu, A Symphony of Horror” more for what it started, and for its place in the history books of horror cinema, as opposed to something I’d want to sit down and re-watch. Even among other silent horror films, there are others I prefer. Even F. W. Murnau’s later silent horror picture “Faust” left a little more of an impression on me. 

With all that said, this is still one of the great horror movie classics, and if you’re a fan of the genera at all, it’s well worth watching at least once … just to see the film that has inspired countless others sense its primer over 100 years ago. If your any kind of “Dracula” fan, I’d say this film is required viewing, although … I’d also highly recommend the 1979 remake, which honestly scared me more then any other Dracula production I’ve ever seen … largely because of Popol Vuh’s cryptic score. Still, can’t forget about the original classic, and the one that set the template for future terrifying movies to come.

Thanks for reading my review of the 1922 Horror movie classic “Nosferatu, A Symphony of Terror” … and be sure to treat yourself to one good scare this October.