Thanks for watching! If you've already watched Nosferatu, let us know what you thought about it! (And do you think it deserved any Oscars noms?) Up next, check out our recent video analyzing the slightly controversial Babygirl & what it all (including the milk...) means: ua-cam.com/video/oaxjrJPtxQw/v-deo.html Or join us in taking a look back at The Office's Pam & why her confidence journey always seemed to fail: ua-cam.com/video/guLyUtilkcs/v-deo.html
Yes, Best Picture, Music and director; but I guess the horror quota had been filled by The Substance... One horror movie every ten years is already too much for the snobs of the Academy, not to mention the awful foreign press!!!
For me the whole “woman sacrifices herself” ending fell flat, and a number of people I spoke to felt the same way. It got me thinking about why it fell flat, and the only reasons I could come up with were bad ones. Throughout the film there’s a running theme of the characters doing the best they can with what they have, and failing to accomplish their goals (Thomas tries and fails to stake Orlok, Dr Siward tries and fails to control the plague, Friedrich tries and fails to protect his family.) However, none of them are portrayed as incompetent, impotent or lacking in intelligence or agency for this, they are simply outmatched by Orlok’s power and hamstrung by their lack of knowledge. They are also all willing to risk/give their lives to kill Orlok. Had the climax been a physical fight in which one or more of them succumbs to his injuries after killing Orlok (which is exactly what happens to Quincy Morris in the original Dracula book) it would be a clearly triumphant moment; heroes succeeding at the cost of their own lives is an ancient archetype that is still very common today. With that in mind, Ellen doing the best she can with what she has (Orlok’s fixation on her and her own high threshold for suffering) at the cost of her own life should be a clear victory, albeit a tragic one. Her sacrifice and the courage it takes is given at least as much narrative weight as, say, Harry Potter walking to meet Voldemort in the Deathly Hallows. We see the life and relationships she’s giving up, we see how scared she is and how much strength it takes to plan her own death, we see her have to tolerate hours of Orlok’s disgusting rotting body all over her (compared to the minutes of struggle and pain a fight usually involves) and she gets to watch her nemesis burn for everything he’s put her through before she dies herself. It has all the ingredients for an archetypal heroic sacrifice… but somehow it doesn’t quite work. Is it that we’re programmed to see “submission” or “surrender” (especially with sexual connotations) as pathetic, and so don’t instinctively admire someone who does it even when we know it’s being faked? It made me realise that for all today’s feminist empowerment of female characters, (to the point it’s now commonplace to see female characters as leaders, fighters etc.) all the virtues being celebrated are traditionally masculine ones; physical skill and bravery, social dominance, the kind of strength that fights enemies rather than endures them, and so on. Ellen’s victory relies on traditionally feminine virtues, such as loving others more than herself, guile and manipulation, using her status as an object of desire and inspiration, the kind of strength that endures rather than fights. If that’s the reason her sacrifice fell flat for me and for other viewers, that’s really bad. Anyone have any thoughts on this?
@mzytryck That's a great take! Maybe I'm weird, but the whole “woman-sacrifices-herself” ending had the opposite effect on me: it felt tragic, but earned and complete. I felt Ellen sacrificing herself for the greater good was noble, righteous, and loving. I don’t interpret it as "surrender,” because that implies Ellen was giving up, which she wasn't doing (she may have been desperate, but so were the men) - she was simply using a different weapon than her male peers upon realizing that their more masculine ideas simply would not work to bring down the Beast. I don't see that as shade upon masculine power: like you said, no one in this film was “incompetent, impotent or lacking in intelligence or agency" - it's just that no one else, especially the men, were capable of doing what she could do. Ellen weaponized her longstanding personal connection with the Monster against it in order to destroy it and save everyone she loved. There’s a stereotype of “toxic femininity” that involves female power weaponizing relationships for selfish, cruel, and even downright evil purposes - however the ending of this film flips that stereotype on its head: Ellen weaponizes her relationship to Nosferatu not for evil purposes, but for righteous purposes; to destroy the Creature before it destroys everyone she loves. It never occurred to me that Ellen's feminine power (or “soft power” as the two are often synonymous) was disempowering at all. I think it’s because feminine/soft power is so understated and less overt that it’s easy to overlook. However, it’s no less powerful; just the invert of masculine power (or “hard power”). I definitely think you're on to something regarding that much of society feels programmed to see feminine/soft power as less than masculine/hard power. I think that’s due to complicated reasons, including the Girlboss movement of the 2010s (no shade on that movement, that’s just what is was). However, in my opinion, that’s a mistake. Masculine and feminine power are like Ying and Yang, Adam and Eve, Light and Dark, etc.: they complement each other, and one CANNOT exist without the other. If hard masculine power fails to destroy the Evil… well, try soft feminine power. And if feminine power is what was needed to sacrificially destroy the Evil and save everyone from gloom and death… well, if that’s not noble and righteous, then I don’t know what is. TLDR: The ending works for me and I love it! P.S. My apologies if my response is a rambling - feel free to ask for clarifications lol
@@noahhubbard1819 Thanks for your reply, it was perfectly clear. It seems like what you ACTUALLY felt was essentially what I realised I SHOULD HAVE felt, for all the reasons you give. My comment was me trying to work out why I didn't feel it, even though intellectually I could recognise the same things you did about how the ending was completely appropriate to Ellen's narrative and character. Some of the things you talk about in terms of feminine/soft power as an equal counterpart to masculine/hard power, I thought about as the difference between power and strength. For me, power is about the ability to master other people and the world around you, while strength is about your ability to master yourself. Orlok is by far the most powerful character in the film, but has virtually no personal strength; in his own words "I am an appetite. Nothing more." He has no real strength of will or ambition beyond tormenting and bullying anyone he can, he is a slave to his own impulses and it may have been centuries since he felt fear and had to master it. I personally suspect the unspecified bargain with hell that gave him his powers would have been partially motivated by a Voldemort-ish fear of death. In contrast, Ellen is the most powerless character throughout the film, not only being disbelieved and subjected to infantilising treatment by her society, but not even having full control over her own body and mind. However, her strength of will is immense and she has people and principles to live and die for. She is an expert at soldiering on despite her fear and suffering, has a hopeful vision of a future with the man she chose, fearlessly speaks her mind, and is just as dedicated to protecting the only-marginally-less-powerless Thomas as he is to her. The result of this is that the most powerful and weakest character suffers a TOTALLY avoidable death at the hands of the least powerful and strongest one because he is too narcissistic to believe this slip of a girl would be willing or able to outmanoeuvre him, and too undisciplined to resist his hunger. It's not a perfect overlap with your idea of hard vs soft power, especially since Ellen has the biggest impact on the world around her of any of the heroes by killing Orlok, but I think we both have a strong sense that feminine endurance and self-sacrifice SHOULD be respected even if our current society isn't necessarily very good at doing so (with a possible exception for mothers; Harry Potter, Bambi, Littlefoot etc. all had self-sacrificing mothers who are honoured by their stories and audiences) If Eggers anticipated that some viewers would have the same problem I did with instinctively appreciating Ellen, then I think Von Franz' line about how Ellen was born in the wrong century applies to a modern audience as well as the Victorian characters; in previous centuries, her sacrifice would have been immediately recognised as a noble thing for a woman in her situation to do.
I also felt a bit uneasy with the ending because I understood her heroic sacrifice but *something* felt icky. My best guess: I felt like Ellen’s relationship to the monster seemed complicated. I do think the theme of lust and the sexual connotations of the bond to the vampire were very emphasised in the movie. I think I feel uneasy that some people might see her giving in to her own secret longing for the beast, that she in some way wanted Orloc. That also cheapens her horrific sacrifice, I just wish they made more clear that she does not want it nor like it. With all the sexual undertones it just also gives such an uncomfortable image: A woman who suffered for years in a toxic, harmful relationship and saves the day by…going back? The blood-sucking-all-night in the end is very rapey, too. In short: The theme of female lust did not work in my opinion + the sacrifice is just so insanely cruel
This might sound patronizing but I am scared people just don’t get the commentary on the patriarchy in this movie. That they might see the sex scene between Ellen and her husband as hot, that they don’t even see the necrophilia in Friedrich’s ending. & some of it just did fall flat. I feel a bit weird about the “priestess of Isis”, “nymphe” & “virgin sacrifice that does not even look bothered in the slightest” parts of the movie (the girl on the white horse)
I'm really confused by Miller's interpretation at 8:08...I feel like the patriarchal commentary was very clear. Just because it wasn't explicit Barbie movie levels of "patriarchy bad" (which has its place in the right film) doesn't mean it wasn't there. I found Prof. Von Hanz' comment to Ellen on how she would have been a priestess of Isis, but she was unfortunately born in the wrong time, particularly poignant.
And even with Ellen's friend and her husband, at the beginning when the husband wanted to have fun with his wife but she said no cause you know she was forcking pregnant! and then he plead saying that he just can't resist her it was kindda imply that the had done it before against the wife's wishes, not to mention that at the end.... SPILERS!!!......... When she died he did had his way with her. That was pretty obvious to me that the intention was to show that he own her even when she didn't wanted to or was literally dead.
@per-c8229 absolutely!! I loved how his objectification was framed as romantic love to show how a lot of men feel about their wives. Veiled in a really intelligent way until that pretty nasty end reveal. There also were many scenes that showed victorian era "oh she is just hysterical" rhetoric as well.
Same here. All the men in Ellen's life except for Dr. Franz never took her seriously, showed empathy, and even silenced her because she needed to "know her place". How much more exploration of the theme of patriarchy do you need? There's even the scene of her convulsions taking over and the doctor aggressively tightening her corset!
The way I saw it, the entire film seems to take place in one psyche. All the characters are parts in one person’s mind Nosferatu - The shadow, of course. Repressed fears, desires, darker instincts, hidden away in a castle on a mountaintop somewhere, but still very much affecting the world. In particular, affecting Ellen, the Anima. Ellen - Anima. As a young child, she became aware of the shadow and several times in the film the character asks if that darkness is really a part of her or if it’s outside of her. Willem DaFoe’s character has a beautiful speech when he’s on the stairs at the end, where he references Isis and that she is intended to “save the world”. The camera cuts to Ellen with her costume, a black halo ring surrounding her head. Isis is sometimes depicted with a circular crown. It was an amazing choice of costume that reflected her Isis identity as well as a Mother Mary Christian halo effect, but black instead of white Hutter - Hero? In the original film, Hutter was the main protagonist, so he’d typically fall into the hero archetype, but in Eggers adaptation, Ellen was more the main protagonist. I felt like Hutter in the film was a bit of a failed hero. He journeyed deep into the shadow realm, passed a series of terrible tests and came away with the secret knowledge of what could slay the shadow. However, in the “big moment” where he was to apply his secret knowledge, he found a false shadow, the “lunatic” in the coffin of Nosferatu. To me, this was just a beautiful representation of dismissing the idea that only the hero can “save” the world. It was the integration of the self, in this case the Anima and the shadow, that did it. Von Franz - Wise Old Man. DaFoe really stole the scenes he was in with this character. Is it a coincidence that Eggers named him Von Franz? Marie-Louise Von Franz was one of Jung’s main collaborators. His deep knowledge of the occult enabled him to make the connection between Ellen and Orlock. He represented the wisdom of those who have dived into the depths of the psyche and come back with that hidden knowledge. He says himself though in the script, that “he is merely an actor on this stage”. He knows he is not the protagonist, and he knows that Ellen must sacrifice herself to integrate the shadow. He can show her the way and enable it, but that’s all he can do. Overall, I thought it was fantastic. Costume, sound, screenplay, cinematography, writing, horror, all 10/10 for me. The movie was a great joy to observe and lead me to think of how it deeply connected to us humans and our psychology. For instance the vampire named Nosferatu is a symbolic form of the woman who was the main character named Ellens lower animal nature. There was a psychologist who had dealt with mystic philisophy, alchemcy, and the occult had came to the realization that Ellens lower animal nature was more dominant in her. (Implied more dominate than her human faculties). Edit - Took my time to write this up,so pls upvote ❤
Perhaps Hutter is a variation of the False Hero common in fairy tales and myths. Only instead of being a rival to the true Hero, Hutter is is just an ordinary person who failed to be the Hero. He's not a malicious fraud in any way, as a traditional False Hero would be, he just missed the opportunity. A modern real life example would be like a student failing a test or exam. They didn't study very hard or were too lazy to remember the answers or got too scared or too arrogant.
Ellen can also be seen as the trope of the Heroic Seductress; most temptresses in lore and history, from Delilah to Cleopatra, have been depicted as negative. But Heroic examples do exist, such as Judith and Jael from the Bible, both women used their charms and beauty to lull the male enemy of their people (and God) into a false sense of security. Interestingly, both cases had these Biblical Heroines slay the evil man by aiming at his head (either with a sword or a tent peg), possbily as a literal metaphor of the lecherous male villain "losing his head" over a beautiful heroic woman.
I mentioned Jung in my comment, but you clearly are better read than me on the subject, and wrote what I only implied very well! I love Eggers, all his films are amazing. You can take very deep dives into all of them, and his obsession with detail and accuracy is off the charts. 11/10 for me!
@@sammyvictors2603 I think Thomas, too, is a victim of the patriarchy. His insistence and obsession with being a good provider was what allowed Orlok to lure him away from Ellen in the first place, and his insistence that he had to be the one to slay Orlok and that Ellen needed to stay home to be 'safe' sealed the deal. He didn't miss the opportunity - he pushed it away, trying to live up to society's expectations of him as a man as provider and protector. Ellen needed neither - she just needed him to accept her and hear her, and he didn't do either, and as a result, he lost her.
Interesting take. Honestly, the movie really fell flat for me. I didn’t get any sense of history or attraction between Ellen and Orlok. I’m not really a fan of Skarsgard, but even I wanted more scenes of him and the experience of the castle instead of the silly possession scenes. Way too many possession scenes.
Yes I agree. It was too over the top, at some points almost ridiculous. Also the fact that the movie is so long does not help. Many plot points are enacted twice or even more... Why???? We get that she is troubled, we get that the rich merchand doesn't believe her, no need to tell us thirty times 😂
Watched this for a first date :0 was expecting more *folklore* like Coppolla's version. This was way gory and dreary. Didn't like that she sacrificed herself at the end, ughh
What I love most about all the adaptations, is that they all start with a cat and the cats are never harmed 😄 They are the contrast to the plague rats! You know Willem Dafoe's character is good because he has the most cats 😻
I saw 2024’s relationship between Count Orlok and Ellen as a metaphor for dysfunctional, abusive relationships and grooming. Since Ellen is said to have first invoked Orlok when she was very young, naive and vulnerable, it is reminiscent to when young people are lured into relationships with older, predatory adults (in this case mostly focused between an adult male and a child/adolescent female). Years later, she is tormented by this relationship and wants to quit, but Orlok blames her saying that she is “the enchantress” who lured him, basically gaslighting her and shifting the blame to her like abusers do, “it’s your fault for dressing provocatively; you came on to me”. There’s also a similar theme to that of “Beauty and the beast” in which the female love tames the wild spirit of a man. But in this version, Ellen actively uses Orlok’s lust against him, giving more agency to the victim and allowing her to destroy the toxic relationship (even if she still has to sacrifice herself to do it).
First of all, i have to say, i thought the movie was beaitiful. So many shots were beatiful images which could be printed and hanged. I can also see many images inspired by paintings even if i can't put my finger on the references (the shot of Ellen and Orlok on the bed with the flowers around them for example). That aside, i found interesting how well the movie depicts traditional involvement of straight people when it comes to non-conscented sex. The 2 main characters have an unpleasant and horrifying sexual-like encounter with the beast. She seems to have to implode due to her lack of support and the fact that no one believes her or is willing to do anything about it, "the poor girl is sick and crazy". She tries to rebuild her life by finding someone who will heal her wounds and love her as she is as she tries to deal with the aftermath of this horrible thing that happened to her. He on the other hand is embarrased about this more powerful man/beast taking over him so he hides it as much as he can, gets angry and responds with violence (even when engaging sexually with his wife). When he finally reveals what happened to him everyone just goes "oh ok, yes, lets support you in your time of need and kill that mf". Lastly, the beast, who's only an appetite (and a very sexual at that) of course has no problem engaging with women, men AND children. The relation of sexual openess depicted in this beast, who will also attack children is quite problematic, specially in the context today. I will never know what is like to be a woman but if this movie is anything to go by then we really do a sucky job at supporting women AND men to deal with trauma. Also, maybe we should listen to queer people a little more, they know a thing or two about dealing with trauma, having little or no support and being gaslighted. I liked the film and will probably watch it again at some point. When they make another remake maybe i will watch that one as well. Great video and great comment section as usual.
The original novel has so much subtext that is still relevant. Western Europe vs Eastern Europe, Aristocrasy vs. Self made people, the big city vs the countryside. Saying its all about sex is reductive especially now when sexuality can be discussed frankly.
I think he didn't think that far ahead. 'I am only appetite', he said. Appetite isn't rational and can't be satiated if that's all you are. I've also seen an interpretation that HE intended to die, ultimately.
IMO it's a bit silly for those critics to say the film is a little empty because it doesn't have modern pandemic commentary in it. It's essentially saying "I wish the film was about something different entirely." The central theme of the movie is sexual desire and the way people demonize it, especially for women, especially in the Victorian era. Societal response to a plague is not what the film is trying to capture. You just wanted to watch a different movie.
A wonderful, immersive, imaginative & macabre piece of cinema. Lily Rose was exquisite, the set design & costumery were outstanding & i felt I could watch it many times, just like Dracula by FFC. Loved it
To me It was an analogy to sexual abuse at an early age and how the person never recovers from that and is unable to be Happy, and yet feels appealed by the perpetrator despite knowing they are repulsive, they are also disbelieved when trying to explain It and treated as an hysteria case. Actually in early studies of psychiatry they stated that most hysteria cases were sexual abuse based. Also there is this thing of the village giving Virgin Young women to the Monster.
This movie was an intellectual bait more than anything. The acting was flat, the dialogue was not historically accurate and the CGI was out of place. The only good thing was the cinematography and I left the theatre before the end credits rolled. The storyline as well didn’t seem to add anything to the various versions of the story that already exist so I’m unsure why this movie is getting any praise at all.
God it was soooo bad. Not only because the director was trying to reinvent the wheel, German expressionism is like already a thing and has been done WELL ok? And the lighting in this near gray scale, uuuugh, anything even close to ok was stolen from such greats as Hitchcock's Rebecca. The pacing was horrrrrible. No actually the true horror was all the weird choices of side characters that meant nothing. Naked girl on horse? Old woman at inn? Dancing Roma? Nope never seen again bai. They're nommed for costumes, but not even that was good. Costuming, I want it to do storytelling as much as anything else, but it did not. It was SO BAD.
I think many people never watched the original or other 20s expressionist movies 😅 that's why the atmospheres get praised so much Also, maybe they never watched old Tim Burton movies, who again used a ton of expressionist aesthetics in his movies. At certain points I felt as if I was watching Sweeney Todd or Sleepy Hollow
Regardless if Nosferatu is originally based on Bram Stokers novel or not , ppl only like Count Orlock because of his unique & iconic look & feral animalistic bloodsucking tendencies & the plague he carries everywhere otherwise he's literally just another Prince/Pimp/Undead Nobelman which is literally just Dracula!!!! They should have just named this movie Dracula just because of the sexual story & his Vlad The Impaler look they used in this new film cuz that's literally all it is!!!!!! This is a 100% a Dracula remake , definitely not a Nosferatu remake 🙄
Useless movie, no need to remake it when it’s obvious no one cared about making it good, they were all just there for a pay check smh, unreal we keep letting these people get away with making these remakes
Thanks for watching! If you've already watched Nosferatu, let us know what you thought about it! (And do you think it deserved any Oscars noms?)
Up next, check out our recent video analyzing the slightly controversial Babygirl & what it all (including the milk...) means: ua-cam.com/video/oaxjrJPtxQw/v-deo.html
Or join us in taking a look back at The Office's Pam & why her confidence journey always seemed to fail: ua-cam.com/video/guLyUtilkcs/v-deo.html
U welcome love ur content
Yes, Best Picture, Music and director; but I guess the horror quota had been filled by The Substance... One horror movie every ten years is already too much for the snobs of the Academy, not to mention the awful foreign press!!!
For me the whole “woman sacrifices herself” ending fell flat, and a number of people I spoke to felt the same way. It got me thinking about why it fell flat, and the only reasons I could come up with were bad ones.
Throughout the film there’s a running theme of the characters doing the best they can with what they have, and failing to accomplish their goals (Thomas tries and fails to stake Orlok, Dr Siward tries and fails to control the plague, Friedrich tries and fails to protect his family.) However, none of them are portrayed as incompetent, impotent or lacking in intelligence or agency for this, they are simply outmatched by Orlok’s power and hamstrung by their lack of knowledge.
They are also all willing to risk/give their lives to kill Orlok. Had the climax been a physical fight in which one or more of them succumbs to his injuries after killing Orlok (which is exactly what happens to Quincy Morris in the original Dracula book) it would be a clearly triumphant moment; heroes succeeding at the cost of their own lives is an ancient archetype that is still very common today.
With that in mind, Ellen doing the best she can with what she has (Orlok’s fixation on her and her own high threshold for suffering) at the cost of her own life should be a clear victory, albeit a tragic one. Her sacrifice and the courage it takes is given at least as much narrative weight as, say, Harry Potter walking to meet Voldemort in the Deathly Hallows. We see the life and relationships she’s giving up, we see how scared she is and how much strength it takes to plan her own death, we see her have to tolerate hours of Orlok’s disgusting rotting body all over her (compared to the minutes of struggle and pain a fight usually involves) and she gets to watch her nemesis burn for everything he’s put her through before she dies herself.
It has all the ingredients for an archetypal heroic sacrifice… but somehow it doesn’t quite work.
Is it that we’re programmed to see “submission” or “surrender” (especially with sexual connotations) as pathetic, and so don’t instinctively admire someone who does it even when we know it’s being faked?
It made me realise that for all today’s feminist empowerment of female characters, (to the point it’s now commonplace to see female characters as leaders, fighters etc.) all the virtues being celebrated are traditionally masculine ones; physical skill and bravery, social dominance, the kind of strength that fights enemies rather than endures them, and so on.
Ellen’s victory relies on traditionally feminine virtues, such as loving others more than herself, guile and manipulation, using her status as an object of desire and inspiration, the kind of strength that endures rather than fights. If that’s the reason her sacrifice fell flat for me and for other viewers, that’s really bad.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
@mzytryck That's a great take!
Maybe I'm weird, but the whole “woman-sacrifices-herself” ending had the opposite effect on me: it felt tragic, but earned and complete. I felt Ellen sacrificing herself for the greater good was noble, righteous, and loving. I don’t interpret it as "surrender,” because that implies Ellen was giving up, which she wasn't doing (she may have been desperate, but so were the men) - she was simply using a different weapon than her male peers upon realizing that their more masculine ideas simply would not work to bring down the Beast.
I don't see that as shade upon masculine power: like you said, no one in this film was “incompetent, impotent or lacking in intelligence or agency" - it's just that no one else, especially the men, were capable of doing what she could do. Ellen weaponized her longstanding personal connection with the Monster against it in order to destroy it and save everyone she loved. There’s a stereotype of “toxic femininity” that involves female power weaponizing relationships for selfish, cruel, and even downright evil purposes - however the ending of this film flips that stereotype on its head: Ellen weaponizes her relationship to Nosferatu not for evil purposes, but for righteous purposes; to destroy the Creature before it destroys everyone she loves.
It never occurred to me that Ellen's feminine power (or “soft power” as the two are often synonymous) was disempowering at all. I think it’s because feminine/soft power is so understated and less overt that it’s easy to overlook. However, it’s no less powerful; just the invert of masculine power (or “hard power”).
I definitely think you're on to something regarding that much of society feels programmed to see feminine/soft power as less than masculine/hard power. I think that’s due to complicated reasons, including the Girlboss movement of the 2010s (no shade on that movement, that’s just what is was).
However, in my opinion, that’s a mistake. Masculine and feminine power are like Ying and Yang, Adam and Eve, Light and Dark, etc.: they complement each other, and one CANNOT exist without the other. If hard masculine power fails to destroy the Evil… well, try soft feminine power. And if feminine power is what was needed to sacrificially destroy the Evil and save everyone from gloom and death… well, if that’s not noble and righteous, then I don’t know what is.
TLDR: The ending works for me and I love it!
P.S. My apologies if my response is a rambling - feel free to ask for clarifications lol
@@noahhubbard1819 Thanks for your reply, it was perfectly clear.
It seems like what you ACTUALLY felt was essentially what I realised I SHOULD HAVE felt, for all the reasons you give. My comment was me trying to work out why I didn't feel it, even though intellectually I could recognise the same things you did about how the ending was completely appropriate to Ellen's narrative and character.
Some of the things you talk about in terms of feminine/soft power as an equal counterpart to masculine/hard power, I thought about as the difference between power and strength. For me, power is about the ability to master other people and the world around you, while strength is about your ability to master yourself.
Orlok is by far the most powerful character in the film, but has virtually no personal strength; in his own words "I am an appetite. Nothing more." He has no real strength of will or ambition beyond tormenting and bullying anyone he can, he is a slave to his own impulses and it may have been centuries since he felt fear and had to master it. I personally suspect the unspecified bargain with hell that gave him his powers would have been partially motivated by a Voldemort-ish fear of death.
In contrast, Ellen is the most powerless character throughout the film, not only being disbelieved and subjected to infantilising treatment by her society, but not even having full control over her own body and mind. However, her strength of will is immense and she has people and principles to live and die for. She is an expert at soldiering on despite her fear and suffering, has a hopeful vision of a future with the man she chose, fearlessly speaks her mind, and is just as dedicated to protecting the only-marginally-less-powerless Thomas as he is to her.
The result of this is that the most powerful and weakest character suffers a TOTALLY avoidable death at the hands of the least powerful and strongest one because he is too narcissistic to believe this slip of a girl would be willing or able to outmanoeuvre him, and too undisciplined to resist his hunger.
It's not a perfect overlap with your idea of hard vs soft power, especially since Ellen has the biggest impact on the world around her of any of the heroes by killing Orlok, but I think we both have a strong sense that feminine endurance and self-sacrifice SHOULD be respected even if our current society isn't necessarily very good at doing so (with a possible exception for mothers; Harry Potter, Bambi, Littlefoot etc. all had self-sacrificing mothers who are honoured by their stories and audiences)
If Eggers anticipated that some viewers would have the same problem I did with instinctively appreciating Ellen, then I think Von Franz' line about how Ellen was born in the wrong century applies to a modern audience as well as the Victorian characters; in previous centuries, her sacrifice would have been immediately recognised as a noble thing for a woman in her situation to do.
I also felt a bit uneasy with the ending because I understood her heroic sacrifice but *something* felt icky. My best guess: I felt like Ellen’s relationship to the monster seemed complicated. I do think the theme of lust and the sexual connotations of the bond to the vampire were very emphasised in the movie. I think I feel uneasy that some people might see her giving in to her own secret longing for the beast, that she in some way wanted Orloc. That also cheapens her horrific sacrifice, I just wish they made more clear that she does not want it nor like it. With all the sexual undertones it just also gives such an uncomfortable image: A woman who suffered for years in a toxic, harmful relationship and saves the day by…going back? The blood-sucking-all-night in the end is very rapey, too. In short: The theme of female lust did not work in my opinion + the sacrifice is just so insanely cruel
This might sound patronizing but I am scared people just don’t get the commentary on the patriarchy in this movie. That they might see the sex scene between Ellen and her husband as hot, that they don’t even see the necrophilia in Friedrich’s ending. & some of it just did fall flat. I feel a bit weird about the “priestess of Isis”, “nymphe” & “virgin sacrifice that does not even look bothered in the slightest” parts of the movie (the girl on the white horse)
These are both really excellent analyses!
I'm really confused by Miller's interpretation at 8:08...I feel like the patriarchal commentary was very clear. Just because it wasn't explicit Barbie movie levels of "patriarchy bad" (which has its place in the right film) doesn't mean it wasn't there. I found Prof. Von Hanz' comment to Ellen on how she would have been a priestess of Isis, but she was unfortunately born in the wrong time, particularly poignant.
And even with Ellen's friend and her husband, at the beginning when the husband wanted to have fun with his wife but she said no cause you know she was forcking pregnant! and then he plead saying that he just can't resist her it was kindda imply that the had done it before against the wife's wishes, not to mention that at the end.... SPILERS!!!.........
When she died he did had his way with her. That was pretty obvious to me that the intention was to show that he own her even when she didn't wanted to or was literally dead.
@per-c8229 absolutely!! I loved how his objectification was framed as romantic love to show how a lot of men feel about their wives. Veiled in a really intelligent way until that pretty nasty end reveal.
There also were many scenes that showed victorian era "oh she is just hysterical" rhetoric as well.
Same here. All the men in Ellen's life except for Dr. Franz never took her seriously, showed empathy, and even silenced her because she needed to "know her place". How much more exploration of the theme of patriarchy do you need? There's even the scene of her convulsions taking over and the doctor aggressively tightening her corset!
This film was an experience in theatres if you are a gothic horror fan!
How dare yt hide this from me for 12 minutes
12 minutes? They hid this from me for 7 hours!
@sketchygetchey8299 Damm
7 hours??? I had to endure 23!
Try a whole day
The way I saw it, the entire film seems to take place in one psyche. All the characters are parts in one person’s mind
Nosferatu - The shadow, of course. Repressed fears, desires, darker instincts, hidden away in a castle on a mountaintop somewhere, but still very much affecting the world. In particular, affecting Ellen, the Anima.
Ellen - Anima. As a young child, she became aware of the shadow and several times in the film the character asks if that darkness is really a part of her or if it’s outside of her. Willem DaFoe’s character has a beautiful speech when he’s on the stairs at the end, where he references Isis and that she is intended to “save the world”. The camera cuts to Ellen with her costume, a black halo ring surrounding her head. Isis is sometimes depicted with a circular crown. It was an amazing choice of costume that reflected her Isis identity as well as a Mother Mary Christian halo effect, but black instead of white
Hutter - Hero? In the original film, Hutter was the main protagonist, so he’d typically fall into the hero archetype, but in Eggers adaptation, Ellen was more the main protagonist. I felt like Hutter in the film was a bit of a failed hero. He journeyed deep into the shadow realm, passed a series of terrible tests and came away with the secret knowledge of what could slay the shadow. However, in the “big moment” where he was to apply his secret knowledge, he found a false shadow, the “lunatic” in the coffin of Nosferatu. To me, this was just a beautiful representation of dismissing the idea that only the hero can “save” the world. It was the integration of the self, in this case the Anima and the shadow, that did it.
Von Franz - Wise Old Man. DaFoe really stole the scenes he was in with this character. Is it a coincidence that Eggers named him Von Franz? Marie-Louise Von Franz was one of Jung’s main collaborators. His deep knowledge of the occult enabled him to make the connection between Ellen and Orlock. He represented the wisdom of those who have dived into the depths of the psyche and come back with that hidden knowledge. He says himself though in the script, that “he is merely an actor on this stage”. He knows he is not the protagonist, and he knows that Ellen must sacrifice herself to integrate the shadow. He can show her the way and enable it, but that’s all he can do.
Overall, I thought it was fantastic. Costume, sound, screenplay, cinematography, writing, horror, all 10/10 for me. The movie was a great joy to observe and lead me to think of how it deeply connected to us humans and our psychology. For instance the vampire named Nosferatu is a symbolic form of the woman who was the main character named Ellens lower animal nature. There was a psychologist who had dealt with mystic philisophy, alchemcy, and the occult had came to the realization that Ellens lower animal nature was more dominant in her. (Implied more dominate than her human faculties).
Edit - Took my time to write this up,so pls upvote ❤
Perhaps Hutter is a variation of the False Hero common in fairy tales and myths. Only instead of being a rival to the true Hero, Hutter is is just an ordinary person who failed to be the Hero. He's not a malicious fraud in any way, as a traditional False Hero would be, he just missed the opportunity.
A modern real life example would be like a student failing a test or exam. They didn't study very hard or were too lazy to remember the answers or got too scared or too arrogant.
Ellen can also be seen as the trope of the Heroic Seductress; most temptresses in lore and history, from Delilah to Cleopatra, have been depicted as negative.
But Heroic examples do exist, such as Judith and Jael from the Bible, both women used their charms and beauty to lull the male enemy of their people (and God) into a false sense of security. Interestingly, both cases had these Biblical Heroines slay the evil man by aiming at his head (either with a sword or a tent peg), possbily as a literal metaphor of the lecherous male villain "losing his head" over a beautiful heroic woman.
I mentioned Jung in my comment, but you clearly are better read than me on the subject, and wrote what I only implied very well! I love Eggers, all his films are amazing. You can take very deep dives into all of them, and his obsession with detail and accuracy is off the charts. 11/10 for me!
@@sammyvictors2603 I think Thomas, too, is a victim of the patriarchy. His insistence and obsession with being a good provider was what allowed Orlok to lure him away from Ellen in the first place, and his insistence that he had to be the one to slay Orlok and that Ellen needed to stay home to be 'safe' sealed the deal. He didn't miss the opportunity - he pushed it away, trying to live up to society's expectations of him as a man as provider and protector. Ellen needed neither - she just needed him to accept her and hear her, and he didn't do either, and as a result, he lost her.
Interesting take. Honestly, the movie really fell flat for me. I didn’t get any sense of history or attraction between Ellen and Orlok. I’m not really a fan of Skarsgard, but even I wanted more scenes of him and the experience of the castle instead of the silly possession scenes. Way too many possession scenes.
Yes I agree. It was too over the top, at some points almost ridiculous. Also the fact that the movie is so long does not help. Many plot points are enacted twice or even more... Why???? We get that she is troubled, we get that the rich merchand doesn't believe her, no need to tell us thirty times 😂
I really want to see this movie now! Everyone is raving about it! Thanks!
I appreciate the lack of suspense. It helped bring on an awful, dreadful sense of impending doom.
I felt the movie was filled with suspense
Watched this for a first date :0 was expecting more *folklore* like Coppolla's version. This was way gory and dreary. Didn't like that she sacrificed herself at the end, ughh
What I love most about all the adaptations, is that they all start with a cat and the cats are never harmed 😄 They are the contrast to the plague rats!
You know Willem Dafoe's character is good because he has the most cats 😻
I saw 2024’s relationship between Count Orlok and Ellen as a metaphor for dysfunctional, abusive relationships and grooming.
Since Ellen is said to have first invoked Orlok when she was very young, naive and vulnerable, it is reminiscent to when young people are lured into relationships with older, predatory adults (in this case mostly focused between an adult male and a child/adolescent female). Years later, she is tormented by this relationship and wants to quit, but Orlok blames her saying that she is “the enchantress” who lured him, basically gaslighting her and shifting the blame to her like abusers do, “it’s your fault for dressing provocatively; you came on to me”.
There’s also a similar theme to that of “Beauty and the beast” in which the female love tames the wild spirit of a man. But in this version, Ellen actively uses Orlok’s lust against him, giving more agency to the victim and allowing her to destroy the toxic relationship (even if she still has to sacrifice herself to do it).
Awesome!🤩
First of all, i have to say, i thought the movie was beaitiful. So many shots were beatiful images which could be printed and hanged. I can also see many images inspired by paintings even if i can't put my finger on the references (the shot of Ellen and Orlok on the bed with the flowers around them for example).
That aside, i found interesting how well the movie depicts traditional involvement of straight people when it comes to non-conscented sex. The 2 main characters have an unpleasant and horrifying sexual-like encounter with the beast. She seems to have to implode due to her lack of support and the fact that no one believes her or is willing to do anything about it, "the poor girl is sick and crazy". She tries to rebuild her life by finding someone who will heal her wounds and love her as she is as she tries to deal with the aftermath of this horrible thing that happened to her.
He on the other hand is embarrased about this more powerful man/beast taking over him so he hides it as much as he can, gets angry and responds with violence (even when engaging sexually with his wife). When he finally reveals what happened to him everyone just goes "oh ok, yes, lets support you in your time of need and kill that mf".
Lastly, the beast, who's only an appetite (and a very sexual at that) of course has no problem engaging with women, men AND children. The relation of sexual openess depicted in this beast, who will also attack children is quite problematic, specially in the context today.
I will never know what is like to be a woman but if this movie is anything to go by then we really do a sucky job at supporting women AND men to deal with trauma. Also, maybe we should listen to queer people a little more, they know a thing or two about dealing with trauma, having little or no support and being gaslighted.
I liked the film and will probably watch it again at some point. When they make another remake maybe i will watch that one as well.
Great video and great comment section as usual.
I noticed that too. That's why I'm so excited about the extended cut on digital.
The original novel has so much subtext that is still relevant. Western Europe vs Eastern Europe, Aristocrasy vs. Self made people, the big city vs the countryside. Saying its all about sex is reductive especially now when sexuality can be discussed frankly.
Yes, but back then sexuality wasn’t explored openly and explicitly. So it’s still relevant to discuss themes about sexuality from the classics.
can you do the substance next
Robert Eggers remake of Nosferatu was awesome!
Did Nosferatu intend to kill her or did he intend to drink from her a bit then keep her around.?
I think he didn't think that far ahead. 'I am only appetite', he said. Appetite isn't rational and can't be satiated if that's all you are. I've also seen an interpretation that HE intended to die, ultimately.
Odd that you don’t incorporate the 1979 Werner Herzog version into the discussion.
IMO it's a bit silly for those critics to say the film is a little empty because it doesn't have modern pandemic commentary in it. It's essentially saying "I wish the film was about something different entirely."
The central theme of the movie is sexual desire and the way people demonize it, especially for women, especially in the Victorian era.
Societal response to a plague is not what the film is trying to capture. You just wanted to watch a different movie.
Very psychologically interesting film
NOSFERATU! 🦇🧛❤️
A wonderful, immersive, imaginative & macabre piece of cinema. Lily Rose was exquisite, the set design & costumery were outstanding & i felt I could watch it many times, just like Dracula by FFC. Loved it
You can tell a lot of you all have never seen the original nosferatu. The film isn’t a political film, it’s horror. Smh
love this fucking movie so much.
Arthur Morgan is better than Walter White
To me It was an analogy to sexual abuse at an early age and how the person never recovers from that and is unable to be Happy, and yet feels appealed by the perpetrator despite knowing they are repulsive, they are also disbelieved when trying to explain It and treated as an hysteria case. Actually in early studies of psychiatry they stated that most hysteria cases were sexual abuse based. Also there is this thing of the village giving Virgin Young women to the Monster.
Am I the only one who didn't get the movie ??!! 😂😂😂
This movie was an intellectual bait more than anything. The acting was flat, the dialogue was not historically accurate and the CGI was out of place. The only good thing was the cinematography and I left the theatre before the end credits rolled. The storyline as well didn’t seem to add anything to the various versions of the story that already exist so I’m unsure why this movie is getting any praise at all.
I watched it and I did enjoyed the movie
I loved this film 💗
Movie SUCKS, want my money back immediately
I hate the way eggers made orlok look intimidating and we could barely see his face. He’s supposed to be small, ugly and creepy
God it was soooo bad. Not only because the director was trying to reinvent the wheel, German expressionism is like already a thing and has been done WELL ok? And the lighting in this near gray scale, uuuugh, anything even close to ok was stolen from such greats as Hitchcock's Rebecca. The pacing was horrrrrible. No actually the true horror was all the weird choices of side characters that meant nothing. Naked girl on horse? Old woman at inn? Dancing Roma? Nope never seen again bai. They're nommed for costumes, but not even that was good. Costuming, I want it to do storytelling as much as anything else, but it did not. It was SO BAD.
I think many people never watched the original or other 20s expressionist movies 😅 that's why the atmospheres get praised so much
Also, maybe they never watched old Tim Burton movies, who again used a ton of expressionist aesthetics in his movies. At certain points I felt as if I was watching Sweeney Todd or Sleepy Hollow
You can tell it was directed by a man lmao
i’ve been saying this from the beginning and it drives me nuts that others don’t understand
Best movie in a while🖤💀🖤✨️
This movie is ridiculously boring and nonsensical.
WASTE OF TIME.
hang dong?
once
Regardless if Nosferatu is originally based on Bram Stokers novel or not , ppl only like Count Orlock because of his unique & iconic look & feral animalistic bloodsucking tendencies & the plague he carries everywhere otherwise he's literally just another Prince/Pimp/Undead Nobelman which is literally just Dracula!!!! They should have just named this movie Dracula just because of the sexual story & his Vlad The Impaler look they used in this new film cuz that's literally all it is!!!!!!
This is a 100% a Dracula remake , definitely not a Nosferatu remake 🙄
Useless movie, no need to remake it when it’s obvious no one cared about making it good, they were all just there for a pay check smh, unreal we keep letting these people get away with making these remakes
Awful movie