One element I appreciated in the film was Orlock saying something similar to: “I look forward to living in a city of the modern mind, that does not entertain arcane fairy tales” Which reminds me of Kevin Spacey’s line- “The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn’t exist.” If you listen to Jonathan Pageau you understand the importance of knowing your fairy tales.
It's far better than 90% of the movies released in the last 15 years and Robert Eggers actually cares about making great movies instead of pushing an agenda.
@@dgfreshx Absolutely. I guess what I’m trying to say is that her “sacrifice” should not have been able to purchase what it purchased in the film. Klavan is correct about the importance of the characters’ beliefs. Stoker understood this when he wrote the novel. The characters in Dracula all very much have deep Christian faith that motivates them to rise above the animal/instinctual sexual and bloodlust cravings of “the beast” and instead represent the “images of God” in their attitudes toward sexuality and sacrifice. The problem with Eggers’s version of this story is that it gets its notions of sin and sacrifice all twisted. It’s almost like he’s making the claim that the suffering caused by sin is the result of our labeling of those thoughts/feelings/urges as sin; instead, potentially according to Eggers, the solution is to embrace the sinful nature as just one more part of ourselves. Give in to it, incorporating it into yourself, and the psychological and external suffering it causes will cease. This notion is not consistent with the order of the universe I have experienced. Sin tends to exacerbate suffering. I hope that makes sense.
Did you just miss all of the crosses, Christ imagery, and Willem Dafoe’s monologue about science blinding us from being able to recognize real darkness?
Absolutely not. She tells the Van Helsing she "does not need salvation since she has done nothing wrong" Eggers biggest flaw in this movie is wanting to have its cake and eat it too. He wanted to use Christian ideas where he needed it, but disregarded it. The heroine was filled with perverse sexual desires and literally had sex (that she enjoyed) with a leprous vampire who murdered tiny children she knew. She clearly she was either ignorant of her own flaws or she's complicit of evil @DomH75
So many old horror films were about good vs evil. The actress Barbra Steele once said "back then people were more concerned with what happens when we die. And can things "over there" still affect the living? Now we live is such a age of disbelief, the only thing that gets to people is the horrific destruction of the human body"
The guy who made the "Terrifier" films knew this . He was a second rate FX artist who got no work, so he did the easiest thing which is gore, and it made him millions.
I'm not sure this falls entirely on Eggers. He's just trying to unpack what was in the original Nosferatu. You could criticize the 1922 film in the same way, since Orlock's demise occurs without reference to God or faith.
@@frankie3010 But she does. There's the synopsis from Wikipedia for the 1922 film: "Ellen reads the book that Hutter found; it claims that a vampire can be destroyed if a pure-hearted woman distracts the vampire from the approaching dawn with her beauty and by offering him her blood of her own free will; she decides to sacrifice herself." Eggers just added the sex, but in nuce, it remains the same.
I heard a preacher once say, ''People call this a secular age, empty of gods, void of religion. I disagree. This age has too much empty religiosity and billions of gods. Each person becomes a god unto himself. This runs true, even amongst Christians. It's become a source of endless sin, suffering and evil. And the greatest shame is that we know it, embrace it and sanctify it.'' That was thirty years ago. If anything has changed, it has, in my view, been only for the worse.
This applies to so many movies, and horrors specifically. They'll acknowledge satan, the supernatural, and elements of the spiritual world, without bringing it back to God, and the power of the name of Jesus.
‘Nosferatu’ (2024) was awesome. Instant classic. No notes. It’s a perfect horror film, up there with ‘The Exorcist’ and ‘Rosemary’s Baby’. Worth saying, ‘The Witch’ and ‘The Lighthouse’ are also awesome.
I felt the film was more Jungian than religious. Orlock represented the shadow self, our darkest and most carnal desires, and in order to defeat the shadow self, we must embrace it, confront it, and bring it into the light.
you could say that God is the hero of the story based on this 3 things, the first is the church scene, right after the broker character escaped the castle you see some romanian nuns rescue him and do like some sort of exorcism waking him up with the will to go save his wife. the second would be the van helsing character, you can pray many times to God but that wont inmediately give you a miracle or some crazy salvation, sometimes he answer by sending people who can help you, the van helsing character who wrestled with supernatural stuff was the help the characters needed and those that denied his help or to believe in what he said suffered, the family constantly prayed and said God protects them God is with them but they clearly dont have a strong faith cause they ignored or denied lillys character, so their fate was for ignoring evil. this is also similar to the people during the plague that though praying and going to churches would save them from the plague rather than putting trust in men of medicine. the third and final one is the greatest first creation of God, the light, it was the light of the sun that killed the vampire. lillys character sacrificed herself enough time to have God kill the demon that tormented her and essentially saved the town.
While one might say its ambiguous, the surface level take-away is that one can defeat evil by violating one's marriage vows, dressing up for evil, marrying evil, and giving yourself totally over to it (becoming one with it, quite literally). It created a false dilemma by excluding the Christian worldview at the end and by offering the grotesque occult "solution." In reality, Orlok wins big, taking Ellen down with him. Ellen is tragic to the end, never triumphant.
@@tonyl3762 thats one way to look at it, but the movie never denied the power of the church when they saved herr hutter in the monastery. you could say the movie has a sad outcome cause herr hutter cared more about his ambitions in the firm then his marriage. so after he learned it was already late. he fell to his own self desires. a perfect example would be when he signed the divorce pappers that orlok wrote. so he was the unfaithful one that betrayed his wife. he suepected there was something off but like judas he fell for some coins.
@@tonyl3762 so you see the movie serves as an example of the dangers of ambitions and the search for happiness in wealth rather than in love. hutter aware or not was literally making deals with the devil and his wife and the people of wissburg paid the price.
This movie isn’t for everyone. You have to really think it through. I think this movie ultimately must serve as warning. Namely, a line straight from the movie- that evil exists. And persists in societies that forget that it does. Also, that acknowledgement of the shadow, self sacrifice, and exposure to the light of truth is the only way to defeat evil. It also shows that evil can be conjured, and that it can take hold of you without your full awareness. It reminds the viewer not to sell what is most valuable for what is most expedient (Hoult’s character learns this). All of these things are positives, just gotta put your thinking hat on to see them. How anyone was bored with this movie is beyond me. Best movie of 2024.
Eggers adapted Nosferatu, not Dracula. Bram Stocker's work fits in the Christian tradition, the producers of Nosferatu were occultists, as were many German veterans of the Great War. Their idea was to produce a series of occultists films (something like Rosacrucians or Illuminati) about "secret knowledge". In esence, they were part of a sect, or cult. Their plan collapsed because they went broke after losing Stoker's widow's lawsuit. The original Van Helsing represents faith vs reason. Nosferatu is about occult knowledge vs both reason and traditional faith. The Mina character in Nosferatu is, in essence, a pagan human sacrifice. Coppying Dracula was a good way to sell their occultism, as the stage play had been very successful. Lots of German expresionists were mistycs, as the NSDAP was also into misticism, Nosferatu has been acused of being NSDAP. This was because the trauma of war got many people disilutioned with both religion and politics(rationalism). They thought traditional religion had failed just like reason. Eggers is careful to make his characters Christians (and Orlok has no power in the Ortodox monastery) but he kept the original ending from Nosferatu. The VVitch has a Puritan ethos. It's about loss of separation (Puritans from the rest of the Church, Pilgrims from England, the family from the rest of the colony, the father from the daughter) that is why it's so hopeless and there is no redention. It's not Catholic.
@theophrastus3.056 it's almost entirely about metaphysical concepts in an explicitly non-secular way: desire, love, evil, possession, an undead vampire demon main character who can only be killed by the light of the sun (blatant religious/mythological imagery that stretches back thousands of years), an occultist supporting character, another main character whose mysterious mental illness opens doors for said demon undead vampire thing to control her in some supernatural way, etc.
@@christiantgolden Yes, that's true, but at the same time it has a lot of Occultist concepts (even the "wise mentor" character, Von Franz, is a Gnostic/Occultist believer) and not enough Christian concepts, except for the Monastery scene. It's like they fought evil with evil. I really liked the movie, it could be interpreted as a warning against precisely using the Occult, but I think what the video says is true. It feels bleak (in a good way for a horror film) but also a little hollow, for not showing the good side enough.
Disagree. She is out of step with people of the time. As Dafoe said, “you would have been a priestess of Isis in a different time.” She is not of human kind as Orlok said. It wouldn’t have made sense for her to be seeking Christian meaning. She is a pagan priestess in a Christian age around the time Nietzsche declared that “god is dead.”
@@frankie3010 right, however this is a remade adaptation of the source material that delineates from the original source material quiet frequently especially in theme. Eggers said this was a personal work for him and I think his influences respectfully created the theme of this film. The author of this video states Wilem DeFoes rousing speech in the film, critizing science for blinding man kind from all aspects of the world as a whole, but the video author disregards that in the 1800s, especially in Europe and America, there was a huge supernatural Spiritualist movement. It was more than traditional Christianity, this is a time period when we start seeing the famous Goetic books being formed, and people seeking Gnosis and a Renaissance of Alchemy. DeFoes character is a scholar of this kind of spiritual view. When commanding Depps character notice how he doesn't invoke the name of God, but the angels, and demons of Goetic writings. And commands them with a ring he has (which i believe to be the ring of King Solomon who famously commanded demons and angels with a ring). This telling stems far deeper than traditional Christianity. Almost all horror movies use the catholic church as a pig back to pedal their beliefs. What about others? The ending is still a tale of self sacrifice like in the Bible, but with a gnostic touch. That sacrifice comes from you. If you are truely made from God then you possess God like qualities. That is why the angels or watchers were cast out of Eden and why Adam and Eve were punished for eating the apple. It made humans aware of what they are. And gnostiscm and magical (and or pagan practices) enforce what humanity really is. Obviously I'm bias But I have a feeling that is what Eggers was trying to convey a little bit. He purposely remains very vague on his religious beliefs so anyone can interpret it how they please.
Satanic film. Wasn’t about vampires, Jungian “shadow work” or anything else. They made Nosferatu the literal devil or a demon of lust in this film. The very opening of the film, she’s calling out for any entity to provide her “comfort” and the darkness answered. The voice very clearly asked if she agreed to succumb to the darkness and she said “I do.” The very tagline of the film is “succumb to the darkness”. She made a deal with a demon or the devil and paid at the end the consequences. Once you sell your soul, you’ve made your choice. Twice she gave “consent” to Nosferatu and accepted the spiritual contract. I don’t feel bad or see her as a victim. Be careful who you call out to in the darkness.
So is the Bible full of Satanic stories? Dracula is a demon, or the devil, yes. He isn't the hero, he's the antagonist. That's the point. Of course in the original story, it's the power of Christ that destroys the vampire, which is an anti-christ figure. He doesn't give his blood to give life, he takes your blood to take your life.
I think this is a better interpretation than her “sacrificing “ herself. If you look at it from the sinful behaviors lead to bad outcome route rather than Christ saving the world from the vampire route- it makes sense
Vampires are satanic. That's the point. They are a mockery of the Christ figure. They take your blood to sustain their lives. Christ gave his blood to sustain your life.
If you comment on a Jews video with the intention of offending said Jew by talking about how you think Jesus is a king it’s a little bit anti semitic. Go bother the radical Muslims. The real enemy. Picking on the few remaining Jews who are almost all tiny and nerdy is just pathetic frankly.
It shouldn’t be but sadly Muslims and antisemites have usurped the declaration of truth for their own nefarious purposes. It is very clearly being used as a slight at jews by many saying it and they are getting unwitting Christians to play along. That is how antisemites operate. They are not big enough on their own to make any kind of meaningful difference, so they try to attach themselves like leeches to other causes where they can manipulate a larger group to go along with them.
The phrase isn’t bad. The problem is that it’s almost always said by people who are antisemites, but believe they’re Christians. So the phrase is somewhat tainted
@@newdivide9882 Really? Is that so? Can you give an actual example of "Christ is King" being said by people who are antisemites? I think you're just mindlessly parroting Klavan's twisted self-righteous B.S. Alas, Klavan was taking a stupid cheap shot at Candace Owens, who is a real Christian and who rightly called out the Israeli genocide of the Palestinians in Gaza. Klavan threw her under the bus at the behest of the flaming arch-Zionist Ben Shapiro, who hates Candace and anyone else who won't kowtow to the genocidal ethnosupremacist Likud government in Israel. Given his lack of charity and flagrant disregard for the truth (his lies are cloaked in unctuous sanctimony), I have my doubts that Klavan is actually a Christian in any meaningful sense of the word. If anything, Klavan is a classic Pharisee, whom Jesus denounced as "a nest of vipers" and "those whitewashed sepulchres". Klavan egregiously flaunts his blasphemy against the 9th commandment of Our Lord, and one day he will be called to answer for his despicable calumny.
I disagree. I thought the movies ending was brilliant. She accepted the darkness within herself, took accountability for the mistake she made early on by vowing herself to Orlok, and then sacrificed herself to save the ones she loved as well as however many victims would have fallen subsequently. I feel God is implied by the Dafoe character. He represents the knowledge of God and Demons that the others either deny or remain silent about. I believe it is apparent that the Mina character also clearly believes in God from the first scene. She is praying, and specifically for a guardian angel. She is the only one who does believe in God besides the Dafoe character, and gives the ultimate sacrifice for others in the end. I thought it was brilliant!
This is kind of the common problem with modern versions of these classics. The story is a Christian story. You can't pull that out of the story and still have the story. It's at the core.
@@AudioEpics Yeah, Peter Jackson did a good job of adapting by staying within the moral universe and echoing the tone. It's clear the ROP people had no interest in trying to understand the moral universe. Their dialogue and story was completely adrift no matter how hard they tried to match the tone.
@@giovanniferraiolo7682 1922 Nosferatu is a modern adaptation of Bram Stoker's dracula. The Christian themes are all removed and turned into vague imagery like light and dark.
haven’t seen it yet. want to. not “religious” other than knowing religious extremism of any kind is bad. i love your analysis and i can tell im going to agree with it. I had an art history professor a million years ago who said something about modern art i never forgot-and, as someone with a masters degree IN art, i love a lot of modern art-he said, “there are absolutely no babies depicted in modern art.” by contrast he was showing da vincis madonna and child or maybe a boticelli?? anyhow, i never forgot that.
That insight about no babies has floored me....wow...never thought about that, but it makes sense and the more I ponder it the deeper the ramifications go. Glad I read your comment! Cheers
@@elvinfoehammerSame here. I love modern art, because it reveals the phoniness of those who claim there’s meaning in it. The epitome of modern art is Hunter Biden’s work: meaningless crap that was actually just a way to legally bribe the Biden Crime Family. It’s the slasher film version of art.
Definitely rare , but not "none". "The cradle" by Berthe Morisot, at the beginning of the modern period. The American artist Mary Cassatt is famous for making many images of mothers with their babies. Pablo Picasso made "mother and child" during his blue period. And created a number of abstract babies later on. And one more contemporary, even though you said a million years ago 😊, is March Quinn's giant sculpture titled Giant Baby.
Claiming to be a fan of the original 1922 Nosferatu and then criticizing Egger’s version for essentially the exact same ending is moronic. For one, that ending, is one of the few major story changes that differentiate the film from Stoker’s novel. It’s the entire framing device of original Nosferatu Director FW Murnau and his screen writer Henrik Galeen’s story for Nosferatu-that the evil beset on the town and Ellen’s loved ones is vanquished by her self sacrifice. You change a crucial element like that and you’re ultimately just making another umpteenth version of Dracula. Egger’s even stated that his appreciation for Murnau’s original is that it took Stoker’s “stuffy” (his words) novel and condensed it into this more simplistic little fairy tale.
The major difference in the new film is that Ellen in the new film has sworn a bond with - and somehow copulated with - the demon in the past and is already his bride. Marrying Hutter is treated as bigamy by the vampire and Orlok heads to Wisborg to reclaim her. It makes sense of Orlok's attraction to Ellen/Lucy in earlier versions. In the original two films, Ellen/Lucy is portrayed as virginal and apparently without sin - indeed, the marriage might be sexless - which is how she seduces the vampire. I agree about the fairytale aspect. Nosferatu is more Brothers Grimm than Bram Stoker. The basic premise is the same - the estate agent going to Transylvania, the vampire trying to take his wife from him - but the underlying cultural references are completely different.
Finally, someone shares my views on this movie. Like Klavan, I thought the first 2/3 were awesome, then the final 1/3 ruined the movie for me. Orlok was built up as this demonic force, a walking blasphemy, but the movie refused to invoke God to defeat him. Instead, the Van Helsing character repeatedly tells the Mina character "You are our salvation." He even tells her it would be better if she lived in pagan times, then she would have been given proper respect. Thus, the Mina character is treated as the ultimate power that can overcome evil, and the movie becomes a ham-fisted attempt at female empowerment. A shame, because I could talk forever about how excellent the movie's first part was, only for the ending to leave a bad taste in my mouth.
This is the best take on the movie I've seen and Ive seen most of them because I'm obsessed with this movie! It's so good and Mr Klavan puts the finger on exactly the right thing here
It’s exactly what you said, Andrew! The photography and everything was beautiful. The shift in the movie is tangible. It’s a mess after Dracula gets to the city she’s in.
Eggers is great. One of the few working in Hollywood that is in touch with the archetypal spiritual world and puts it on screen in a way that feels genuine
Klavan called The Lighthouse for a "bad movie". His movie takes are trash. I'm not surprised he disliked this one. All of Eggers' 4 movies are great, and The Lighthouse is his best one so far.
As an atheist/agnostic, I would argue that love for her husband is the reason she had the strength to fight Orlock. I wonder if theist would believe this is strong enough. If not, then one may not be able to do it for their children, correct?
If God doesn’t exist then husbands and children have no value. But because they evidently do have value, there is also evidently a God. And no, love for a spouse does not give a person the power to fight Evil Incarnate. Only Good Incarnate can do that.
@@Seanain_O_hEarchai Well if your religion says that without god children are worthless than it's not very moral, but it's comming from a pagan so i guess me and my opinion are worthless too, based on you
@@annusaidshave9890 if there is no Transcendent Fundament of Reality, moral truths are completely arbitrary and do not exist. Nihilism is the logical conclusion to atheism. I shouldn’t be able to keep asking you “why is murder bad?” and for you to never reach a single element of your moral epistemology which props it all up (i.e. God). If I can keep asking “why is that bad?” to all your reasons murder is bad you don’t have a Moral system. It’s the atheist system which is immoral, because it is the one which necessitates children having no objective value. If you’re a religious pagan you should agree somewhat depending on your beliefs. But pagan can mean anything from a N@zi Folkist to a leftist atheist so I’m not sure.
I thought the movie was one of the best movies I've seen in a few years but I think he's right. Making Ellen Hutter a more devout and fanatical Christian would've given the film more historical authenticity. Even non-Christians like myself, in the English speaking countries where this movie is marketed, are still culturally western and there is something about that classic good versus evil vibe that's primal for most of us. This isn't classic good versus evil. This was a woman who sacrificed herself because she was psychologically and spiritually disturbed - not because of some higher belief or principle, or transcendent value... what many would call God. Eggers says he "longs for a world with more of the sacred and less of the profane" and now with a few instant classics under his belt, no time is better than now to use his fame and notoriety to become a cultural force to help shape that world. Not saying we should Christianize everything like you'd expect from the types that get into the Daily Wire, but in certain historical contexts, we "shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater".
But Nosferatu is not meant to be a Christian experience. Nosferatu is more to do with the occult. Although Nosferatu is based off Dracula, there are differences.
Geeze Klavan, this is the first video of yours I've watched in a while. It was great, until I realized you're still harping on those who proclaim Christ is King. Stick to movie reviews.
I saw it as Ellen didn't really defeat Orlok and died tragically absent of God. This brilliant movie, for me , is all about sin. People die in sin thinking they are sinless. Elp
I haven't read many horror genre books, but from what I do know, I find it very interesting how authors like Mary Shelley and Bram Stoker use their works as a way to sort out their own personal struggles. Shelley dealt with the pain of child loss (the birth of a life that ends up turning painful). Stoker worked for an actor who pulled Stoker in with charisma then treated him terribly (being charmed by someone secretly villainous). I'd say the horror genre is one of the few fiction genres that shows people facing the sinfulness of the world head-on.
In the member section of the Daily Wire: Klavan, "Fiction doesn't work well for me because the minute I come across a funny name, I can't keep reading." ...Also Klavan: writes a fictional book series with a character named, Stan-Stan Stankowski.
Max Schreck did way better than Bill Skarsgard. The remake is semi ok, but nothing in comparison to the original movie. You could imagine how good the silent movie would be if it wasn't silent.
In fairness to the original, it was supposed to be Dracula and they were trying to get the rights to make it. Failing that, they had to change it enough to try and escape the copyright infringement and failed.
Yes, as a film student, I wrote a dissertation on the film. I know practically every frame and I still rewatch it often. Most recently, I bought the new Christopher Young score on CD. I ripped my MoC and BFI Blu-rays, put the Young score on the MoC version, which it fits perfectly, then added the BFI intertitles, creating my own English-friendly version.
secular thinking? what are you blabbing about? also orlok feels fresh, more like real life cursed slavic lord of that land, instead of theatrical/cartoony depiction in dracula.
My favorite episodes are when you talk about Films. I want a whole channel just based on you taking us through films and breaking down the best or worst characters, stories, best lines. I love seeing the worldview behind the films and you always have a way of pinpointing the exact things I feel but can't make others see when watching a movie.
This was the most engaging movie I've seen of the last 5 years, one of my favorite things about it is how faithful the story is to the original. Like Klavan said, it's not perfect, but it captured my attention in a way that I've almost forgotten that movies could. I love the original 1922 version and worried that this would spit on it, but I was happily proven wrong. For context, I'm a 19 year old dude.
Your summary argument makes me think of why I like the movie Noah. Even though Darren Aronofsky is a professed atheist, he let himself write and direct a movie in which God exists and the characters believe in him. Consequently, even if the movie doesn't literally resemble the 'movie' that most Christians have playing on their head when they think of the Noah story, he managed to make a film that was more true to Christian themes and principles than many movies produced by actual Christians.
I am a HUGE fan of the novel "Dracula". It is one of my favorite books and I have read it multiple times. I also was excited for this movie and I did enjoy it, but as I left the theater, I felt like I had seen a "bargain basement" Dracula-and not just because it was "Nosferatu" and already a knock-off of the original, but because it didn't have the resolution of Dracula. In Dracula, in the end, evil is not only defeated, but the character of Dracula is even hinted at as being redeemed. Also, the characters are CLEARLY Christian and clearly acting out of a paradigm where God is clearly being invoked and honored, while Dracula himself is clearly the enemy of God and goodness. Also, the whole notion of the female protagonist sacrificing herself, both morally and physically, as the Ellen Hutter character does in Nosferatu is completely ABSENT in Dracula with Mina Harker. I found the Ellen Hutter character's motivations to be self-centered and weak, whereas Mina Harker's motivations are self-sacrificial and quite daring and powerful. Also, the love between Mina and Jonathan Harker in Dracula is far more REAL feeling than the "love" between Thomas and Ellen Hutter in Nosferatu. Also, Ellen Hutter's character is truly a pathetically weak character in general, especially when compared to Mina Harker. If anything, Mina was the proto-feminist ideal: a smart, talented, powerful woman who helps the men figure out exactly how the villain operates and plays a key role in bringing him down. You'd think that the character as written in the book would naturally play to modern audiences (even though she is also clearly a Victorian English woman and devoted and loving to her husband), whereas the Ellen Hutter character just seems to be a chaotic mess whose only value is of a sexual nature (even to the villain) in the end of the story. I dunno, I have more thoughts that I need to concretize, but generally, I liked Nosferatu ok, but it was disappointing (albeit beautifully filmed). I DID like Bill Skarsgaard's Count Orlok, but I wish he had been a little more subtle at times. I actually liked that there weren't that many jump scares though and most of the horror was actually more atmospheric in nature than anything. But still, disappointing over all.
Although Nosferatu is a plagiarized Dracula, it is not supposed to be viewed as exactly the same. Ellen is not Mina, so you shouldn’t expect her to act the same. I think they did a pretty good job in sticking to the original silent film. I think you’re trying too hard to make Nosferatu into the Dracula you want.
Nosferatu is only ever said to be 'inspired by' Dracula, not a direct adaptation. The basic story - that an estate agent goes to Transylvania and the resident vampire sets off after his wife - is the same, but everything else is different. It's a 'Mitteleuropean' retelling of the basic story from a 'Mitteleuropean' cultural viewpoint, with shades of the Brothers Grimm, rather than the viewpoint of a 19th century Irishman.
I won't be watching this, because my gentler feminine spirit does NOT sit well with films that focus on fear and gore and disturbing things like that... but I loved hearing your analysis of it as a story! Especially Willem Dafoe's monologue about the spiritual world! What a great piece of writing. "We have not been so much enlightened as we have been blinded by the gaseous light of science." How true. Love your content, Mr. Klavan!
This is a fantastic film. Klaven's review is not a true review of the film but his own issues with Modernity. That is a false model for the film review. The film's ending fits within the confines of the narrative presents. The film is tied to Gothic literature. Gothic literature is not 18th Century. It's 19th Century. Gothic work developed from Romanticism. The epistemic posture of Romantism is intuition: the subject's understanding is direct and unmediated by any other element (reason etc.). Two early foci of the Romantic Movement are "sturm und drang" (often translated as storm and stress). The angst and turmoil being evoked are found in the prevailing mood, the time between choice and consequence, the border between the understood and foreign, and a sustained dread. This work as a Gothic tale is a meditation on evil and a heroine's sacrifice. Eggers always seems to treat each narrative as if its underlying assumptions are real. It is what adds weight to the product. That is who he is as a film maker. *The language used by the vampire is Dacian. This is a dead language originally spoken by the Dacians (an ancient people who generally occupied the geography of Modern Romania) who were conquered by the Romans at the beginning of the Second Century. Use of ancient languages in his work mirrors what was done in "The Northman: where Eggers uses old Nordic (including the runes on the sword), and an old Slavic Russian precursor when the slave woman would speak her native tongue.
I haven't seen Egger's Nosferatu yet, but I've watched his previous films multiple times. I think you're really off base about him being "pretentious". That is often used against films that are genuinely trying to make art; but it only really applies to movies like Interstellar; they feel profound and challenging, and use a lot of the techniques pioneered by the greats, but without real philosophical or psychological depth. The Lighthouse is challenging, heavy-handed, confusing, and maybe self-indulgent, but it isn't pretending to be anything. It is not pretentious. While I appreciate that you would like to see films emerging out of a genuinely Christian worldview, those films are incredibly rare. Eggers is one of the few working today who is actually TRYING to plumb religious depths in a serious fashion. His interviews and comments, his nods to myth, his magical worldview... this is what we need to be promoting. Not as Christian art, yet, but at least as GOOD art. He needs encouragement in that direction, not criticism. Push him to admit explicitly what his devotees see emerging in his films: a sacramental worldview in which Evil is real but is utterly outshone by the Good. He's one step away.
Post Modernism is post-Christian. And some of Willem Dafoe's remarks in "Nosferstu" are absurd -- and misogynistic, too. For example, he praises the pre-Christian tradition of human sacrifice, AS IF that horror was, somehow, beneficial. In fact, many pagan cultures embraced Christianity becoz of the God who sacrificed HIMSELF -- as a complete, everlasting atonement for sin.
Both technically. Sun is the actual mechanic of his death, but he was also cursed to not be able to leave her if she willingly offered herself to him. Her sacrifice as it was compelled him to her and even though he saw the sun was rising and even started to pull away she was able to pull him back in and he could not resist even though it was his ultimate demise.
I agree one hundred percent. I was ready to call it the movie of the year until the implied necrophilia scene. Rather than let us mourn with this grieving father, he decided to amp up the grotesquerie.
I actually find that decision really interesting, because you can read it as Ellen not being the hero at all, but instead casting everyone else around her into misery because she can’t get what she wants… she ultimately destroys herself by embracing her evil desires, which, although tragic, is just, and ultimately good for society
@@yiyithewuster I'm not actually talking about that scene. I'm talking about the scene where Friedrich enters the tomb of his wife and daughters. He starts kissing his dead wife and it's implied that he went further than that.
One thing that I like about this movie is that prior to the protagonist visiting the vampire for the first time, his wife is given premonition. I have to admit that the women in my life have always been given premonition before big events. Beyond this, I think its important that going to Orlocks estate was what the protagonist CHOSE, and by so doing brought the following events onto himself. If the premonitions had been heeded the evil could have been avoided. But alas, he needed to further his career prospects
The second to last shot in the movie places emphasis on the reflection of a cross formed by a shadow on Willem Dafoe’s face. I take this to mean that there is some sort of acknowledgment of the shadow being incorporated in order for the light of faith to shine so to speak
I was explaining to my friend who I went to see the movie with that the van helsing type character didn't make a lick of sense to me. That his theological positions were like trying to play video games by setting up everything correctly inside your living room and then shutting off the electricity to your house and jumping into your neighbor's pool with a tea pot in your nose. That basically his understanding of salvation was strange for someone who had wrestled with evil the way he had and still had a belief in God. That in itself could be commentary, but more than likely to me is that he's trying to make Christian themed movies with ambiguous metaphysics. Its an agnostic movie.
Really enjoyed this analysis. During the film I too felt like something was missing. There was evil but not god. It seemed like Eggers tried to replace the Christian belief of God’s love/forgiveness/grace with a woman’s love/lust but it felt greatly insufficient to match the grace required to vanquish the mystical evil that the nosferatu/dracula character suffered. I suppose you can assume God was there but it was extremely subtle if at all. Truly engrossing and atmospheric film but not everyone will enjoy the pure rawness.
The last film that I thought was amazingly beautiful & shot as if every frame was a picture, was The Revenant. I am anxiously waiting to see Nosferatu. I also really enjoyed The VVitch, which was dark & disturbing but groundbreaking in subject matter & vision. Really appreciate Mr. Klaven's review
She sacrificed herself because she loves her husband and she didn't want him to suffer by the hands of orlock because of her. I found the ending was epic. I saw this in theaters. When I saw the final scene and how viceral it was I was quite floored. I understand your God angle but in my opinion the story doesn't necessarily need god to work and/or be adequately entertaining. William Dofae was truly entertaining in this movie. His scenes were very memorable!
I see Dafoe’s character as a luciferian false light , the last frame with the sun on him felt ominous like a ‘light-bearer’. It’s interesting , he never used a crucifix or Jesus’ name, he used occultic rituals and Old Testament quotes. Even the ‘I wrestled the devil like Jacob wrestled the angel’ quote; first reminds me of The Lighthouse as an intertextual narrative , also as a rebellious being climbing the ladder. The magick trick here of The Professor is to bring himself back to life as a human, his former self, which ultimately causes the vampire to beast transformation. Also, the ending was striking; Thomas was bent on one knee as if he’s a Knight/Prince next to his Princess asleep, reminiscent of a common fairytale trope, this is relevant to the time period. Eggers next film is slated to be ‘The Knight’ a medieval epic. So, imo the grand narrative leaves the ending at an ‘empire strikes back’ type of place within Eggers filmography
This is coming from the guy who called The Lighthouse a "bad movie". As well as: Calling anti-war movies for disgusting/immoral Calling Spielberg movie for "shallow and childish" Calling The Shawshank Redemption for "an overrated movie" (without listing a single argument as to why it is overrated) Klavan's movie takes are as garbage as Shapiro's movie takes. Stick to something you're actually good at.
Another great film is the Midnight Mass series. But its ending does deliver a universal salutation to human love. This series uses music within the story to shine light on faith and the human heart. When Riley’s father puts on Neil Diamond’s Holly Holy and this is used as backdrop to the other stories within the film it was the exposition of the love that permeates the cosmos. I think if you see the angel as a vampire and literalize it you lose the story. The ending is brilliant and show what happens to us all.
@DapperDan93981 Save it. Assuming you actually WATCHED the video, you know full well what you were doing with your post. So "Do NOT take the name of the Lord in vain!"
@@Hard_Boiled_Entertainment all I know is that Klavan is offended whenever somebody says it, even though it’s true. Can you explain to me why it’s such a horrible, evil thing to say?
@@DapperDan93981 He did a whole video about it. But basically, in the big dust-up between Candace Owens and Ben Shapiro, she posted that phrase to troll him because he's Orthodox Jew. Ever since then, her acolytes keep posting "CHRIST IS KING endlessly--again, using Jesus's name to TROLL, and therefore taking the Lord's name in vain. And then when people call OUT said trolling, they act all Righteous about it, "Oh, I'm just saying the truth! You're a Christian, right? Christ IS king! Why are you selling that out to appease a JOOOOOOOOOO?" Does that help?
You're talking about the movie "Nefarious." You want a movie where good doesn't automatically "win," but the supernatural is involved in a powerful way? That might be it.
Is not Christ king to Christians? Aren’t all the people who inherit the kingdom Christian? Aren’t Jews who follow Christ just Christians? Aren’t all the damned, that is those who don’t follow Christ, for example Jews, not in the kingdom? Did I miss something? How is it Jew hatred to say what is obvious as a Christian? I thought Kravan was a Christian. Oh, thanks for the advertisement in a video that’s not even 15 minutes. If DW is good at anything it’s trying to sell you something.
How is knowing what a man or woman is something outside of rationality? If anything you need irrationality to claim otherwise. There is nothing more empirical, left brain, rationalistic, and scientific about "What is a woman?"
Wow, I loved your novels which I read in my twenties and thirties. I had no idea you had found Christ. Praise God. Your take on Nosferatu is very informed and insightful.
Such a good movie until the end. While one might say its ambiguous, the surface level take-away is that one can defeat evil by violating one's marriage vows, dressing up for evil, marrying evil, and giving yourself totally over to it (becoming one with it, quite literally). It created a false dilemma by excluding the Christian worldview at the end and by offering the grotesque occult "solution." In reality, Orlok wins big, taking Ellen down with him. Ellen is tragic to the end, never triumphant.
Because it is an occult movie. An occult story. It is based on Dracula, but is not Dracula. Nosferatu is not a story of Christianity triumphing over evil.
@@avrgrando I largely agree. But there was more Christianity in Eggers' remake than the original; there was an openness there. And the Dracula/vampire legend has many traditions, including some that draw upon Christianity (e.g. crucifix). The original resolution at least avoided the perverse and surrender to evil, and surely that could've been maintained in the remake somehow, even without an explicit Christian appeal.
Hmm...didn't know that. Willem DaFoe played the vampire in question in Shadow of the Vampire, and he's playing Van Helsing in this remake. I wonder if that casting decision was based on his previous role.
Hmm 🤔 1. I think the history of Western thought can be framed as a kind of clash or at least tension between rationalism and irrationalism. For example, a struggle between reason-based empirical scientific thinking and first person intuitive knowledge and understanding or wisdom. Or between the purely natural and naturalistic vs. the supernatural or preternatural or at least numinous. 2. Different periods of history have different emphases between these two poles, beteeen rationalism and irrationalism, between naturalism and super naturalism. Or the like. 3. So, perhaps, the 19th century Victorian era was a period of scientific rationalism, whereas shortly thereafter things began to change with, say, the introduction of Einstein's theories of relativity and especially with the introduction of quantum mechanics. The newer science arguably served to upend or at least cast doubt on a perfectly ordered mechanical Newtonian universe. 4. Moreover, intellectual ideas can often have consequences in the popular imagination. That is, although there's no necessary logical connection, nonetheless scientific relativity and scientific randomness led many people to regard the universe as relative and random. Hence the Victorian era of rationalism began to shift to an era of irrationalism. 5. Again, I think the battle or tension between rationalism and irrationalism persists throughout Western intellectual history. And in between the eras if rationalism and irrationalism, there is a transitional period where it seems both are true or neither is true. 6. I think today we are living un such a transitional era or period, at least here in the US. For example, the New Atheist movement of the early 2000s was an era of scientific rationalism. But now the New Atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris seem to be sidelined or at least not as influential as in the 2000s, and instead religious interest and spirituality is surprisingly on the rise, on a very big rise or steep trajectory apparently (e.g. as Christian publishing houses have noted, Bible sales have had significant spikes in the last year or two). 7. I think this transitional period between rationalism and irrationalism at least partly if not largely explains the tension in our popular culture too. As is reflected in films like the recent Nosferatu. Where it's still bery much secular and atheistic or at least agnostic in relation to the divine, but it realizes there's something else that's going on that can't be defined and examined and analyzed like we do with the objects of scientific inquiry. The "other" or the numinous or the inexplicable approaches.
I have to disagree. She doesn’t have faith in a higher power, but she has faith in her love for Thomas. Her love to him and the love she received from him kept Orlok at bay. Her decisions in the climax are based on that love and the confidence she had been given via Dafoe’s character. Eggers didn’t create these characters to be religious, and it hits deeper because their faith in science is tested and turned upside down. They would call Orlok’s attachment to Ellen as “Her Melancholy” and treated her as a medical patient and not as spiritually afflicted. Her character invited this being into her life when she was in need of love/hope and it turned into a nightmare, but it did give her some semblance of what she desired, and therefore was conflicted in her desire for her husband and the comforting abuse of her captor. Dafoe’s character raving at the end makes total sense. His whole career as a scientist had been ripped apart at the seems because he decided to look into the occult. His path of seeking truth caused him to be outcasted by his peers. Providence is a big theme in this film, and Dafoe mentions that he moved to Wisborg because he felt a deep inclination to. He waited years in almost complete solitude for his purpose, and when he got to face it, it was a confirmation of the truth he found. That would make anyone ecstatic. He also knew the answer on how to destroy Orlok and rid the town of the plague. Him raving and being mad is the only logical conclusion of the character. I think you have great insight on this. I think what you find the film to lack is merely you not looking in the right place. Which isn’t a bad thing, we are conditioned a to see story telling in a certain way as creatives.
That's why I am a bigger fan of the Coppola version which added a backstory of Count Vlad turning against God. Nosferatu lacked that Good vs Evil and glossed over the Nuns rescuing Hutter and made that scene especially confusing.
I'm not saying the movie is great, but I can't take this guy seriously. He tends to smuggle his ideology into his movie reviews. This is a huge red flag. You are reviewing movies for what they are, not what they would be if you were the author. I remember him and Shapiro not particularly liking the South Korean movie Parasite, because they just couldn't accept what they misunderstood as a left wing message, that rich people are bad and poor people are good. In my opinion they just couldn't align themselves with a movie that was picked by the "decaden" Hollywood Acadamy. Because of that being against it was a must for them. There is a huge blind spot there. Parasite is a great movie. It is already a modern classic.
Yeah, my takeaway from Parasite is that poor people bring each other down like crabs in a bucket and poor people can do terrible things in the pursuit of wealth. The rich people in the movie really didn't do anything that wrong besides being unsympathetic
This video touches on the idea of "Synderesis"that we have an inbuilt understanding of the natural law. I'd love to see more content around that because like they said in the video we have this understanding but we, as a culture, have lost the language and framework to speak about these things.
I keep perceiving these movies differently in regard to religion. I thought God was present in vvitch, but the family failed to act accordingly to be helped. I also thought the movie Silence was a film about faith, but most people tell me it's about loss of faith.
The ending of the 1922 film was triumphant This was anticlimactic … Was looking forward to adding this to my film collection but it didn’t make the cut..
An interesting point. I wonder if the Extended Cut, announced to be released on Blu-Ray, will make the existence of good/God, needed to defeat Orlok in the story, clearer.
5:35 I dont believe her wishing to be raped to death was an accurate interpretation of what happened. I think she was extremely depressed and alot of time people turn to sin( or ungodly spiritualism) when they feel alone to feel better temporarily I think that was what it represented and she has these strong visions with Nosferatu which represents that sin is always there for you and longs for you in this sick way of temptation and deception.
I respectfully disagree. God is in this movie. It is just not some Church bullshit idea of God. You don’t need dogma to put love and the need to sacrifice for the well being of others ahead of giving in to your base, instinctual desires.
I agree that Eggers created a film absent of god to favor secularism, but was it due to feminism? In the end Count Orlok prevails, he claims the Mina archetype and she dies with him. Im not so interested in the story itself, but the themes around it and I think that’s what’s most important about this film. I’m not going to go into all the history and lore that supports why I think this movie coming out Christmas Day was integral to the theme, but the movie is intended to favor the demonic. One of the importance elements in the film is witchcraft which (I think) was absent in Dracula.
Thing is, the Coppola version of Dracula was, and still is, the truest version to the original Bram Stoker novel. Whatever its issues (like Keanu Reeves's would-be attempt at a British accent)...it still has that.
You didn't notice that Depp's character is essentially the female Jesus in the movie? Just before the climax of the film, Van Helsing tells Mina, that in Babylonian times, she would've been a priestess, but that now, she must become the worlds savior. Then, of course, she sacrifices her own life, saving the world from evil, by absorbing it into her own body. This was (yet another) female replacement/inversion film.
One element I appreciated in the film was Orlock saying something similar to:
“I look forward to living in a city of the modern mind, that does not entertain arcane fairy tales”
Which reminds me of Kevin Spacey’s line- “The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn’t exist.”
If you listen to Jonathan Pageau you understand the importance of knowing your fairy tales.
The greatest trick the church did was convincing people their God is real and he needs your worship , obedience, and $$.
One thing I love about this film that the only place where Orlock explicitly has no power is an Orthodox Christian monastery
☦️ as a Romanian, I am so happy to see orthodoxy growing in the US!
Love this
@@ChristosAnesti33 Likewise brother! We too in Eastern Orthodox ROCOR also finding more Western converts with a more intuitive leaning. Great to see!
The truth is out there✝️
@@MikhailKrilov Христос воскресе! 🇷🇺☦️ До хранит Господь Святую Русь!
It's far better than 90% of the movies released in the last 15 years and Robert Eggers actually cares about making great movies instead of pushing an agenda.
This movie is barred from receiving any Oscar nominations because of the new rules
70%. There are a lot of good films out there especially even last year.
Robert Eggers a Hack Nolan wannabe making snooze fest movies
@@Captaiesqueleto Just say your attention span couldn't handle it. He & Nolan are way too different.
@@Captaiesqueletohow is he a Nolan wannabe? They are not similar in any way.
As my father, may he rest in peace, used to say, “Reason is a wonderful servant, but a cruel mistress.”
I'll remeber this one
@@L.SantiagoArteagaMe too. I'm writing it down to make sure I remember it.
That’s a good one 😆
The intuition of conscience causing some of us to detest this film is this:
You don’t overcome sin by submitting to it.
Could you instead say there is virtue in sacrifice?
Those who reject the notion of sin can do just that, in a po-mo kind of way.
@@dgfreshx Absolutely. I guess what I’m trying to say is that her “sacrifice” should not have been able to purchase what it purchased in the film. Klavan is correct about the importance of the characters’ beliefs. Stoker understood this when he wrote the novel. The characters in Dracula all very much have deep Christian faith that motivates them to rise above the animal/instinctual sexual and bloodlust cravings of “the beast” and instead represent the “images of God” in their attitudes toward sexuality and sacrifice. The problem with Eggers’s version of this story is that it gets its notions of sin and sacrifice all twisted. It’s almost like he’s making the claim that the suffering caused by sin is the result of our labeling of those thoughts/feelings/urges as sin; instead, potentially according to Eggers, the solution is to embrace the sinful nature as just one more part of ourselves. Give in to it, incorporating it into yourself, and the psychological and external suffering it causes will cease. This notion is not consistent with the order of the universe I have experienced. Sin tends to exacerbate suffering. I hope that makes sense.
@@mr.w9222 You perfectly described my frustration with the ending. Thank you for putting words to my feelings.
She didn’t succumb, she sacrificed herself for everyone else
You know, like Jesus
Did you just miss all of the crosses, Christ imagery, and Willem Dafoe’s monologue about science blinding us from being able to recognize real darkness?
Indeed. And Ellen sacrificing herself to save everyone else is the most basic Christian symbolism there is.
@@DomH75 Agreed, Klavan is either blinded by ideology or just didn’t pay attention
@@TestTest-hh5mpI think both.
Absolutely not. She tells the Van Helsing she "does not need salvation since she has done nothing wrong" Eggers biggest flaw in this movie is wanting to have its cake and eat it too. He wanted to use Christian ideas where he needed it, but disregarded it. The heroine was filled with perverse sexual desires and literally had sex (that she enjoyed) with a leprous vampire who murdered tiny children she knew. She clearly she was either ignorant of her own flaws or she's complicit of evil @DomH75
"I felt trapped with the Lighthouse."
Then it worked.
You can’t justify a bad movie by saying the premise of the movie is it being bad
That’s not an accomplishment, making someone feel trapped or bored through cinema is a very easy thing to achieve.
So many old horror films were about good vs evil. The actress Barbra Steele once said "back then people were more concerned with what happens when we die. And can things "over there" still affect the living? Now we live is such a age of disbelief, the only thing that gets to people is the horrific destruction of the human body"
The guy who made the "Terrifier" films knew this . He was a second rate FX artist who got no work, so he did the easiest thing which is gore, and it made him millions.
I'm not sure this falls entirely on Eggers. He's just trying to unpack what was in the original Nosferatu. You could criticize the 1922 film in the same way, since Orlock's demise occurs without reference to God or faith.
But it doesn't occur due to human sacrifice of Mina (Ellen).
@@frankie3010 Yes, it does.
@@hanshuber9633 not in the original film, I mean
@@frankie3010 But she does.
There's the synopsis from Wikipedia for the 1922 film: "Ellen reads the book that Hutter found; it claims that a vampire can be destroyed if a pure-hearted woman distracts the vampire from the approaching dawn with her beauty and by offering him her blood of her own free will; she decides to sacrifice herself."
Eggers just added the sex, but in nuce, it remains the same.
But it does. She gives her life to keep Orlock busy.
I heard a preacher once say, ''People call this a secular age, empty of gods, void of religion. I disagree. This age has too much empty religiosity and billions of gods. Each person becomes a god unto himself. This runs true, even amongst Christians. It's become a source of endless sin, suffering and evil. And the greatest shame is that we know it, embrace it and sanctify it.''
That was thirty years ago. If anything has changed, it has, in my view, been only for the worse.
Well said!
RE the lighthouse: feeling like you were trapped with them is the point!!
Yeah he really missed on that
This applies to so many movies, and horrors specifically. They'll acknowledge satan, the supernatural, and elements of the spiritual world, without bringing it back to God, and the power of the name of Jesus.
They do show the MC being cured of the affliction due to the prayer of the local monastery nuns. That's pretty on the nose Christianity in the plot.
Isn't it wild how satan gets more respect than God?
beautifully said!
Always!
Because they’re horror movies, meant to scare you.
Having God will not scare you
‘Nosferatu’ (2024) was awesome. Instant classic. No notes.
It’s a perfect horror film, up there with ‘The Exorcist’ and ‘Rosemary’s Baby’. Worth saying, ‘The Witch’ and ‘The Lighthouse’ are also awesome.
I felt the film was more Jungian than religious. Orlock represented the shadow self, our darkest and most carnal desires, and in order to defeat the shadow self, we must embrace it, confront it, and bring it into the light.
you could say that God is the hero of the story based on this 3 things, the first is the church scene, right after the broker character escaped the castle you see some romanian nuns rescue him and do like some sort of exorcism waking him up with the will to go save his wife. the second would be the van helsing character, you can pray many times to God but that wont inmediately give you a miracle or some crazy salvation, sometimes he answer by sending people who can help you, the van helsing character who wrestled with supernatural stuff was the help the characters needed and those that denied his help or to believe in what he said suffered, the family constantly prayed and said God protects them God is with them but they clearly dont have a strong faith cause they ignored or denied lillys character, so their fate was for ignoring evil. this is also similar to the people during the plague that though praying and going to churches would save them from the plague rather than putting trust in men of medicine. the third and final one is the greatest first creation of God, the light, it was the light of the sun that killed the vampire. lillys character sacrificed herself enough time to have God kill the demon that tormented her and essentially saved the town.
And you know God send van helsing when van helsing mentioned that something told him to go to wissburg that the moment he was prepared for came.
God is the hero of the movie 🙄 Not once was Yahweh mentioned.
While one might say its ambiguous, the surface level take-away is that one can defeat evil by violating one's marriage vows, dressing up for evil, marrying evil, and giving yourself totally over to it (becoming one with it, quite literally). It created a false dilemma by excluding the Christian worldview at the end and by offering the grotesque occult "solution." In reality, Orlok wins big, taking Ellen down with him. Ellen is tragic to the end, never triumphant.
@@tonyl3762 thats one way to look at it, but the movie never denied the power of the church when they saved herr hutter in the monastery. you could say the movie has a sad outcome cause herr hutter cared more about his ambitions in the firm then his marriage. so after he learned it was already late. he fell to his own self desires. a perfect example would be when he signed the divorce pappers that orlok wrote. so he was the unfaithful one that betrayed his wife. he suepected there was something off but like judas he fell for some coins.
@@tonyl3762 so you see the movie serves as an example of the dangers of ambitions and the search for happiness in wealth rather than in love. hutter aware or not was literally making deals with the devil and his wife and the people of wissburg paid the price.
This movie isn’t for everyone. You have to really think it through. I think this movie ultimately must serve as warning. Namely, a line straight from the movie- that evil exists. And persists in societies that forget that it does. Also, that acknowledgement of the shadow, self sacrifice, and exposure to the light of truth is the only way to defeat evil. It also shows that evil can be conjured, and that it can take hold of you without your full awareness. It reminds the viewer not to sell what is most valuable for what is most expedient (Hoult’s character learns this). All of these things are positives, just gotta put your thinking hat on to see them. How anyone was bored with this movie is beyond me. Best movie of 2024.
Couldn't have said it better myself. I was expecting a great horror movie, but I was floored. It was that and much more.
If you do more than watch movies, the content of what you typed, and the content of the movie, is banal. The movie is boring.
@@rickk4990Well, here you are typing and arguing about it online. Obviously somebody is still thinking about it.
Jesus Christ is King.
Yes He is ❤
Eggers adapted Nosferatu, not Dracula. Bram Stocker's work fits in the Christian tradition, the producers of Nosferatu were occultists, as were many German veterans of the Great War. Their idea was to produce a series of occultists films (something like Rosacrucians or Illuminati) about "secret knowledge". In esence, they were part of a sect, or cult. Their plan collapsed because they went broke after losing Stoker's widow's lawsuit. The original Van Helsing represents faith vs reason. Nosferatu is about occult knowledge vs both reason and traditional faith. The Mina character in Nosferatu is, in essence, a pagan human sacrifice. Coppying Dracula was a good way to sell their occultism, as the stage play had been very successful. Lots of German expresionists were mistycs, as the NSDAP was also into misticism, Nosferatu has been acused of being NSDAP. This was because the trauma of war got many people disilutioned with both religion and politics(rationalism). They thought traditional religion had failed just like reason.
Eggers is careful to make his characters Christians (and Orlok has no power in the Ortodox monastery) but he kept the original ending from Nosferatu.
The VVitch has a Puritan ethos. It's about loss of separation (Puritans from the rest of the Church, Pilgrims from England, the family from the rest of the colony, the father from the daughter) that is why it's so hopeless and there is no redention. It's not Catholic.
You Americans and Nazism. Godwin’s law rules you all.
This movie is about as far from secular as almost any movie in recent history.
Please elaborate.
@theophrastus3.056 it's almost entirely about metaphysical concepts in an explicitly non-secular way: desire, love, evil, possession, an undead vampire demon main character who can only be killed by the light of the sun (blatant religious/mythological imagery that stretches back thousands of years), an occultist supporting character, another main character whose mysterious mental illness opens doors for said demon undead vampire thing to control her in some supernatural way, etc.
@@christiantgolden Thanks. I’ve not seen it, but I’ll keep your comments (and Klavan’s) in mind when (or if?) I do.
@@theophrastus3.056😂😂😂
@@christiantgolden Yes, that's true, but at the same time it has a lot of Occultist concepts (even the "wise mentor" character, Von Franz, is a Gnostic/Occultist believer) and not enough Christian concepts, except for the Monastery scene. It's like they fought evil with evil.
I really liked the movie, it could be interpreted as a warning against precisely using the Occult, but I think what the video says is true. It feels bleak (in a good way for a horror film) but also a little hollow, for not showing the good side enough.
Btw klavan was the writer for the American version of one missed call
Disagree. She is out of step with people of the time. As Dafoe said, “you would have been a priestess of Isis in a different time.” She is not of human kind as Orlok said. It wouldn’t have made sense for her to be seeking Christian meaning. She is a pagan priestess in a Christian age around the time Nietzsche declared that “god is dead.”
I think this is spot on.
Which is dumb bullshit. Dracula is a Christian work, Jonathan and Mina and Van Helsing and the rest are Christians.
@@frankie3010 no one cares. Go read dracula instead
@@frankie3010 right, however this is a remade adaptation of the source material that delineates from the original source material quiet frequently especially in theme. Eggers said this was a personal work for him and I think his influences respectfully created the theme of this film. The author of this video states Wilem DeFoes rousing speech in the film, critizing science for blinding man kind from all aspects of the world as a whole, but the video author disregards that in the 1800s, especially in Europe and America, there was a huge supernatural Spiritualist movement. It was more than traditional Christianity, this is a time period when we start seeing the famous Goetic books being formed, and people seeking Gnosis and a Renaissance of Alchemy. DeFoes character is a scholar of this kind of spiritual view. When commanding Depps character notice how he doesn't invoke the name of God, but the angels, and demons of Goetic writings. And commands them with a ring he has (which i believe to be the ring of King Solomon who famously commanded demons and angels with a ring). This telling stems far deeper than traditional Christianity. Almost all horror movies use the catholic church as a pig back to pedal their beliefs. What about others? The ending is still a tale of self sacrifice like in the Bible, but with a gnostic touch. That sacrifice comes from you. If you are truely made from God then you possess God like qualities. That is why the angels or watchers were cast out of Eden and why Adam and Eve were punished for eating the apple. It made humans aware of what they are. And gnostiscm and magical (and or pagan practices) enforce what humanity really is. Obviously I'm bias But I have a feeling that is what Eggers was trying to convey a little bit. He purposely remains very vague on his religious beliefs so anyone can interpret it how they please.
Satanic film. Wasn’t about vampires, Jungian “shadow work” or anything else. They made Nosferatu the literal devil or a demon of lust in this film. The very opening of the film, she’s calling out for any entity to provide her “comfort” and the darkness answered. The voice very clearly asked if she agreed to succumb to the darkness and she said “I do.” The very tagline of the film is “succumb to the darkness”. She made a deal with a demon or the devil and paid at the end the consequences. Once you sell your soul, you’ve made your choice. Twice she gave “consent” to Nosferatu and accepted the spiritual contract. I don’t feel bad or see her as a victim. Be careful who you call out to in the darkness.
So is the Bible full of Satanic stories? Dracula is a demon, or the devil, yes. He isn't the hero, he's the antagonist. That's the point. Of course in the original story, it's the power of Christ that destroys the vampire, which is an anti-christ figure. He doesn't give his blood to give life, he takes your blood to take your life.
I think this is a better interpretation than her “sacrificing “ herself. If you look at it from the sinful behaviors lead to bad outcome route rather than Christ saving the world from the vampire route- it makes sense
Thank you! I can't believe so many people fail to see that. It's very clear in other movies too, like The VVitch.
Relax it's just a movie
Vampires are satanic. That's the point. They are a mockery of the Christ figure. They take your blood to sustain their lives. Christ gave his blood to sustain your life.
Saying Christ is King is not Jew hating. Please don’t try to equate that. And it should be Christ is King of kings.
If you comment on a Jews video with the intention of offending said Jew by talking about how you think Jesus is a king it’s a little bit anti semitic.
Go bother the radical Muslims. The real enemy. Picking on the few remaining Jews who are almost all tiny and nerdy is just pathetic frankly.
It shouldn’t be but sadly Muslims and antisemites have usurped the declaration of truth for their own nefarious purposes. It is very clearly being used as a slight at jews by many saying it and they are getting unwitting Christians to play along. That is how antisemites operate. They are not big enough on their own to make any kind of meaningful difference, so they try to attach themselves like leeches to other causes where they can manipulate a larger group to go along with them.
Pretty sure he was specifically referring to Candace Owens there
The phrase isn’t bad. The problem is that it’s almost always said by people who are antisemites, but believe they’re Christians. So the phrase is somewhat tainted
@@newdivide9882 Really? Is that so? Can you give an actual example of "Christ is King" being said by people who are antisemites? I think you're just mindlessly parroting Klavan's twisted self-righteous B.S.
Alas, Klavan was taking a stupid cheap shot at Candace Owens, who is a real Christian and who rightly called out the Israeli genocide of the Palestinians in Gaza. Klavan threw her under the bus at the behest of the flaming arch-Zionist Ben Shapiro, who hates Candace and anyone else who won't kowtow to the genocidal ethnosupremacist Likud government in Israel.
Given his lack of charity and flagrant disregard for the truth (his lies are cloaked in unctuous sanctimony), I have my doubts that Klavan is actually a Christian in any meaningful sense of the word. If anything, Klavan is a classic Pharisee, whom Jesus denounced as "a nest of vipers" and "those whitewashed sepulchres". Klavan egregiously flaunts his blasphemy against the 9th commandment of Our Lord, and one day he will be called to answer for his despicable calumny.
I disagree. I thought the movies ending was brilliant. She accepted the darkness within herself, took accountability for the mistake she made early on by vowing herself to Orlok, and then sacrificed herself to save the ones she loved as well as however many victims would have fallen subsequently. I feel God is implied by the Dafoe character. He represents the knowledge of God and Demons that the others either deny or remain silent about. I believe it is apparent that the Mina character also clearly believes in God from the first scene. She is praying, and specifically for a guardian angel. She is the only one who does believe in God besides the Dafoe character, and gives the ultimate sacrifice for others in the end. I thought it was brilliant!
This is kind of the common problem with modern versions of these classics. The story is a Christian story. You can't pull that out of the story and still have the story. It's at the core.
That's why Rings of Power failed so miserably. God is at the foundation of the Middle-Earth stories. It doesn't even have to be explicit.
@@AudioEpics Yeah, Peter Jackson did a good job of adapting by staying within the moral universe and echoing the tone. It's clear the ROP people had no interest in trying to understand the moral universe. Their dialogue and story was completely adrift no matter how hard they tried to match the tone.
Modern versions of these classics?!?!
The 1922 original has no mention to God or Christ. It's the same story.
Stop trying to impose your view on art.
@@giovanniferraiolo7682 1922 Nosferatu is a modern adaptation of Bram Stoker's dracula. The Christian themes are all removed and turned into vague imagery like light and dark.
Yes you can, lol. The movie did well.
haven’t seen it yet. want to. not “religious” other than knowing religious extremism of any kind is bad. i love your analysis and i can tell im going to agree with it.
I had an art history professor a million years ago who said something about modern art i never forgot-and, as someone with a masters degree IN art, i love a lot of modern art-he said, “there are absolutely no babies depicted in modern art.” by contrast he was showing da vincis madonna and child or maybe a boticelli??
anyhow, i never forgot that.
That insight about no babies has floored me....wow...never thought about that, but it makes sense and the more I ponder it the deeper the ramifications go. Glad I read your comment! Cheers
@@elvinfoehammerSame here. I love modern art, because it reveals the phoniness of those who claim there’s meaning in it. The epitome of modern art is Hunter Biden’s work: meaningless crap that was actually just a way to legally bribe the Biden Crime Family. It’s the slasher film version of art.
Definitely rare , but not "none".
"The cradle" by Berthe Morisot,
at the beginning of the modern period. The American artist Mary Cassatt is famous for making many images of mothers with their babies.
Pablo Picasso made "mother and child" during his blue period.
And created a number of abstract babies later on.
And one more contemporary, even though you said a million years ago 😊, is March Quinn's giant sculpture titled Giant Baby.
13:43 I was wondering why I don’t listen to more of this channel then I remember the Christ is king stuff.
He's gotta keep his job, ya know.
13:50 Christ is King.
The culture which seeks to silence God will soon hear His voice through nature.
Claiming to be a fan of the original 1922 Nosferatu and then criticizing Egger’s version for essentially the exact same ending is moronic. For one, that ending, is one of the few major story changes that differentiate the film from Stoker’s novel. It’s the entire framing device of original Nosferatu Director FW Murnau and his screen writer Henrik Galeen’s story for Nosferatu-that the evil beset on the town and Ellen’s loved ones is vanquished by her self sacrifice. You change a crucial element like that and you’re ultimately just making another umpteenth version of Dracula. Egger’s even stated that his appreciation for Murnau’s original is that it took Stoker’s “stuffy” (his words) novel and condensed it into this more simplistic little fairy tale.
The major difference in the new film is that Ellen in the new film has sworn a bond with - and somehow copulated with - the demon in the past and is already his bride. Marrying Hutter is treated as bigamy by the vampire and Orlok heads to Wisborg to reclaim her. It makes sense of Orlok's attraction to Ellen/Lucy in earlier versions. In the original two films, Ellen/Lucy is portrayed as virginal and apparently without sin - indeed, the marriage might be sexless - which is how she seduces the vampire. I agree about the fairytale aspect. Nosferatu is more Brothers Grimm than Bram Stoker. The basic premise is the same - the estate agent going to Transylvania, the vampire trying to take his wife from him - but the underlying cultural references are completely different.
Finally, someone shares my views on this movie. Like Klavan, I thought the first 2/3 were awesome, then the final 1/3 ruined the movie for me. Orlok was built up as this demonic force, a walking blasphemy, but the movie refused to invoke God to defeat him. Instead, the Van Helsing character repeatedly tells the Mina character "You are our salvation." He even tells her it would be better if she lived in pagan times, then she would have been given proper respect. Thus, the Mina character is treated as the ultimate power that can overcome evil, and the movie becomes a ham-fisted attempt at female empowerment. A shame, because I could talk forever about how excellent the movie's first part was, only for the ending to leave a bad taste in my mouth.
You articulated my thoughts.
It's a movie...
This is the best take on the movie I've seen and Ive seen most of them because I'm obsessed with this movie! It's so good and Mr Klavan puts the finger on exactly the right thing here
It’s exactly what you said, Andrew! The photography and everything was beautiful. The shift in the movie is tangible. It’s a mess after Dracula gets to the city she’s in.
Eggers is great. One of the few working in Hollywood that is in touch with the archetypal spiritual world and puts it on screen in a way that feels genuine
The Witch had that feel. Nosferatu lacked it
@@Tolstoy111 i think all his films have it, just to different degrees.
Klavan called The Lighthouse for a "bad movie". His movie takes are trash. I'm not surprised he disliked this one.
All of Eggers' 4 movies are great, and The Lighthouse is his best one so far.
@@CarlFredrik-uo1cu he did like it though
@ When he reviewed The Northman (which he liked) he said that The Lighthouse was bad.
As an atheist/agnostic, I would argue that love for her husband is the reason she had the strength to fight Orlock. I wonder if theist would believe this is strong enough. If not, then one may not be able to do it for their children, correct?
If God doesn’t exist then husbands and children have no value. But because they evidently do have value, there is also evidently a God. And no, love for a spouse does not give a person the power to fight Evil Incarnate. Only Good Incarnate can do that.
@@Seanain_O_hEarchai What you just said is the most hilarious thing ever
@@annusaidshave9890 have you never heard of the moral argument before?
@@Seanain_O_hEarchai Well if your religion says that without god children are worthless than it's not very moral, but it's comming from a pagan so i guess me and my opinion are worthless too, based on you
@@annusaidshave9890 if there is no Transcendent Fundament of Reality, moral truths are completely arbitrary and do not exist. Nihilism is the logical conclusion to atheism.
I shouldn’t be able to keep asking you “why is murder bad?” and for you to never reach a single element of your moral epistemology which props it all up (i.e. God). If I can keep asking “why is that bad?” to all your reasons murder is bad you don’t have a Moral system. It’s the atheist system which is immoral, because it is the one which necessitates children having no objective value.
If you’re a religious pagan you should agree somewhat depending on your beliefs. But pagan can mean anything from a N@zi Folkist to a leftist atheist so I’m not sure.
I thought the movie was one of the best movies I've seen in a few years but I think he's right. Making Ellen Hutter a more devout and fanatical Christian would've given the film more historical authenticity. Even non-Christians like myself, in the English speaking countries where this movie is marketed, are still culturally western and there is something about that classic good versus evil vibe that's primal for most of us. This isn't classic good versus evil. This was a woman who sacrificed herself because she was psychologically and spiritually disturbed - not because of some higher belief or principle, or transcendent value... what many would call God. Eggers says he "longs for a world with more of the sacred and less of the profane" and now with a few instant classics under his belt, no time is better than now to use his fame and notoriety to become a cultural force to help shape that world. Not saying we should Christianize everything like you'd expect from the types that get into the Daily Wire, but in certain historical contexts, we "shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater".
But Nosferatu is not meant to be a Christian experience. Nosferatu is more to do with the occult. Although Nosferatu is based off Dracula, there are differences.
I don't care if I've seen a movie or not, I love when Andrew reviews movies.
Geeze Klavan, this is the first video of yours I've watched in a while. It was great, until I realized you're still harping on those who proclaim Christ is King. Stick to movie reviews.
I saw it as Ellen didn't really defeat Orlok and died tragically absent of God. This brilliant movie, for me , is all about sin. People die in sin thinking they are sinless. Elp
I haven't read many horror genre books, but from what I do know, I find it very interesting how authors like Mary Shelley and Bram Stoker use their works as a way to sort out their own personal struggles. Shelley dealt with the pain of child loss (the birth of a life that ends up turning painful). Stoker worked for an actor who pulled Stoker in with charisma then treated him terribly (being charmed by someone secretly villainous). I'd say the horror genre is one of the few fiction genres that shows people facing the sinfulness of the world head-on.
Yes, I think all authors do that to some extent, even if it’s a subconscious process.
In the member section of the Daily Wire:
Klavan, "Fiction doesn't work well for me because the minute I come across a funny name, I can't keep reading."
...Also Klavan: writes a fictional book series with a character named, Stan-Stan Stankowski.
Midnight Mass did the same thing in terms of not sticking the landing. Such a great show and then that shit new age ending.
That's why the 90's Dracula ending was so good. Dracula finds redemption and forgiveness from God.
Max Schreck did way better than Bill Skarsgard. The remake is semi ok, but nothing in comparison to the original movie. You could imagine how good the silent movie would be if it wasn't silent.
In fairness to the original, it was supposed to be Dracula and they were trying to get the rights to make it. Failing that, they had to change it enough to try and escape the copyright infringement and failed.
For me NOTHING compares to the 1922 original.
Yes, as a film student, I wrote a dissertation on the film. I know practically every frame and I still rewatch it often. Most recently, I bought the new Christopher Young score on CD. I ripped my MoC and BFI Blu-rays, put the Young score on the MoC version, which it fits perfectly, then added the BFI intertitles, creating my own English-friendly version.
secular thinking? what are you blabbing about? also orlok feels fresh, more like real life cursed slavic lord of that land, instead of theatrical/cartoony depiction in dracula.
My favorite episodes are when you talk about Films. I want a whole channel just based on you taking us through films and breaking down the best or worst characters, stories, best lines. I love seeing the worldview behind the films and you always have a way of pinpointing the exact things I feel but can't make others see when watching a movie.
This was the most engaging movie I've seen of the last 5 years, one of my favorite things about it is how faithful the story is to the original. Like Klavan said, it's not perfect, but it captured my attention in a way that I've almost forgotten that movies could. I love the original 1922 version and worried that this would spit on it, but I was happily proven wrong. For context, I'm a 19 year old dude.
Herzog's version was great too.
I was thinking the same thing!! Glad to see others who noticed this
Your summary argument makes me think of why I like the movie Noah. Even though Darren Aronofsky is a professed atheist, he let himself write and direct a movie in which God exists and the characters believe in him. Consequently, even if the movie doesn't literally resemble the 'movie' that most Christians have playing on their head when they think of the Noah story, he managed to make a film that was more true to Christian themes and principles than many movies produced by actual Christians.
I am a HUGE fan of the novel "Dracula". It is one of my favorite books and I have read it multiple times. I also was excited for this movie and I did enjoy it, but as I left the theater, I felt like I had seen a "bargain basement" Dracula-and not just because it was "Nosferatu" and already a knock-off of the original, but because it didn't have the resolution of Dracula. In Dracula, in the end, evil is not only defeated, but the character of Dracula is even hinted at as being redeemed. Also, the characters are CLEARLY Christian and clearly acting out of a paradigm where God is clearly being invoked and honored, while Dracula himself is clearly the enemy of God and goodness. Also, the whole notion of the female protagonist sacrificing herself, both morally and physically, as the Ellen Hutter character does in Nosferatu is completely ABSENT in Dracula with Mina Harker. I found the Ellen Hutter character's motivations to be self-centered and weak, whereas Mina Harker's motivations are self-sacrificial and quite daring and powerful. Also, the love between Mina and Jonathan Harker in Dracula is far more REAL feeling than the "love" between Thomas and Ellen Hutter in Nosferatu. Also, Ellen Hutter's character is truly a pathetically weak character in general, especially when compared to Mina Harker. If anything, Mina was the proto-feminist ideal: a smart, talented, powerful woman who helps the men figure out exactly how the villain operates and plays a key role in bringing him down. You'd think that the character as written in the book would naturally play to modern audiences (even though she is also clearly a Victorian English woman and devoted and loving to her husband), whereas the Ellen Hutter character just seems to be a chaotic mess whose only value is of a sexual nature (even to the villain) in the end of the story.
I dunno, I have more thoughts that I need to concretize, but generally, I liked Nosferatu ok, but it was disappointing (albeit beautifully filmed). I DID like Bill Skarsgaard's Count Orlok, but I wish he had been a little more subtle at times. I actually liked that there weren't that many jump scares though and most of the horror was actually more atmospheric in nature than anything. But still, disappointing over all.
Although Nosferatu is a plagiarized Dracula, it is not supposed to be viewed as exactly the same. Ellen is not Mina, so you shouldn’t expect her to act the same. I think they did a pretty good job in sticking to the original silent film. I think you’re trying too hard to make Nosferatu into the Dracula you want.
Nosferatu is only ever said to be 'inspired by' Dracula, not a direct adaptation. The basic story - that an estate agent goes to Transylvania and the resident vampire sets off after his wife - is the same, but everything else is different. It's a 'Mitteleuropean' retelling of the basic story from a 'Mitteleuropean' cultural viewpoint, with shades of the Brothers Grimm, rather than the viewpoint of a 19th century Irishman.
I won't be watching this, because my gentler feminine spirit does NOT sit well with films that focus on fear and gore and disturbing things like that... but I loved hearing your analysis of it as a story! Especially Willem Dafoe's monologue about the spiritual world! What a great piece of writing. "We have not been so much enlightened as we have been blinded by the gaseous light of science." How true. Love your content, Mr. Klavan!
This is a fantastic film. Klaven's review is not a true review of the film but his own issues with Modernity. That is a false model for the film review. The film's ending fits within the confines of the narrative presents.
The film is tied to Gothic literature. Gothic literature is not 18th Century. It's 19th Century. Gothic work developed from Romanticism. The epistemic posture of Romantism is intuition: the subject's understanding is direct and unmediated by any other element (reason etc.). Two early foci of the Romantic Movement are "sturm und drang" (often translated as storm and stress). The angst and turmoil being evoked are found in the prevailing mood, the time between choice and consequence, the border between the understood and foreign, and a sustained dread. This work as a Gothic tale is a meditation on evil and a heroine's sacrifice.
Eggers always seems to treat each narrative as if its underlying assumptions are real. It is what adds weight to the product. That is who he is as a film maker.
*The language used by the vampire is Dacian. This is a dead language originally spoken by the Dacians (an ancient people who generally occupied the geography of Modern Romania) who were conquered by the Romans at the beginning of the Second Century. Use of ancient languages in his work mirrors what was done in "The Northman: where Eggers uses old Nordic (including the runes on the sword), and an old Slavic Russian precursor when the slave woman would speak her native tongue.
I haven't seen Egger's Nosferatu yet, but I've watched his previous films multiple times. I think you're really off base about him being "pretentious". That is often used against films that are genuinely trying to make art; but it only really applies to movies like Interstellar; they feel profound and challenging, and use a lot of the techniques pioneered by the greats, but without real philosophical or psychological depth. The Lighthouse is challenging, heavy-handed, confusing, and maybe self-indulgent, but it isn't pretending to be anything. It is not pretentious.
While I appreciate that you would like to see films emerging out of a genuinely Christian worldview, those films are incredibly rare. Eggers is one of the few working today who is actually TRYING to plumb religious depths in a serious fashion. His interviews and comments, his nods to myth, his magical worldview... this is what we need to be promoting. Not as Christian art, yet, but at least as GOOD art. He needs encouragement in that direction, not criticism. Push him to admit explicitly what his devotees see emerging in his films: a sacramental worldview in which Evil is real but is utterly outshone by the Good. He's one step away.
Post Modernism is post-Christian. And some of Willem Dafoe's remarks in "Nosferstu" are absurd -- and misogynistic, too. For example, he praises the pre-Christian tradition of human sacrifice, AS IF that horror was, somehow, beneficial. In fact, many pagan cultures embraced Christianity becoz of the God who sacrificed HIMSELF -- as a complete, everlasting atonement for sin.
One thing I was confused about the ending was whether Orlok was destroyed by exposure to the Sun or because he did the dirty with the girl. Or both?
Both technically. Sun is the actual mechanic of his death, but he was also cursed to not be able to leave her if she willingly offered herself to him. Her sacrifice as it was compelled him to her and even though he saw the sun was rising and even started to pull away she was able to pull him back in and he could not resist even though it was his ultimate demise.
You were doing so well - until you crowbarred in the narrow-minded politics.
I agree one hundred percent. I was ready to call it the movie of the year until the implied necrophilia scene. Rather than let us mourn with this grieving father, he decided to amp up the grotesquerie.
I actually find that decision really interesting, because you can read it as Ellen not being the hero at all, but instead casting everyone else around her into misery because she can’t get what she wants… she ultimately destroys herself by embracing her evil desires, which, although tragic, is just, and ultimately good for society
@@yiyithewuster I'm not actually talking about that scene. I'm talking about the scene where Friedrich enters the tomb of his wife and daughters. He starts kissing his dead wife and it's implied that he went further than that.
One thing that I like about this movie is that prior to the protagonist visiting the vampire for the first time, his wife is given premonition. I have to admit that the women in my life have always been given premonition before big events. Beyond this, I think its important that going to Orlocks estate was what the protagonist CHOSE, and by so doing brought the following events onto himself. If the premonitions had been heeded the evil could have been avoided. But alas, he needed to further his career prospects
The second to last shot in the movie places emphasis on the reflection of a cross formed by a shadow on Willem Dafoe’s face. I take this to mean that there is some sort of acknowledgment of the shadow being incorporated in order for the light of faith to shine so to speak
Christ is King
I was explaining to my friend who I went to see the movie with that the van helsing type character didn't make a lick of sense to me. That his theological positions were like trying to play video games by setting up everything correctly inside your living room and then shutting off the electricity to your house and jumping into your neighbor's pool with a tea pot in your nose. That basically his understanding of salvation was strange for someone who had wrestled with evil the way he had and still had a belief in God. That in itself could be commentary, but more than likely to me is that he's trying to make Christian themed movies with ambiguous metaphysics. Its an agnostic movie.
In The Witch, when the baby was kidnapped early in the film and the scene after, I had to turn it off.
I respectfully disagree, I believe this film is in fact a warning about secularism and the dangers of moving away from tradition and spirituality.
Really enjoyed this analysis. During the film I too felt like something was missing. There was evil but not god. It seemed like Eggers tried to replace the Christian belief of God’s love/forgiveness/grace with a woman’s love/lust but it felt greatly insufficient to match the grace required to vanquish the mystical evil that the nosferatu/dracula character suffered. I suppose you can assume God was there but it was extremely subtle if at all. Truly engrossing and atmospheric film but not everyone will enjoy the pure rawness.
The last film that I thought was amazingly beautiful & shot as if every frame was a picture, was The Revenant. I am anxiously waiting to see Nosferatu. I also really enjoyed The VVitch, which was dark & disturbing but groundbreaking in subject matter & vision. Really appreciate Mr. Klaven's review
She sacrificed herself because she loves her husband and she didn't want him to suffer by the hands of orlock because of her. I found the ending was epic. I saw this in theaters. When I saw the final scene and how viceral it was I was quite floored. I understand your God angle but in my opinion the story doesn't necessarily need god to work and/or be adequately entertaining. William Dofae was truly entertaining in this movie. His scenes were very memorable!
I watched the original Nosferatu at least 5 years ago.....with that font, if the main character's name isn't "butter", I'll be sorely disappointed.
I see Dafoe’s character as a luciferian false light , the last frame with the sun on him felt ominous like a ‘light-bearer’. It’s interesting , he never used a crucifix or Jesus’ name, he used occultic rituals and Old Testament quotes. Even the ‘I wrestled the devil like Jacob wrestled the angel’ quote; first reminds me of The Lighthouse as an intertextual narrative , also as a rebellious being climbing the ladder. The magick trick here of The Professor is to bring himself back to life as a human, his former self, which ultimately causes the vampire to beast transformation.
Also, the ending was striking; Thomas was bent on one knee as if he’s a Knight/Prince next to his Princess asleep, reminiscent of a common fairytale trope, this is relevant to the time period. Eggers next film is slated to be ‘The Knight’ a medieval epic. So, imo the grand narrative leaves the ending at an ‘empire strikes back’ type of place within Eggers filmography
Andrew, please show us how you would have written the ending of this movie, that would be some phenomenal head-canon.
The movie is about what the movie is about not what's it's not about....
Hi Andrew. Have you ever reviewed Terence Malick's "A Hidden Life?" I would love to hear your thoughts.
Now there's a director that does not disappoint!
This is coming from the guy who called The Lighthouse a "bad movie".
As well as:
Calling anti-war movies for disgusting/immoral
Calling Spielberg movie for "shallow and childish"
Calling The Shawshank Redemption for "an overrated movie" (without listing a single argument as to why it is overrated)
Klavan's movie takes are as garbage as Shapiro's movie takes. Stick to something you're actually good at.
Another great film is the Midnight Mass series. But its ending does deliver a universal salutation to human love. This series uses music within the story to shine light on faith and the human heart. When Riley’s father puts on Neil Diamond’s Holly Holy and this is used as backdrop to the other stories within the film it was the exposition of the love that permeates the cosmos. I think if you see the angel as a vampire and literalize it you lose the story. The ending is brilliant and show what happens to us all.
Oh wow someone else hates the Lighthouse?? I thought i was one in 8 billion
Christ is king
Jesus is indeed the living messiah.
Jesus isn't a cudgel against jews.
@ when did I say that?
@DapperDan93981 Save it. Assuming you actually WATCHED the video, you know full well what you were doing with your post. So "Do NOT take the name of the Lord in vain!"
@@Hard_Boiled_Entertainment all I know is that Klavan is offended whenever somebody says it, even though it’s true. Can you explain to me why it’s such a horrible, evil thing to say?
@@DapperDan93981 He did a whole video about it. But basically, in the big dust-up between Candace Owens and Ben Shapiro, she posted that phrase to troll him because he's Orthodox Jew. Ever since then, her acolytes keep posting "CHRIST IS KING endlessly--again, using Jesus's name to TROLL, and therefore taking the Lord's name in vain. And then when people call OUT said trolling, they act all Righteous about it, "Oh, I'm just saying the truth! You're a Christian, right? Christ IS king! Why are you selling that out to appease a JOOOOOOOOOO?"
Does that help?
You're talking about the movie "Nefarious." You want a movie where good doesn't automatically "win," but the supernatural is involved in a powerful way? That might be it.
He's reviewed that film.
Is not Christ king to Christians? Aren’t all the people who inherit the kingdom Christian? Aren’t Jews who follow Christ just Christians? Aren’t all the damned, that is those who don’t follow Christ, for example Jews, not in the kingdom? Did I miss something? How is it Jew hatred to say what is obvious as a Christian? I thought Kravan was a Christian.
Oh, thanks for the advertisement in a video that’s not even 15 minutes. If DW is good at anything it’s trying to sell you something.
How is knowing what a man or woman is something outside of rationality? If anything you need irrationality to claim otherwise.
There is nothing more empirical, left brain, rationalistic, and scientific about "What is a woman?"
Wow, I loved your novels which I read in my twenties and thirties. I had no idea you had found Christ. Praise God. Your take on Nosferatu is very informed and insightful.
Such a good movie until the end. While one might say its ambiguous, the surface level take-away is that one can defeat evil by violating one's marriage vows, dressing up for evil, marrying evil, and giving yourself totally over to it (becoming one with it, quite literally). It created a false dilemma by excluding the Christian worldview at the end and by offering the grotesque occult "solution." In reality, Orlok wins big, taking Ellen down with him. Ellen is tragic to the end, never triumphant.
Because it is an occult movie. An occult story. It is based on Dracula, but is not Dracula. Nosferatu is not a story of Christianity triumphing over evil.
@@avrgrando I largely agree. But there was more Christianity in Eggers' remake than the original; there was an openness there. And the Dracula/vampire legend has many traditions, including some that draw upon Christianity (e.g. crucifix). The original resolution at least avoided the perverse and surrender to evil, and surely that could've been maintained in the remake somehow, even without an explicit Christian appeal.
Hmm...didn't know that. Willem DaFoe played the vampire in question in Shadow of the Vampire, and he's playing Van Helsing in this remake. I wonder if that casting decision was based on his previous role.
Hmm 🤔
1. I think the history of Western thought can be framed as a kind of clash or at least tension between rationalism and irrationalism. For example, a struggle between reason-based empirical scientific thinking and first person intuitive knowledge and understanding or wisdom. Or between the purely natural and naturalistic vs. the supernatural or preternatural or at least numinous.
2. Different periods of history have different emphases between these two poles, beteeen rationalism and irrationalism, between naturalism and super naturalism. Or the like.
3. So, perhaps, the 19th century Victorian era was a period of scientific rationalism, whereas shortly thereafter things began to change with, say, the introduction of Einstein's theories of relativity and especially with the introduction of quantum mechanics. The newer science arguably served to upend or at least cast doubt on a perfectly ordered mechanical Newtonian universe.
4. Moreover, intellectual ideas can often have consequences in the popular imagination. That is, although there's no necessary logical connection, nonetheless scientific relativity and scientific randomness led many people to regard the universe as relative and random. Hence the Victorian era of rationalism began to shift to an era of irrationalism.
5. Again, I think the battle or tension between rationalism and irrationalism persists throughout Western intellectual history. And in between the eras if rationalism and irrationalism, there is a transitional period where it seems both are true or neither is true.
6. I think today we are living un such a transitional era or period, at least here in the US. For example, the New Atheist movement of the early 2000s was an era of scientific rationalism. But now the New Atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris seem to be sidelined or at least not as influential as in the 2000s, and instead religious interest and spirituality is surprisingly on the rise, on a very big rise or steep trajectory apparently (e.g. as Christian publishing houses have noted, Bible sales have had significant spikes in the last year or two).
7. I think this transitional period between rationalism and irrationalism at least partly if not largely explains the tension in our popular culture too. As is reflected in films like the recent Nosferatu. Where it's still bery much secular and atheistic or at least agnostic in relation to the divine, but it realizes there's something else that's going on that can't be defined and examined and analyzed like we do with the objects of scientific inquiry. The "other" or the numinous or the inexplicable approaches.
I have to disagree. She doesn’t have faith in a higher power, but she has faith in her love for Thomas. Her love to him and the love she received from him kept Orlok at bay. Her decisions in the climax are based on that love and the confidence she had been given via Dafoe’s character. Eggers didn’t create these characters to be religious, and it hits deeper because their faith in science is tested and turned upside down. They would call Orlok’s attachment to Ellen as “Her Melancholy” and treated her as a medical patient and not as spiritually afflicted. Her character invited this being into her life when she was in need of love/hope and it turned into a nightmare, but it did give her some semblance of what she desired, and therefore was conflicted in her desire for her husband and the comforting abuse of her captor.
Dafoe’s character raving at the end makes total sense. His whole career as a scientist had been ripped apart at the seems because he decided to look into the occult. His path of seeking truth caused him to be outcasted by his peers. Providence is a big theme in this film, and Dafoe mentions that he moved to Wisborg because he felt a deep inclination to. He waited years in almost complete solitude for his purpose, and when he got to face it, it was a confirmation of the truth he found. That would make anyone ecstatic. He also knew the answer on how to destroy Orlok and rid the town of the plague. Him raving and being mad is the only logical conclusion of the character.
I think you have great insight on this. I think what you find the film to lack is merely you not looking in the right place. Which isn’t a bad thing, we are conditioned a to see story telling in a certain way as creatives.
That's why I am a bigger fan of the Coppola version which added a backstory of Count Vlad turning against God. Nosferatu lacked that Good vs Evil and glossed over the Nuns rescuing Hutter and made that scene especially confusing.
I'm not saying the movie is great, but I can't take this guy seriously. He tends to smuggle his ideology into his movie reviews. This is a huge red flag. You are reviewing movies for what they are, not what they would be if you were the author. I remember him and Shapiro not particularly liking the South Korean movie Parasite, because they just couldn't accept what they misunderstood as a left wing message, that rich people are bad and poor people are good. In my opinion they just couldn't align themselves with a movie that was picked by the "decaden" Hollywood Acadamy. Because of that being against it was a must for them. There is a huge blind spot there. Parasite is a great movie. It is already a modern classic.
Yeah, my takeaway from Parasite is that poor people bring each other down like crabs in a bucket and poor people can do terrible things in the pursuit of wealth. The rich people in the movie really didn't do anything that wrong besides being unsympathetic
We all evaluate movies and literature from the perspective of our Worldview. There is no neutral ground.
This video touches on the idea of "Synderesis"that we have an inbuilt understanding of the natural law. I'd love to see more content around that because like they said in the video we have this understanding but we, as a culture, have lost the language and framework to speak about these things.
I keep perceiving these movies differently in regard to religion. I thought God was present in vvitch, but the family failed to act accordingly to be helped. I also thought the movie Silence was a film about faith, but most people tell me it's about loss of faith.
The ending of the 1922 film was triumphant
This was anticlimactic …
Was looking forward to adding this to my film collection but it didn’t make the cut..
An interesting point.
I wonder if the Extended Cut, announced to be released on Blu-Ray, will make the existence of good/God, needed to defeat Orlok in the story, clearer.
It aint much of time, I read he deleted like 4 mins in total so that's all.
5:35 I dont believe her wishing to be raped to death was an accurate interpretation of what happened. I think she was extremely depressed and alot of time people turn to sin( or ungodly spiritualism) when they feel alone to feel better temporarily
I think that was what it represented and she has these strong visions with Nosferatu which represents that sin is always there for you and longs for you in this sick way of temptation and deception.
Waiting for your views on David Lynch.
Pretentious Conservatives hate anything even slightly experimental so no we aren't
Always a pleasure hearing your take on Horror, Klavan.
I respectfully disagree. God is in this movie. It is just not some Church bullshit idea of God. You don’t need dogma to put love and the need to sacrifice for the well being of others ahead of giving in to your base, instinctual desires.
I got the message from the movie that their salvation came from God, but its not deus x machina, they have to act.
I agree that Eggers created a film absent of god to favor secularism, but was it due to feminism? In the end Count Orlok prevails, he claims the Mina archetype and she dies with him. Im not so interested in the story itself, but the themes around it and I think that’s what’s most important about this film. I’m not going to go into all the history and lore that supports why I think this movie coming out Christmas Day was integral to the theme, but the movie is intended to favor the demonic. One of the importance elements in the film is witchcraft which (I think) was absent in Dracula.
Thing is, the Coppola version of Dracula was, and still is, the truest version to the original Bram Stoker novel. Whatever its issues (like Keanu Reeves's would-be attempt at a British accent)...it still has that.
The original film of nosferatu was best viewed with the type o negative soundtrack edition. It totally matched the vibe
You didn't notice that Depp's character is essentially the female Jesus in the movie?
Just before the climax of the film, Van Helsing tells Mina, that in Babylonian times, she would've been a priestess, but that now, she must become the worlds savior.
Then, of course, she sacrifices her own life, saving the world from evil, by absorbing it into her own body.
This was (yet another) female replacement/inversion film.
the movie was great sorry.