Shadow of the Vampire - FILM REVIEW

"The Script Girl? I'll Eat Her Later!"

A few weeks ago, Hubby and I watched Nosferatu for the first time. This amazing silent film from the 1920s impressed both of us and we thought Max Schreck was outstanding as Count Orlok. We started doing some research on the Internet about any other film roles he had done and the background to Nosferatu, which led to Hubby discovering Shadow of the Vampire - a film released in 2000, which is set during the filming of Nosferatu. It sounded an interesting idea and the cast sounded good (I especially like John Malkovich), so I bought the DVD from Amazon UK. (I also bought the Masters of Cinema remastered version of Nosferatu with extra features and a special booklet.)

Nosferatu itself is really the story of Dracula, but when the film was made, the Stoker family refused to give permission for the story to be filmed. This led to the changing of names and places, so Count Dracula became Count Orlok - but essentially, Nosferatu is the same story as Bram Stoker's Dracula.

Shadow of the Vampire is set during the filming of Nosferatu in the early 1920s. We follow the cast and crew throughout the filming process, with all its crises - funding problems, illness, disagreements, drug abuse and the complications of having a real vampire on board. Oh yes, this is where Shadow of the Vampire alters history somewhat. The audience is left to wonder - What would have happened if Max Schreck had really been a genuine vampire?

This explains the mystery surrounding Max Schreck. He appears late into filming, rarely socialises with the cast, appears to have come from nowhere career-wise and he is allowed to only film his scenes in the dark. The director F. W. Murnau tells the cast and crew this is due to Schreck's Method acting techniques, as he needs to fully immerse himself in the role. But really, Murnau has done a deal with Schreck that in return for a great performance, Murnau will give him what he desires....

I really enjoyed this film and thought it was a great original twist on the old vampire story. It has elements of several genres in it -horror, thriller, drama and black comedy - and I felt this worked very well, as you soon become involved in the unfolding story and care about the characters.

John Malkovich plays F. W. Murnau and puts in an excellent performance, as usual. I first saw Malkovich in Dangerous Liaisons back in 1988 and he has never disappointed me yet. Here he plays Murnau as an ever-increasingly mad director. As the filming progresses, he becomes more and more driven and obsessive, until he will stop at nothing to get his vision onto film. I found I still sympathised with him, as having seen the original Nosferatu film, I believe it is one of the best films ever made, so if it was my "baby", I think I would be pretty ruthless too. (Would I hire a real vampire? I don't know.)

While Malkovich is excellent, Willem Defoe is outstanding as Max Schreck. Wow! He is unrecognisable under the amazing make up and delivers a truly great performance. His Schreck is very creepy with a huge presence and he has some wonderful spooky little mannerisms - sniffs, twitches and tapping his long fingernails together. He was nominated for an Oscar for this performance, but sadly didn't win.

The audience has sympathy for Schreck, even as an aged vampire. There is one wonderful scene where he talks about the sadness of the Dracula novel, how the Count has to prepare food and a bed for Jonathan Harker, as he has no servants and has to do everything himself. This demonstrates how both vampires - Dracula and Schreck - are at a nadir in their life, of low status, isolated and alone.

This kind of scene also shows how blurred the lines are between "good" and "bad". Who is the real monster here - the old vampire doing what comes naturally, or the director Murnau who is ruthless and willing to sacrifice lives for his art?

I think it helps if you have seen Nosferatu before watching this, as you will appreciate all the nuances of Shadow of the Vampire if you can compare it to the original film. It is amazing how the old black and white silent film is recreated too. The sets are beautiful too and the actors are close to the original stars as well. I also liked the use of title cards (inter-titles) for some scenes, keeping in well with the theme of the original silent film.

It was fascinating to see how the silent films worked behind the scenes too. While appreciating this is a fictional account, I felt it was educational, demonstrating how silent films were made in the 1920s, such as the use of heavy make up for the actors, to bring out their features on film. It was also interesting to hear the characters talking as that wouldn't be in the final shot and how the director Murnau would talk them through their motivation for each scene. This gave another dimension to the film, as it made me think of the original movie in a slightly different way and appreciate how difficult it must have been to make a silent film.

The rest of the cast fade into the background somewhat, compared to the outstanding portrayals by Malkovich and Dafoe. I was impressed by Eddie Izzard though, who I have found can be very good in straight roles. He plays Gustav von Wangerhein here (who plays the Jonathan Harker role) and does shine in the role, though I wish he had been on screen for longer. I find he often raises the level of any material he is given and is eminently watchable.

Catherine McCormack plays Greta Schroeder, which is the only main part for a woman in the entire film. She is rather an annoying character, as she is self-centred and seems to have few positive character traits. Personally, I didn't care whether she ended up as vampire fodder or not, as I really didn't like her.

Cary Elwes was in Bram Stoker's Dracula (the 1992 film) so is no stranger to the story. Here he is Fritz Wagner, but despite being one of the starring names, I admit to hardly noticing him. A lot of the cast and crew seem to merge together a bit - not because they are inadequate, but because Malkovich and Defoe are so amazing!

The film is quite dark (as in 'lack of light') at times, but it works in context. The filming of Nosferatu is shown chronologically, so you can follow that story too, from beginning to end. I thought it was very clever how the "new" story (Schreck being really a vampire) combines with the facts of the film being shot in the 1920s. It becomes easy to believe the plot, as the acting is so good and Dafoe is incredibly convincing - you really would be scared of him in real life and could well believe he was a genuine vampire!

I was very impressed by the witty script, as there are some really funny and clever lines in this, like the title ("The script girl? I'll eat her later!") and some laugh out loud moments. Malkovich gets to deliver lots of great lines too, in that wonderfully mean, dark, brooding, and sinister voice of his. (Hubby said if Malkovich recorded an audio book of Dracula, it would be the creepiest thing ever!)

There is a good pace and built-up of tension and I never became bored or distracted - though it is relatively short anyway, at only 91 minutes. It is a thoughtful film - atmospheric, compelling and involving - but not an action movie by any means!

The main criticisms of other reviewers seems to be about the ending being disappointing, but I thought it was fine and I felt satisfied with it. I liked how it fitted in with the original Nosferatu, but with an added twist or two.

The film is rated 15, as there is some swearing (but not too much), drug use, a topless scene of a woman, horror themes, creepiness, drinking blood and so on. However, my daughter watched it and she's nearly fourteen and was perfectly fine with it. I would suggest a 12 rating might be more accurate.

Overall, both my husband and I thoroughly enjoyed Shadow of the Vampire. It is an interesting story, a clever twist on the Nosferatu theme and the performances of John Malkovich and especially Willem Dafoe are outstanding. If you're a fan of Nosferatu, you will get even more out of the film - and I would recommend you see both.

DVD INFORMATION

Shadow of the Vampire is currently available from Amazon UK for just £3.98. It does not have any extras though, not even subtitles, which would have been handy, as sometimes the words are hard to make out, due to rather quiet dialogue or being a bit too heavily accented. The Masters of Cinema remastered version of the original Nosferatu is £9.56 from Amazon UK and I would definitely recommend buying both.