Ok, here's the silent version of that Nosferatu film I wanted to watch when I got the 1979 version that wasn't so good. Now I've seen it, and I guess I've got another one under my belt. Though I understand why people revere this film as a historical icon (first major horror film; though others came before it), when judged on its own merits, it really misses here and there.

The pacing here was better than the 1979 version, but it still was quite slow is several areas. Some attribute this to being a silent film, but I don't think so. Neither Metropolis (1927) nor Intolerance (1916) had this issue of super-slowness (ok, I never finished Intolerance, but I watched some of it, and it didn't have pacing problems; okay, I plan on watching it sometime soon, but it's a 3 hour silent film, bear with me; I'm off-topic), so it isn't the silent aspect of the movie that does this, nor is it the film's age (Intolerance is 6 years older). Pacing is a universal medium within storytelling, and this goes back to the stage which is centuries older. And don't throw the suspense card at me either -- this wasn't suspenseful, it was slow. Seriously, you can only watch the same shot of the boat sailing so many times before you want to move on. It wasn't even a wide shot; it was a low angle shot off the port side bow looking kind of upwards at the deck and the sails (probably to disguise where the boat really was or something).

Ok, anyway. As a Dracula adaptation, loose is a term that fits rather aptly, but really fails to begin to capture or describe how un-adapted the film is from its source. It uses some elements but has enough of its own that the movie is not Dracula by any means at all. It has a Transylvanian vampire in it; that's about it. The characters have different relationships, it has different plot points, a different resolution, a different time period, and the Black Death as a MacGuffin.

Plotwise, it's really strange. We still have the realtor going to Transylvania to sell a house to a count, but it makes the dramatic mistake of shifting the role of the lead from Hutter to his wife right before the end of the film so that she is the one who makes the dramatic decision to save the world as opposed to Hutter himself, who started out as the lead. Renfield's counterpart, Knock, has more of a role here, but still serves as mostly a throwaway character. The crux of the London portion (and really the most bizarre part) of the film centers around Orlock bringing the Black Death with him from Transylvania and only by killing him will the disease be halted.

Of course, we have the silent-movie-running-chase-scene. It wouldn't be a silent movie without it. Sorry, I had to laugh at this, because nearly every silent film I've ever seen has this scene where someone is chased through the streets by a large mob of people wanting to kill (or apprehend) them. It's like an obligatory addition. Anyway...

From a freakish point of view, they did do a good job with Count Orlock (aka Dracula). His features were very pointed and he looked creepy. I wouldn't want to run into him in a bright alley, much less a darkened one, so he was really the high point of the film, and the aspect that is not only the most memorable, but likely served to elevate this film to the status it has. His image is the one that stays with you; everyone else is forgetful.

From a character point of view, they did a fair job keeping everyone straight. I knew who everyone was throughout, and though I did have the same problem with the Van Helsing character (Professor Bulwer here) being completely ineffective and "throwawayable"; that's more of an adaptation complaint than anything else. He popped in at the end and we really had no idea who he was.

It's a piece of cinematic history which makes it kind of worth viewing to see what all the fuss is about, but as a standalone piece, there are several films of that time period that are far superior.

I've only seen the 1979 version, so I can't comment on the actual film.

Most Silent films are only interesting to me because of their historical merit. I always cringe when people tell me their favorite film is Battleship Potemkin or Triumph of the Will. Come on, they're extremely important movies, but at this point the craft was still in its burgeoning infancy; they were still working out how to tell a story, and how to use the technology to do so. Today we do it better.

The actual story of the silent film is rarely compelling (not until we're in the late 20s, anyway, and then only in comedies). Much of the medium's acclaims can be attributed to the sheer novelty of moving pictures and we've gotten a lot better, once we realized the mere concept of a 'movie' wouldn't pack a theatre anymore.

That being said, I like Joan of Arc and other stuff.

I've seen the 1979 version as well, and dear God, get that director a book on pacing a film...please! And we watch Harker walk across the mountaniside...and walk...and walk...and walk...and oh look, he's a tiny speck in the distance...smaller speck...smaller speck...ah, picturesque mountainside...ok, done with the picturesque mountainside...initiate fast forward. Ah, walking down a mountain road...just initating fast forward now.

There are quite a few jewels in the silent film category, and they aren't all comedies. Metropolis is an incredible film that not only paints characters, but tells a story and has a point all while using cutting edge (for 1927) special effects. Actually, some of the effects in that film would elude some of us smaller players even today with our PC editing systems. Sheer genius.

As for storytelling, it's a craft that is millenia older than film. In fact, it hasn't changed much at all. The only difference early films brought was the inability to have dialogue and they got around that with intertitles.

I agree with you about Metropolis, but that's still more a case of being wowed by the craft of the special effects at the time rather than an exhilerating story.

But I also think that we've gotten better at 'showing' a movie visually, without dialogue, than they were in the early stages of the 20th century. Have you seen some of Dreyer's silent films? He also did a film caled Vampyr, but it's kinda boring. Joan of Arc is a lot better I think.

As for Nosferatu - the 79 version. Yeah it has pacing issues, but generally Werner Herzog is considered an extremely influential director in Europe (warranted or not). He's in fact out with Rescue Dawn this year starring Christian Bale and Steve Zahn (yes THE Steve Zahn!), and it looks very promising.

Yeah, but Metropolis deserves to be wowed at by the special effects. I was just surprised when it was over, though, that I knew all the characters' names, their characters, and what they stood for in the narrative. Effects aside, I found that still to be one hell of an accomplishment. I really should post a glowing review for Metropolis so we discuss Nosferatu in this one.

As for Werner Hertzog, anyone can learn from mistakes, and he was a veteran when he made Nosteratu 79, so it's hard to say what went wrong there. Maybe he had a crappy editor (though it could have been fixed had someone complained). However, I won't condemn him for one film. If I watch another one and it still has crappy pacing, then I might call an Uwe Boll on him...

Now let's not go there! No one deserves that!  

Uwe Boll embodies everything heinous about movies. He's not even a director. He's a broker of celluloid!

Werner Herzog just made a slow, and slightly boring film.