So a few weeks ago I finally watched Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror (2023). And I have…thoughts. Some that were vaguely touched on in a post I made not long after watching. (That was just a bit of pondering - and complaining - about the way Thomas’ desire for financial and career security is positioned as greedy in the recent remakes.) Having had a little time to sit on it and think about the film, I’m ready to dive in a little deeper.
(Aka I started writing this a day or two after initially watching, forgot about it, stumbled on this in my drafts, and decided screw it, I’m gonna finish this.)
Now I admit it probably is a little unfair to bring Nosferatu (2024) into this because it certainly had a bigger budget and more resources, and I acknowledge that. But seeing Robert Eggers’ take before this one by David Lee Fisher did not do it any favors. Additionally, the similarities and differences between these two remakes are truly fascinating to me. Also, the limitations of this one are not the problem, imo. Overacting, underacting, weird CGI, lower production value costuming and sets are not the flaws of this film (I mean the acting is an issue with some characters, but if the writing hadn’t been so clunky and muddled and heavy-handed, that might not have been as grating).
So really, this post is half review of the 2023 remake and half a rambling examination on the relationship between Nosferatu films and their original source material, Dracula, and how Dracula adaptations would later influence Nosferatu remakes (fitting, maybe more so because elements of Nosferatu would influence Dracula media too).
Because like, on paper the 1979 remake feels like it should be the most obvious one to point to since they didn’t even bother to use the silent film’s names for the characters, choosing instead to take directly from the novel instead - and here we get our first influence from other Dracula adaptations over the book, because they mix up Lucy and Mina. (Which has always, always been one of my more trivial pet peeves yet it will never fail to make my eye twitch.) It also leaned heavily into a tragic romance angle (although in this one it was purely one-sided), seeming to take note of the way recent Dracula media kept leaning more and more towards a doomed, brooding romantic with the titular vampire.
But that brings me back to these two films which are both so clearly made in not just a post ’brooding romantic Dracula’ era, but a post-FFC’s Dracula one. While Eggers’ opted to take his remake and go for a more historically accurate, somewhat grounded approach, this movie is really just an attempt to recreate the silent film but with dialogue, modern perspectives and - of course - a dash (or more) of influence from Dracula adaptations.
What is so interesting to me is that these two films exist in such similar time frames, it’s just that the process of being made and released are drastically different. Based on wikipedia, this particular remake was financed (via kickstarter) in 2014 and then filmed during 2016, and Eggers’ version was first announced in 2015, a script by 2016 which is now floating around online. Then Fisher’s movie finished filming on schedule only to languish in what seems to be post-production and distribution hell, while Eggers’ attempt continued to fall through repeatedly before finally coming together and being filmed in 2023 - which just so happened to be the same year this movie was first screened. Ultimately, both got released in the last quarter of 2024, and I don’t think it’s jumping to conclusions to say that the release of Eggers’ version probably helped this movie at last see the light of day on streaming.
Despite the fact that their announcement to release time frame overlaps, the drastic difference in the course of events and the disparity in the hierarchy of filmmaking make it unlikely either one influenced the other. AND YET - both films put an emphasis on Ellen having a pre-established connection to Orlok that predates Thomas, and posit the idea that Orlok is ultimately coming to Wisborg for her specifically.
This goes beyond the infatuation that Dracula has for Lucy in the 1979 film. That particular remake does not imply any connection between them predating Dracula’s glimpse of Lucy’s photo. It does not show Lucy feeling a pull to Dracula - instead she outright rejects him when he comes to her, asking her to join him. She is full of a righteous conviction that Dracula cannot shake - not so much in God, but in the love between her and Jonathan, in herself. (Lucy not only discovers the knowledge that she can stop Dracula if she allows herself to be sacrificial bait to ensure his demise, but she actively works to render his new home unsafe for him so he has nowhere to go if she fails. She is out there sanctifying the house he bought and the coffins she could find, all while Jonathan remains at home in a catatonic state and everyone else dismisses her.)
These remakes, however, want to explore the idea that Orlok and Ellen already have a connection somehow, that Thomas is specifically chosen for this reason, that Orlok comes to Wisborg specifically for her. And both films - because this is a post FFC’s Dracula world - want their Ellens to feel a pull towards him, too.
(Sidenote: I’m not saying this as a condemnation, just an observation. And full disclaimer, I personally do ship the Hutters and the Harkers in many versions, and then Orlok with one or both Hutters in most versions. Likewise with Dracula and one or both Harkers.)
But while Eggers’ goes all in with his “Demon Lover”, dark and tragic triangle approach, this film feels uncertain of where exactly it’s going and what exactly it’s doing. Ellen supposedly has dreams of Orlok, but we are never privy to them - we are simply told about them, and only earlier on. Ellen talks to Ruth (Harding’s sister in this, like the original) about her dreams, that she is seeing a shadow in them that lingers when she’s awake. We are never shown such a thing. While we do witness a dream of hers that seems related to the events unfolding, it is bizarre, does not actually feature Orlok in it - it actually starts with Ellen hearing Thomas call her name in the distance, but Thomas does not appear in it either - and is never referenced again. (I’m not even getting into the fact that she’s pregnant in the dream despite the fact that there is no talk of pregnancy or even wanting a child in any other part of the movie.) Ellen also goes on to tell Ruth she feels drawn to this shadow and conflicted over it.
We have a moment where Ellen is talking about Thomas and also the shadow, and says “She loves him,” and I admit, I am not quite certain which “him” she’s referring to. It makes sense that she’s talking about Thomas, but the phrasing is awkward and unclear. And then this leads to Ruth talking about different kinds of love, including “forbidden” love, and it is heavily implied she’s a lesbian and is sort of coming onto Ellen? This is also never really brought up again. (Okay to be fair, earlier on Ruth and Harding argue over her not being married and she’s very insistent on not marrying, so they did lay some groundwork. Only to then drop it. This is a pattern.)
Oddly enough, during the first half of this movie, Ellen, her relationship with Thomas, and her ‘told but never shown’ dynamic with Orlok felt eerily similar to what I’ve read and been told of Eggers’ 2016 draft. This Ellen feels unfulfilled, unloved; there’s a sense that she struggles to love Thomas, while Thomas seems mostly happy to be married but less interested in who he’s married to (he cannot even tell her he loves her when leaving, after she says it to him). Ellen speaks of her dreams that make her feel confused and feels a pull towards darkness. Thomas is obsessed with attaining wealth and being just like his best friend Harding (here named Wolfram), while Ellen doesn’t care about such things.
To be quite honest, had I not read that this was filmed in 2016, I’d be convinced that the writer/director here had seen Eggers’ early script and took some of it to heart when making his own version. This film’s Thomas even knows, as he languishes in Transylvania, sick from his travels and Orlok feeding on him, that Orlok is specifically targeting his wife. A strong indication that these remakes are both - consciously or not - heavily influenced by adaptations of Dracula as much as the novel itself and nearly as much as the original silent film.
Plus, neither 1922 and 1979 give any indication that Thomas/Jonathan and Ellen/Lucy do not love each other or are not happy together. I already spoke of ‘79’s Lucy and her faith in their love, and on Jonathan’s end there’s plenty of evidence that he loves her in return. While he seems to be unmoved by Lucy’s sacrifice at the end, this feels like part of his transformation. My personal interpretation of Jonathan at the end was that becoming a vampire/nosferatu has turned him into the worst version of himself - rendering him unfeeling and unaffected, detached from that which made him human, which made him Jonathan. Hence not remembering Lucy or their relationship after returning home even before he turns. He is newborn in his vampirism, he does not have the sadness or loneliness of that movie’s Dracula, who has been such a creature for too long. And though financial success/economic concerns are present in the original and maybe vaguely so in the ‘79 film, Ellen/Lucy are not so outspokenly against Thomas’ financial worries. There is no indication that Ellen or Lucy are unhappy, unfulfilled, or longing for some secret darkness. They do not want Jonathan to go, and seem to have some sixth sense that something awful will happen, but it is not due to an already existing psychic or spiritual connection with Orlok/Dracula.
In a lot of ways, 1979 - despite using names from the novel for its characters - honestly seems to be the least influenced by adaptations of Dracula. Probably because it came earlier on, while 2023 and 2024 both came after FFC Dracula and its enduring influence over the world of Dracula media, for better or worse. Coppola’s lavish and over the top adaptation itself drew from Nosferatu (mostly in regards to Dracula’s shadow and I think the noticing of Mina’s picture - I could be completely misremembering, but these seemed to originate from the 1922 film, not the novel itself). The 1992 film went in hard on Jonathan Harker being stuffy and overly prim and proper, with Mina being sexually unfulfilled/frustrated and craving something more, something darker - and though it is not the originator of the reincarnation plot, it was the one to solidify it in pop culture and truly cement the concept of Mina and Dracula being the real romantic story, that they had a preexisting connection that Jonathan was ultimately the third wheel in.
(I did, through an ask sent after my post discussing the remakes’ depiction of Thomas and his relationship with money, find out that an early draft of the 1992 Dracula is accessible online and included Jonathan being very focused on money/coming across greedy, which makes me think that might be the root of 2023 and 2024 taking similar approaches.)
What is interesting is how 2023 and 2024 clearly exist in this post Dracula 1992 world and are influenced by that version, but in different ways both movies seem to try to reject it as well. There’s of course Eggers’ discussing how he didn’t want to do the romantic hero version, he wanted Orlok to be an asshole evil vampire while still exploring a twisted triangle between him, Ellen, and Thomas. But 2023 rejects this influence by basically just…dropping it after a point.
All that foundation laying and variation from the original silent movie? Pretty much goes nowhere and means nothing, and I am left wondering what was the point. Those dreams? That pull? Ellen feeling something for the shadow? Just dropped. The only additional, on screen moment between the two (and calling it that is a stretch) comes when Orlok finally feeds on Thomas - Ellen dreams that she’s there, sort of, and can see what’s happening. While this is indicated through editing in the original, this film explicitly shows her viewing what’s happening through a watery window while she sleepwalks. And…yeah. That’s basically it. The rest of the film sticks much closer to the original version, with a few added moments and minor alterations here and there.
Harding’s sister Ruth dies and he becomes convinced Knock did it, while Thomas tries to convince him that the plague is no mere plague but the curse of the vampiric Orlok - sound familiar? I swear, did these two directors hang out at some point? - but Ellen’s plot suddenly becomes painfully identical to the silent film. Whatever additional meat was given to her now means nothing. (We even find out in this version she’s of Romani descent, which is what the protection charm she gave to Thomas comes from and I think is supposed to explain her “mystical” nature - but we find this out in a scene between Thomas and the nurse who believes his talk of Orlok and vampirism at the Transylvanian hospital, and it’s never acknowledged again.)
While 2024 decided to give Ellen a connection to Orlok and make her the central figure from the getgo through to the end, 2023 seems to give it to her for a little added flavor that is burnt up early on, and then decided to remain firmly focused on Thomas. Even with the unflattering portrayal of the character, Thomas in this specific film has the most consistent character arc. Which is truly frustrating, because again - this iteration of Thomas is absolutely insufferable and an awful husband. All the negative things said about Thomas in Eggers’ remake, even the most biased? Yeah, all that can be applied to 2023’s Thomas Hutter and more. (In fact, I won’t lie - the dialogue between Thomas and Orlok at the dinner table the night of his arrival reads like a parody fic fed by some of the most outrageous anti-Thomas sentiments I’ve seen on here and heard of from others.)
Where Eggers’ Thomas is allowed to show Ellen love from the start, in this version, Hutter cannot tell his wife he loves her back before he leaves, holds the charm she gave him with little regard even as a token of her concern for him, and happily sleeps with a Romanian local during his stay at the inn before reaching the castle. He’s rude and completely dismissive of her. Also it’s implied that though they’ve been married a year, they have not actually had sex? (As I type this out, I am pondering if this was what the pregnancy in her one dream related to, a desire to procreate with her husband already. It would have helped if it had been acknowledged at any other point. This movie is not overly subtle with a lot of its dialogue, but then it has other elements where I think I get what it’s saying but if I’m not reading too much into it, it is being painfully vague and obtuse.)
I’ve read some discussion on the original silent film, where it discussed this sort of exaggerated innocence between Ellen and Thomas at the beginning and that they’re ‘childlike’ before Thomas leaves, discussing the influence of the filmmakers’ backgrounds as soldiers. As well as the fact that some of them were gay. Now, I can’t say whether or not that was director David Lee Fisher’s intention, but I struggle to see it. Maybe that’s a me problem. Even if that was the intention, did he have to make Thomas the worst husband who only cared about becoming “the richest man in Wisborg”?
Thomas’ arc in Fisher’s remake isn’t so different from his arc in Eggers’, on paper. Unfortunately, while Eggers made his Thomas more sympathetic over the years of working on his script, this movie went hard for having Hutter be a shitty, obnoxious, greedy, dismissive asshole of a husband. Instead of Thomas learning to take his wife at her word about these otherworldly things and that money won’t save them, it’s Thomas learning he actually loves his wife and should treat her better, also stop being a greedy bitch, and maybe man up some. But it’s too little, too late, and doesn’t feel that sincere. Perhaps his lesson was that his greed was the root of all this suffering. Which, whoo boy - but I have a whole other post ranting about how frustrating THAT kind of storyline is in this day and age.
There were interesting ideas in Fisher’s remake, which might be the most annoying part of how underwhelming it was and how close it ultimately remained to the original. Trying to emulate the visual look and style of the silent film gave it a chance to explore those ideas in interesting and different ways from the theatrical remake. But probably because it bound itself so closely to its source - despite other adaptation influences - all those different ideas ultimately fizzle out, and it becomes basically a rehash of Murnau. What feels like a building towards something deeper between Ellen and Orlok goes nowhere, and in the end they have as little interaction here as they did in the silent film. Thomas and Ellen declare their love for each other after he returns, but it feels empty and unconvincing. (Not helped that Ellen has no idea he cheated, and he definitely doesn’t bring that up in his apology.) Ellen sacrificing herself to stop Orlok because it’s the right thing to do? I believe it. Doing it to save Thomas because she loves him? In this version? I don’t buy it in the slightest.
I decided against really getting into the acting because again, it’s the writing/direction that I have the most problem with. I will say Orlok and Ellen are both pretty well portrayed but I feel weird naming anyone because I know Orlok’s actor is on tumblr. I will say he was criminally wasted. The rest of the cast give performances ranging from passable to ‘overeager theater kid’. To sum up my feelings on Fisher’s writing and directing - I found both to be underwhelming, murky, clunky, and uncertain. Sometimes it will lay its themes out in overly heavy-handed dialogue, and sometimes it’s so painfully vague I have to wonder if I am simply reading into things that aren’t there - at least to me.
My apologies if this is all over the place and not the most concise review/examination of the 2023 remake and how Dracula/Orlok can’t escape the shadow of FFC. Really this was more about getting my thoughts out. And maybe also work on my rusty as shit meta writing. In a stunning twist, I might make gifs of this movie’s Ellen at some point. Look, she was absolutely lovely, and I have a soft spot for the actress.
Anyway, come talk to me or send me asks about Nosferatu films or the Throuple if you like! The brainrot is still strong.
