The earliest still-existing filmic adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel "Dracula," "Nosferatu" continues to be one of the most critically appreciated. As an unauthorized adaptation, this production has an interesting legal history. The case brought by Stoker's widow bankrupted the studio, which, consequently, only ever made this one film. And the draconian judgement ordered the destruction of all its prints—a real-world allegory that's a little too on the nose for a vampire story. Obviously, "Nosferatu" wasn't so easily killed, and its artistic and cultural worth is a strong argument against strict copyright laws. Regardless, some of the most interesting aspects of the film are how it reinterprets, or differs from, the book.
Whereas the novel is set in the late 19th Century—around the time it was written—and mostly in England, "Nosferatu" takes place in 1838 and mostly in the fictional village of Wisborg. It retains the Count's origins from Transylvania, though. Relocating the story has been a common-enough practice, which I think is generally wise for productions not already set in the English-speaking world. Altering the time has also been common, but usually it's to update it. Setting the story decades earlier has turned out to be a strange choice, indeed. Stoker's tale features quite a few technologies and techniques that were new in its era, including railway travel, the phonograph, typewriter, shorthand and blood transfusions—all of which are absent here. (Stoker made no mention of the then-new invention of film, but the 1992 movie does.) Stoker's heroes used these advances to defeat the ancient Dracula. Additionally, syphilis, which was rampant at the time, was a subtextual theme of the tale of sex and blood. "Nosferatu" replaces these concerns with an emphasis on nature and the older threat of plague. This has the benefit of including an entire village in the monster menace— something the Universal films did with their other series, including "Frankenstein" and "The Wolf Man," but not with "Dracula." "Nosferatu" even has a mob chase after the Renfield type, "Knock," because they suspect him of vampirism.
Also less prominent here is Catholicism; instead of mainstream religion and science, the filmmakers focus more on their own, reported, occultism. Just look at the strange symbols on the letter exchanged between the Count and Knock. Relatedly, one of the more lasting changes from the film has been the myth of vampires dying from sunlight, which is contrary to Stoker.
The focus on nature had the benefit of avoiding the construction of expensive sets for the new studio and allows for some nice location shooting. The transitional skyline views showing the passages of day and night take on more meaning than they would otherwise, as do the many scenes of rats. Being reset in the Biedermeier period was surely also a benefit to the production's costs, as that era's utilitarian style demanded less interior-design excess than Stoker's Victorian age. With such drab interiors, exterior shots are naturally the more beautiful, and the film spends much of its time outside, including extended scenes of the Harker character (renamed "Hutter") frolicking outdoors in the first acts and, later, racing back home on horseback in lieu of trains.
Another aspect of the novel that the filmmakers had to contend with was its epistolary structure, which consists of the story being told through various media, including diaries, letters, newspapers and phonograph records, and by multiple narrators. Instead, "Nosferatu" opens as its own book, and the intertitles relate the unfolding tale as described by an unseen narrator based on his secondhand accounts. There's also a book-within-the-book about vampires, which the Harker and Mina (renamed "Ellen") types read. This book largely replaces the Van Helsing character, who slightly exists in the film only in the minor role of Professor Bulwer, a Paracelsian (in keeping with the film's overall occult alternatives, Paracelsianism was, apparently, an alternative to traditional medicine and real science). Rather than perform blood transfusions, Bulwer, in one scene, gives a demonstration of how the Venus flytrap and the Hydra species are like vampires and phantoms. Otherwise unrelated to the main story, this scene further places the supernatural within the natural.
One other thing I like about this adaptation is that it doesn't reduce the Mina role entirely to damsel in distress, which is what other adaptations do, including both 1931 versions. Stoker's Mina, through her skills as a diarist, stenographer and typist, became the main storyteller, as well as the heroic leader by risking her life in maintaining her psychic connection with Dracula. This film's Ellen, at least, demonstrates superior reading comprehension over her hubby; by following the vampire book's instructions, she sacrifices herself. She and Orlock also have a psychic link, although it's unexplained.
Thematically, "Nosferatu" is an interesting and unique take on "Dracula." Stylistically, it also does some things well. Besides the naturalism, Max Schreck's Count Orlock is a grotesque figure with rodent-like features, which is more faithful to the spirit if not the details of the novel and almost as memorable as Bela Lugosi's suave vamp. The film features many shots through, mostly rounded, archways, and its frequent employment of irises double the circular motif. Orlock's shadows are especially impressive for a 1922 film. The gimmicky effects, such as the fast-motion photography and the negative shot during the carriage scene, aren't bad, either. Perhaps, the weakest part of the film is that most of its shots are static, which stands in stark contrast to later films by its director F.W. Murnau, including "The Last Laugh" (1924), "Tartuffe" (1925), "Faust" (1926) and "Sunrise" (1927), all of which make innovative use of the "unchained" camera.
(Mirror Note: Orlock is seen in the mirror during his climactic death scene. This fits with the film's naturalist theme of a vampire who casts both many shadows and reflections. Also, Hutter fixes his tie in an early mirror shot, which contrasts with him, later, using a mirror to examine bite marks. Ellen, meanwhile, is associated with windows.)
Whereas the novel is set in the late 19th Century—around the time it was written—and mostly in England, "Nosferatu" takes place in 1838 and mostly in the fictional village of Wisborg. It retains the Count's origins from Transylvania, though. Relocating the story has been a common-enough practice, which I think is generally wise for productions not already set in the English-speaking world. Altering the time has also been common, but usually it's to update it. Setting the story decades earlier has turned out to be a strange choice, indeed. Stoker's tale features quite a few technologies and techniques that were new in its era, including railway travel, the phonograph, typewriter, shorthand and blood transfusions—all of which are absent here. (Stoker made no mention of the then-new invention of film, but the 1992 movie does.) Stoker's heroes used these advances to defeat the ancient Dracula. Additionally, syphilis, which was rampant at the time, was a subtextual theme of the tale of sex and blood. "Nosferatu" replaces these concerns with an emphasis on nature and the older threat of plague. This has the benefit of including an entire village in the monster menace— something the Universal films did with their other series, including "Frankenstein" and "The Wolf Man," but not with "Dracula." "Nosferatu" even has a mob chase after the Renfield type, "Knock," because they suspect him of vampirism.
Also less prominent here is Catholicism; instead of mainstream religion and science, the filmmakers focus more on their own, reported, occultism. Just look at the strange symbols on the letter exchanged between the Count and Knock. Relatedly, one of the more lasting changes from the film has been the myth of vampires dying from sunlight, which is contrary to Stoker.
The focus on nature had the benefit of avoiding the construction of expensive sets for the new studio and allows for some nice location shooting. The transitional skyline views showing the passages of day and night take on more meaning than they would otherwise, as do the many scenes of rats. Being reset in the Biedermeier period was surely also a benefit to the production's costs, as that era's utilitarian style demanded less interior-design excess than Stoker's Victorian age. With such drab interiors, exterior shots are naturally the more beautiful, and the film spends much of its time outside, including extended scenes of the Harker character (renamed "Hutter") frolicking outdoors in the first acts and, later, racing back home on horseback in lieu of trains.
Another aspect of the novel that the filmmakers had to contend with was its epistolary structure, which consists of the story being told through various media, including diaries, letters, newspapers and phonograph records, and by multiple narrators. Instead, "Nosferatu" opens as its own book, and the intertitles relate the unfolding tale as described by an unseen narrator based on his secondhand accounts. There's also a book-within-the-book about vampires, which the Harker and Mina (renamed "Ellen") types read. This book largely replaces the Van Helsing character, who slightly exists in the film only in the minor role of Professor Bulwer, a Paracelsian (in keeping with the film's overall occult alternatives, Paracelsianism was, apparently, an alternative to traditional medicine and real science). Rather than perform blood transfusions, Bulwer, in one scene, gives a demonstration of how the Venus flytrap and the Hydra species are like vampires and phantoms. Otherwise unrelated to the main story, this scene further places the supernatural within the natural.
One other thing I like about this adaptation is that it doesn't reduce the Mina role entirely to damsel in distress, which is what other adaptations do, including both 1931 versions. Stoker's Mina, through her skills as a diarist, stenographer and typist, became the main storyteller, as well as the heroic leader by risking her life in maintaining her psychic connection with Dracula. This film's Ellen, at least, demonstrates superior reading comprehension over her hubby; by following the vampire book's instructions, she sacrifices herself. She and Orlock also have a psychic link, although it's unexplained.
Thematically, "Nosferatu" is an interesting and unique take on "Dracula." Stylistically, it also does some things well. Besides the naturalism, Max Schreck's Count Orlock is a grotesque figure with rodent-like features, which is more faithful to the spirit if not the details of the novel and almost as memorable as Bela Lugosi's suave vamp. The film features many shots through, mostly rounded, archways, and its frequent employment of irises double the circular motif. Orlock's shadows are especially impressive for a 1922 film. The gimmicky effects, such as the fast-motion photography and the negative shot during the carriage scene, aren't bad, either. Perhaps, the weakest part of the film is that most of its shots are static, which stands in stark contrast to later films by its director F.W. Murnau, including "The Last Laugh" (1924), "Tartuffe" (1925), "Faust" (1926) and "Sunrise" (1927), all of which make innovative use of the "unchained" camera.
(Mirror Note: Orlock is seen in the mirror during his climactic death scene. This fits with the film's naturalist theme of a vampire who casts both many shadows and reflections. Also, Hutter fixes his tie in an early mirror shot, which contrasts with him, later, using a mirror to examine bite marks. Ellen, meanwhile, is associated with windows.)