Why is this movie considered a classic?


I was wondering, why this movie is considered a classic?

I just finished watching the black and white version of Nosferatu and I must admit that i was a bit disappointed. Comparred to other classics at the time (The General, The kid, The passion of Joan of Arc etc.), I found that the quality was very bad, the acting was poor and the obvious mistakes made it hard to take movie seriously.

reply

Anyone?

reply

I guess it's just because it's considerably more famous than the films you mentioned. I could argue that it was very influential, but so was the entire expressionist movement that it was a part of. So I don't really know, I still love it though, even though it is badly done compared to other similar films, and Gustav Von Wangenheim is a blithering idiot of an actor.

reply

Because its the very first vampire movie ever made. ~~~~~~~~ April151CT

reply

IT WAS THE FIRST HORROR MOVIE EVER!

reply

Not true. There are plenty of movies that are in the horror genre that predate Nosferatu.the Devil's Castle from 1896 is the first known horror movie. Drakula halála aka Dracula's Death, a lost Dracula movie (of course going by the title) is from 1921.

* There's a rumored vampire movie based on Dracula that was made in 1920, but no prints are known to have survived. Wikipedia credits "A Night of Horror" as the first vampire movie though, dating to 1916.

* The Golem trilogy is from the 1910s-1920s(?).

* The Edison Company's telling of Frankenstein dates to 1910 (which resurfaced) and the lost movie, Life Without a Soul also tells the story in a way.

And so on and do forth. Refer to this list for other titles. Lost or not, many predate Nosferatu as late as the 1890s.

http://www.imdb.com/list/PeySrBN488s/

"I'll go,because I am Cinema!" - Ben (Man Bites Dog)

reply

Okay I will give you that. However, other than 'The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari' 'The Phantom of the Opera' and maybe 'The Phantom Carriage,' 'Nosferatu' is the only one that is any good. And out of those 4, Nosferatu is the best. When it came out, people were terrified. It created a standard for not just horror movies, but all movies.


-----"Side? I am on nobody's side because nobody's on my side, little Orc."-----
-Treebeard: The Two Tower

reply

However, other than 'The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari' 'The Phantom of the Opera' and maybe 'The Phantom Carriage,' 'Nosferatu' is the only one that is any good.


Wait, what? "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" is an excellent movie. I even find it superior to Nosferatu.

reply

He mentioned those films as being the only good ones along with Nosferatu, hence the "other than"

reply

My bad for not being a native english speaker. ;)

reply

He also said "And out of those 4, Nosferatu is the best.".

And like CaptainViggo, I think that Caligari is slightly better.

reply

I saw a film version of Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde that came out in 1920. Starring John Barrymore.
That was a good horror film and should be considered a classic.
I would even go so far as to say that I liked it even more than Nosferatu.

reply

The fact that it was the first really famous vampire movie has a lot to do with it. And also, the tremendous makeup and Max Schreck's horrifying performance as Count Orlok have a lot to do with it too. He is still one of the top 10 vampires of cinematic history even today in my opinion.

Come, fly the teeth of the wind. Share my wings.

reply

I agree that the makeup and performance of Max Schreck was good. But besides that their was not much to get excited about. I can see that people would consider it a classic because it was the first of its kind, but im not sure whether or not thats a good argument. Back in the 1920´s it was probably terrifying as hell, but I still believe that, compared to the movies i mentioned earlier, it has lost a lot.

reply

I would second the motion that film is uneven. I recently caught the restored English version. I thought that performances of Schreck and Greta were very well done and also the performances of the some supporting people were also well done but Hutter was way over the top. You can't say that because its a slient people over acted to get their point across as the actors that I initally mentioned did just the opposite. I think Murnau did a mixed job, he set up some amazingly atmospheric shots but subtly in story telling not his strong suit.

I mean for all the mystery that surrounds the count his obsession with Ellen is never spelled out more than "You wife has a great neck" - Really?? Out of all the cards you could have put in there to describe his intention? Also, the count's death, he knows the sun is up but walks by the window anyway. For as long as the film is you would think that Murnau would have developed the professor character a bit more and actually connected them to the couple. Maybe leading to a confrontation that would resulted in the count's death.

Strangely enough, this film seems to suffer an unevenness that plagued the Legosi version. Some stand out performances from Dracula and Renfield and the stuff at the castle and the ship is done very well but the performances of the supporting cast in England were pretty terrible.

Overall, good piece of cinema but just because its old doesn't mean that it shouldn't be judged even by the acting/cinema standards of the time.

reply

With the right soundtrack and with the lights turned down, this movie is a horror masterpiece, driven by the almost supernatural performance of the great Max Shreck. It is the most glaucous and chilling movie experience that one can sit through.

http://www.zepirates.com/?pid=1486904

reply

And also, the tremendous makeup and Max Schreck[...]
But what's funny is that everyone who sees this Classic thinks that Max Schreck must be wearing a lot of makeup to look like that.

However in fact, when F.W. Murnau was casting for the role of the very first vampire to ever be captured on film, he eventually saw Schreck and said that Schreck was "the ugliest man I have ever seen", which of course made Schreck a shoe-in for the illustrious part.

With the exception of the pointed ears and eyebrows and the sharp rat-like fangs, that's just what Schreck looked like in real life.

--
StrangerHand: Now 75% more afro-free!

reply

[deleted]

Although it is not as polished as Murnau's classic Sunrise or even Dreyer's Vampyr, Nosferatu set the standard for everything that followed. There have been very few cinematic vampires since that are just flat out unnervingly creepy at first sight too.

reply

I caught this last night on Wolfman Mac's Chiller Drive In. Many years ago I took a class on the history of horror movies; it was the first time I saw this film. The fact that this is the first vampire movie and that the film shows a gruesome vampire versus a suave Dracula in evening dress makes it a classic.

reply

It is considered a classic because thats simply what it is. It set the stage, its the first vampire movie, its atmospheric, and ir features a terrifying villian. As for the acting you have to understand that cinema was relatively NEW at the time. Acting was more like that of the stage where everything is overdone. It seems cheesey and hasnt dated well as cinema has evolved. But Shre

reply

[deleted]

Try watching the KINO digitally restored version with the actual color tints. It looks like the film was shot yesterday, they did such an amazing job restoring it (dont quote me on this, but I think it took over 2 years to do), the quality is worth the purchase. Greratly enhances the viewing experince and you'll walk away with a different view on it. Comes with a DVD doc about the life and films of the director, an english version with english intertitles and the German version with the original German intertitles, the actual 1922 musical score of the film. etc.. For any Nosferatu fans spend the money on this DVD its worth it.

reply

It's a classic because it's the first vampire movie of all time, and one of the first horror films of all time, so it's almost impossible to compare it to The General, Joan of Arc, etc. Think of it as uncharted waters. Also, remember that FW Murnau wasn't a big name in the mainstream film scene... He was an expressionist film maker.

reply

He was an expressionist film maker.
Not only that, but he saw himself as a painter more than a director. Notice how people merge into and emerge from shadows, how he uses slow motion and time lapse, and symbolism (spider nets can be seen everywhere). Also, check out how he changes between deep and flat-looking environments...

These things were there before, but it takes a master artist to combine these techniques and create a masterpiece.



--
Grammar:
The difference between knowing your sh**
and knowing you're sh**.

reply

I think it still stands up to the test of time...the way it was shot (with the jerky movements of the primitive cameras, black and white, makeup, etc.) it looks "real," that Nosferatu really is a vampire.

reply

I get what you're saying and I agree. I watched this after Battleship Potemkin (both KINO versions) and while I fully realize that they're different genres and Battleship was a few years later, Battleship was a 9/10 to me and this was a 7. It didn't strike me as a masterpiece.

"I watch a lot of movies" - Me.

reply