Why is it that Orlok is so much scarier than other vampyres? IDK I guess it’s a personal thing but I like to ponder why the really, really, REALLY old version of the vampyre in film is the scariest one, in spite of changing sensibilities in what constitutes horror, improved effects, and the fact that his film is silent and most people hear it with a version with a silly dissonant soundtrack. (Sorry if this is totally random but I’m obsessed with Nosferatu and NEED TO TALK ABOUT THIS)

gothiccharmschool:

I am always here for random vampire discussion!

My opinion: Orlok is so much scarier because he’s obviously monstrous, but still needs humanity in some way. Plus, the character design is just so fantastic. The costume and makeup! Unsettling, but you can still see the traces of a person in there. 

Also, the practical effects and b&w footage help Nosferatu be much more unnerving, because your brain fills in the gaps. While I am always impressed by what filmmakers can achieve with digital FX, I will always believe that practical FX have a place in horror, and just because you *can* do something digitally in post-production doesn’t mean you should.

Finally, let’s face it: Murnau had a fantastic eye for filming unsettling images. 

Your comment about the “silly dissonant soundtrack” leads me to ask: have you heard Jill Tracy and the Malcontent Orchestra’s soundtrack for Nosferatu? If not, you must give it a listen. 

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.