SHADOW OF THE VAMPIRE
Directed by E. Elias Merhige
with John Malkovich, William Dafoe
Cinema verite is a belief that film should be a window to the outside world, rather than a mirror merely reflecting it. The awkwardly freakish Shadow of the Vampire takes this idea one step further, positioning film as an actual recording of real life events. Perhaps even trickier, the movie – which is about making a movie – must convince the audience of its reality through the medium of film.
Don’t worry; my head is also spinning in circles thinking about that series of relationships.
As such, Shadow of the Vampire builds a mountain of internal logistical problems that no amount of stunning visuals and brilliant make-up (both of which there are plenty) can overcome. The movie worries too much about moving from place A to place B and drifts too far from its characters. In the end, we are left with empty shadows of characters, whose transformations might have been interesting had they been treated with more attention.
For example, the eccentric, elusive director Murnau (John Malkovich) is quite obviously mad by the film’s end. And while the final moments of the film are equally disturbing and compelling as a result of this madness, we never see how Murnau gets to this point. The movie never convinces us that his drive or his passion for this film, for this project, are enough to drive him to such callous, disaffected behavior. The transformation is altogether too sudden.
Likewise, the film’s most compelling character, Count Orlock (a.k.a. Max Shrek, a.k.a. Count Dracula, a.k.a. the vampire) is never used as more than a circus exhibition. What makes Dracula, Frankenstein (and I’m presuming Nosferatu) compelling stories is the ability to humanize these (on the surface) monsters. Indeed, nothing is more powerful than the capacity for human emotion. Orlock has almost no human emotion – save lust. A vampire is supposed to have lust, though; it’s not nearly enough to make Orlock sympathetic. Thereby, Shadow of the Vampire fails on two parallel levels – in its own reality, and in the making of Noferatu’s reality.
The opening of the movie tells us the whole story, which isn’t exactly helpful for creating any drama. That is, the famous German director Murnau has been denied the rights to Bram Stoker’s Dracula, so he decides to shoot the film anyway, only changing the name. Nosferatu-Eine Symphonie des Grauens becomes the most “realistic” vampire film ever and establishes Murnau’s greatness. Shadow of the Vampire follows this outline almost exactly. The conflict arises when the director will not tell his crew who is to play the titular character in his film. After the all-too-real Shrek assumes the part, his unusual methods cause much unrest on the set. As the filming continues, Murnau’s unholy bargain with the unfathomable Orlock sends the film’s conclusion only further into doubt.
In between the moments of this rather listless plot, however, there are some true cinematic gems. Dark humor surrounding Orlock abounds. Indeed, William Dafoe’s portrayal of the vampire is truly one of the most inventive pieces of acting in recent memory. It’s hard not to credit the brilliant make-up at least somewhat for the authenticity of Orlock. The costume was grotesque, horrifying and just plain freaky. Indeed, I would expect the film to be nominated for several makeup and costume Oscars. That said, Dafoe, underneath his costume, brings the beast to life with his lurching walk and smirking grimaces. He’s truly a wonderful spectacle to watch.
And along these same lines, Shadow of the Vampire comes up with some wonderfully stunning visuals. While the movie does not take advantage of its frequent fades to black and white, it does make much use of color contrast. The cinematography, at times, is nothing short of breath taking.
However, Shadow never manages to overcome the complexities of its plot. More accurately, it never really investigates them at all. Good ideas and even the right outcomes are there, but the middle is simply missing. The movie is never consistently frightening or funny. Rather, most of it just lingers kind of aimlessly, not really accomplishing much. The human emotion, if you will, is almost completely absent.
William Dafoe is absolutely brilliant and deserves an Oscar nod. John Malkovich is underused. The cinematography is inconsistent. The plot is simply not worth it. Shadow of the Vampire could have been very good, but never makes us care about its characters or stories – and that is not the way to make a vampire film.
