2:55:00 I thought the Christian stuff in the movie works perfectly as a type of red herring in the sense that it's obviously how somebody in that time would view anything supernatural, but there are even older superstitions that have been even more neglected for even longer. That's why I like the Van Helsing equivalent being an Alchemist. It's only a problem to downplay the Christian element of the story if it's not in service of something else. They downplayed the Christian element in favor of a pagan one. I don't see how that's necessarily bad.
I actually don't think Orlok leaving by boat is necessarily a problem, because while it is less direct, it was established that the locals are very learned of their anti-Vampire techniques, and so he would likely want to avoid a direct land route to Germany for his own safety. Also, Demon Contracts (and to an extent, other supernatural rules such as for genies and the fey) do not tend to make a distinction between willful agreement and fraud/blackmail. Typically, according to these supernatural rules, an agreement is an agreement, regardless of the context, so long as their consciousness was not overridden.
Another thing that is a weird issue: Orlok contacts Knock in some manner, in order to get to Thomas, in order to get to Ellen, his ultimate goal. This is a reversal from the Dracula story. Dracula meets Renfield, and thus learns of Jonathon and thus Mina, who then becomes his ultimate goal. The logic is backwards in Nosferatu, and they didn't take the steps to bridge the gap. We are just to assume that Orlok is so supernaturally powerful that through his bond to Ellen he knows Thomas' employer and corrupts him. It just sort of glosses over it. Seems like a lot of things like that got glossed over.
3:47:00 I don't think leaving Mina out of the loop in the book "Dracula" is a problem, from a feminist critique perspective, since that choice has bad consequences for them: she's attacked at night by Dracula and they don't notice for too long, she herself doesn't speak much the changes she feels, thinking that would take their focus out of their mission. Later, when they realized she has also been attacked, they recognize their mistake in not including her and neglecting her, and surely rectify the mistake. She goes on the hunt with them, and as they separate fulfill different tasks, she goes with Van Helsing because she's the one with a connection to Dracula Only a superficial look to the plot and story of the book would make you conclude that you needed to "make right" what the book wronged, since the book aknowledges it and rectifies it. The mistake has a purpose.
'I have done no evil except what my nature bade me' etc. I can believe the villain said that, not Ellen. I watched the 1922 Murnau film instead. It may be a good Expressionist film but the plot is only decipherable if you've read Dracula. A lot of dead ends. Some differences. Ellen only started any psychic stuff after Orlok had seen her portrait, and was attacking Hutter. Herr Knock had already been suborned somehow, as he had a psychic link, and he knew when Orlok died. Orlok just locked Hutter in and scarpered, no wolves, no weird contract. All Van Helsing did was have a scene comparing vampires to the Venus fly trap. Ellen decides all on her own to sacrifice herself, Van Helsing wasn't there. She left a loving message for Hutter, explicitly. She did it to stop the Plague, because the vampire manual Hutter found in Romania said only a woman's sacrifice entices the vampire to stay until dawn. There was nothing at all about giving her love to Orlok.
We don't necessarily know if the gypsies killed an actual vampire or just vandalized a random corpse. For all we know Orlok is the last vampire, or a unique creature.
Enjoyed the stream! Really been enjoying your coverage of Eggers. Gone Girl was top tier, too, thanks for that. Also also, around the 3 hour mark, someone was citing Wikipedia like waaaaaaayyyyy too insistently. And, that was first cringe, then I got scared, then I got angry. Subbed a few vids ago! ❤️ ❤️ 💙 💜
I really liked the dialogue as far as period style, though it was aggressively English in retrospect, and I loved the costumes and set decoration, but I left the theater a bit meh. The tension and build up was a big flop for me. The movie builds up as not-Jonathon travels and meets Orlok, and then the tension level stays pretty much the same the rest of the movie, which made it hard to engage in. The actors nailed it. Skarsgård was unrecognizable in a good way, and Hoult and Taylor-Johnson nailed it as usual. I was surprised that I did not enjoy Dafoe's performance that much. Worst of Eggers' movies; still leagues ahead of most modern movies.
I think you guys have a point about the film doing a silly, superficial "switcheroo" of the genders in that the boys are being kept "safe" by Van Helsing (whatever his name is here) while Ellen is sent off to sacrifice herself and take the beast with her. I think this fails for the reasons stated in the video AND because, in the original "Dracula", Mina Harker is far from being some shrinking violet being oppressed by the Patriarchy. She is a tough, smart, headstrong, modern woman. She is *much* closer to some kind of feminist than this self-harming bi-polar version we get here. That *could* have worked if Eggers had just gone full folk-tale, but he wanted to keep the source material and I think that hamstrung the film. Either go fully insane, occult folk magic or stay faithful to the book. This was a film of half-measures. The pacing was off as well. Less a film, more a "reel".
I'm normally a fan of these breakdowns, but an hour and a half in, I'm feeling frustrated, not because I have a different opinion on the movie (I haven't seen it and don't intend to, since it's just not my thing), but because it seems that most of what I'm hearing is about the movie not telling the story they wanted it to tell, rather than about the merits/flaws of the story that Eggers wanted to tell, if that makes sense. The conversation jumping around between various gripes isn't helping either. It sounds like in this supernatural/surreal story, the villain is more powerful, ugly, in-your-face creature, rather than a conniving, sneaky, manipulative threat, and I get preferring the latter type, I really do, but it's not necessarily a flaw in the story in and of itself, for example (neither is choosing Germany rather than England, though taking a boat to Germany is, due to not being justified, so there's a mix of "I don't like it" and "this is a problem" going on that I find off-putting, personally.) Maybe having a guest with a perspective that's more focused on the movie itself would've been useful in this instance.
In order to get rid of it she has to affirm her despair. Yeah, that is a terrible message for the film to distribute and reflects badly on the writers. As an antidote, and to paraphrase a certain existentialist Protestant, one's despair must be conscious of being despair; and therefore conscious of that which is eternal!
I have not finish the whole video but the trip being 6 weeks is horrible. That means that sick guy was on horse for at least 3 weeks to get back in what looks to be for some of the trip in cold weather.
19:54 I’m sorry, but I feel like you guys (despite multiple viewings of the movie) are clearly missing an explicitly stated reason for her and Orlock’s connection. It is stated at least once (if not multiple times) by von franz that Ellen has some strong unrealized empathic or psychic powers that connected her to him. She isn’t just some girl, she has a strong supernatural presence that awoken Orlock from his sleep and drew him to her power.
@@AmbroseSideburn then why is it a problem? They spent 5 minutes talking about it as a flaw, mention the shine, then move on. Either it's a flaw in the film or it's not.
@@doubledawg2006Agree. She's special. Maybe they just don't like that, but they do fail to give reasons why. Maybe it's something about it making certain plot points a little too convenient. I seem to recall them saying something like "mind control means there are no stakes (pun intended)" - I think that was in reference to Hutter signing the contract..
@@AmbroseSideburnYeah, they complain repeatedly about Orlok being called to her, but they never make the connection that her Shine is what called him so treat it like a flaw.
@@AmbroseSideburnthen why is it a flaw? The film has supernatural events and constantly reinforces that Ellen has this supernatural ability that lals Orlok to her. Where is the flaw in that? “Why is she special and why is she the only one?” Well one, why is any character ever special or have a special ability and two, we don’t know how rare this ability is and how many times did someone with it spiritually call out to an entity? That’s just grasping at straws to think of a flaw. The film establishes she has this ability at the beginning and remains consistent with it. Not a flaw.
2:55:00 I thought the Christian stuff in the movie works perfectly as a type of red herring in the sense that it's obviously how somebody in that time would view anything supernatural, but there are even older superstitions that have been even more neglected for even longer. That's why I like the Van Helsing equivalent being an Alchemist. It's only a problem to downplay the Christian element of the story if it's not in service of something else. They downplayed the Christian element in favor of a pagan one. I don't see how that's necessarily bad.
I actually don't think Orlok leaving by boat is necessarily a problem, because while it is less direct, it was established that the locals are very learned of their anti-Vampire techniques, and so he would likely want to avoid a direct land route to Germany for his own safety.
Also, Demon Contracts (and to an extent, other supernatural rules such as for genies and the fey) do not tend to make a distinction between willful agreement and fraud/blackmail. Typically, according to these supernatural rules, an agreement is an agreement, regardless of the context, so long as their consciousness was not overridden.
The boat jump scare actually got me, even though I had seen Orlok to the side during the tension building part as the sailor walked in.
Another thing that is a weird issue: Orlok contacts Knock in some manner, in order to get to Thomas, in order to get to Ellen, his ultimate goal. This is a reversal from the Dracula story. Dracula meets Renfield, and thus learns of Jonathon and thus Mina, who then becomes his ultimate goal. The logic is backwards in Nosferatu, and they didn't take the steps to bridge the gap. We are just to assume that Orlok is so supernaturally powerful that through his bond to Ellen he knows Thomas' employer and corrupts him. It just sort of glosses over it. Seems like a lot of things like that got glossed over.
3:47:00 I don't think leaving Mina out of the loop in the book "Dracula" is a problem, from a feminist critique perspective, since that choice has bad consequences for them: she's attacked at night by Dracula and they don't notice for too long, she herself doesn't speak much the changes she feels, thinking that would take their focus out of their mission. Later, when they realized she has also been attacked, they recognize their mistake in not including her and neglecting her, and surely rectify the mistake. She goes on the hunt with them, and as they separate fulfill different tasks, she goes with Van Helsing because she's the one with a connection to Dracula
Only a superficial look to the plot and story of the book would make you conclude that you needed to "make right" what the book wronged, since the book aknowledges it and rectifies it. The mistake has a purpose.
'I have done no evil except what my nature bade me' etc. I can believe the villain said that, not Ellen.
I watched the 1922 Murnau film instead. It may be a good Expressionist film but the plot is only decipherable if you've read Dracula. A lot of dead ends.
Some differences.
Ellen only started any psychic stuff after Orlok had seen her portrait, and was attacking Hutter. Herr Knock had already been suborned somehow, as he had a psychic link, and he knew when Orlok died.
Orlok just locked Hutter in and scarpered, no wolves, no weird contract.
All Van Helsing did was have a scene comparing vampires to the Venus fly trap.
Ellen decides all on her own to sacrifice herself, Van Helsing wasn't there. She left a loving message for Hutter, explicitly. She did it to stop the Plague, because the vampire manual Hutter found in Romania said only a woman's sacrifice entices the vampire to stay until dawn. There was nothing at all about giving her love to Orlok.
We don't necessarily know if the gypsies killed an actual vampire or just vandalized a random corpse. For all we know Orlok is the last vampire, or a unique creature.
I think they did destroy a vampire, and one that had fed recently since it vomited up blood when they staked it.
@@nonvitaerex9281 Oh I did not remember that detail, then yes.
Enjoyed the stream! Really been enjoying your coverage of Eggers. Gone Girl was top tier, too, thanks for that. Also also, around the 3 hour mark, someone was citing Wikipedia like waaaaaaayyyyy too insistently. And, that was first cringe, then I got scared, then I got angry. Subbed a few vids ago! ❤️ ❤️ 💙 💜
I really liked the dialogue as far as period style, though it was aggressively English in retrospect, and I loved the costumes and set decoration, but I left the theater a bit meh. The tension and build up was a big flop for me. The movie builds up as not-Jonathon travels and meets Orlok, and then the tension level stays pretty much the same the rest of the movie, which made it hard to engage in. The actors nailed it. Skarsgård was unrecognizable in a good way, and Hoult and Taylor-Johnson nailed it as usual. I was surprised that I did not enjoy Dafoe's performance that much.
Worst of Eggers' movies; still leagues ahead of most modern movies.
I think you guys have a point about the film doing a silly, superficial "switcheroo" of the genders in that the boys are being kept "safe" by Van Helsing (whatever his name is here) while Ellen is sent off to sacrifice herself and take the beast with her. I think this fails for the reasons stated in the video AND because, in the original "Dracula", Mina Harker is far from being some shrinking violet being oppressed by the Patriarchy. She is a tough, smart, headstrong, modern woman. She is *much* closer to some kind of feminist than this self-harming bi-polar version we get here. That *could* have worked if Eggers had just gone full folk-tale, but he wanted to keep the source material and I think that hamstrung the film. Either go fully insane, occult folk magic or stay faithful to the book. This was a film of half-measures. The pacing was off as well. Less a film, more a "reel".
I'm normally a fan of these breakdowns, but an hour and a half in, I'm feeling frustrated, not because I have a different opinion on the movie (I haven't seen it and don't intend to, since it's just not my thing), but because it seems that most of what I'm hearing is about the movie not telling the story they wanted it to tell, rather than about the merits/flaws of the story that Eggers wanted to tell, if that makes sense. The conversation jumping around between various gripes isn't helping either.
It sounds like in this supernatural/surreal story, the villain is more powerful, ugly, in-your-face creature, rather than a conniving, sneaky, manipulative threat, and I get preferring the latter type, I really do, but it's not necessarily a flaw in the story in and of itself, for example (neither is choosing Germany rather than England, though taking a boat to Germany is, due to not being justified, so there's a mix of "I don't like it" and "this is a problem" going on that I find off-putting, personally.)
Maybe having a guest with a perspective that's more focused on the movie itself would've been useful in this instance.
Why is Hollywood allergic to doing an accurate adaptation of Dracula?
Hubris
this isn't an adaptation of Dracula
In order to get rid of it she has to affirm her despair. Yeah, that is a terrible message for the film to distribute and reflects badly on the writers. As an antidote, and to paraphrase a certain existentialist Protestant, one's despair must be conscious of being despair; and therefore conscious of that which is eternal!
I have not finish the whole video but the trip being 6 weeks is horrible. That means that sick guy was on horse for at least 3 weeks to get back in what looks to be for some of the trip in cold weather.
Am I the only one that thinks the writing is not very good?
No. It is poorly written.
19:54 I’m sorry, but I feel like you guys (despite multiple viewings of the movie) are clearly missing an explicitly stated reason for her and Orlock’s connection. It is stated at least once (if not multiple times) by von franz that Ellen has some strong unrealized empathic or psychic powers that connected her to him. She isn’t just some girl, she has a strong supernatural presence that awoken Orlock from his sleep and drew him to her power.
They referred to it as her having the " the shining " ( psychic powers ). So, you are the one missing something. Pay attention next time.
@@AmbroseSideburn then why is it a problem? They spent 5 minutes talking about it as a flaw, mention the shine, then move on. Either it's a flaw in the film or it's not.
@@doubledawg2006Agree. She's special.
Maybe they just don't like that, but they do fail to give reasons why. Maybe it's something about it making certain plot points a little too convenient. I seem to recall them saying something like "mind control means there are no stakes (pun intended)" - I think that was in reference to Hutter signing the contract..
@@AmbroseSideburnYeah, they complain repeatedly about Orlok being called to her, but they never make the connection that her Shine is what called him so treat it like a flaw.
@@AmbroseSideburnthen why is it a flaw? The film has supernatural events and constantly reinforces that Ellen has this supernatural ability that lals Orlok to her. Where is the flaw in that? “Why is she special and why is she the only one?” Well one, why is any character ever special or have a special ability and two, we don’t know how rare this ability is and how many times did someone with it spiritually call out to an entity? That’s just grasping at straws to think of a flaw. The film establishes she has this ability at the beginning and remains consistent with it. Not a flaw.
Jesus christ, nit picking at its finest. My God, calm down guys. Good movie.
You = Smooth brain