These subsequent Draculas are all pretenders to the throne, thanks to the iconographic excellence that emerged in the 1922 version. Indeed, subsequent Draculas in many cases have taken on slick, well-dressed, classy appearances, quite the opposite of the repulsive, disgusting, repugnant - and pathetically sickly - Count Orlok. Renowned film critic Roger Ebert (Chicago Sun-Times, 1997) praises the iconography of Mumau's Orlok: "The vampire should come across not like a flamboyant actor but like a man suffering from a dread curse"; and of course, Orlok is suffering from a disease / curse, and his bat ears, claw-like nails, and fangs are located not on the side of his head like some movies show Dracula, but in the middle of his mouth, like a rodent, which he is, at least partly. ("Nosferatu" is derived from the Greek "Nosophoros," which means "plague-carrier," which a rat is known to be.)

Meantime, part of what keeps Nosferatu unique in its iconography, rather than merely suck blood and be violent, "Orlok exerts a kind of emotional tyranny over his victims," writes Joseph Maddrey (Nightmares in Red, White and Blue, 10). "He's a sickly creature and his victims seem to have no will of their own," Maddrey concluded. Further, as to the...

"Iconography." Retrieved March 1, 2005 http://www.lib.duke.edu/lilly/cdar/booktypes/iconography.htm.
Ebert, Roger. "Nosferatu (1922)." Chicago Sun-Times Sept. 1997. Retrieved February

http://www.rogerebert.suntimes.com.

Maddrey, Joseph. Nightmares in Red, White and Blue: The Evolution of the American

Horror Film. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company, 2004.

Skal, David J. The Monster Show: A Cultural History of Horror. New York: W.W.

Norton & Company, 1993.