1922 Silent Film Nosferatu: A

1922 Silent Film Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror The 1922 film, Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror, which many film historians and critics and wanna-be "horror film experts" quickly point out was a blatant rip-off ("cinematic remake") of the 1897 vampire novel Dracula (by Bram Stoker), was far more than a rip-off or "unauthorized adaptation." It was the second Dracula movie (but the first full length) and whether piracy or not - indeed it raised the considerable ire and angst of Stoker's widow Florence - it set the stage, and built the stage, created the theme, tone, conflict and iconographic character, for a long, unending series of vampire (Dracula) films.

But the salient point of this paper is that the iconographic momentum set in motion by the actor Max Schreck (who brilliantly plays the hideously ugly character Count Orlok), not so much the story itself nor the fact that it was plagiarized, is the lasting legacy vis-a-vis this silent film.

To set the stage for the point of this paper, iconography, according to the Duke University Library, is "the study of subjects and themes in works of art" (in this case, the dual theme is horror and vampires who suck blood); it is also "a set of images or symbols conventionally associated with a subject" (in Nosferatu, the image is of a human turned into an animal; an animal with some human traits who preys upon humans for sustenance); it is also "the study of images, their formation, transmission, and transformation in the various cultures and civilizations and of their intrinsic meaning." The initial Count Orlok as Dracula is to horror film iconography what Ovid (Metamorphoses) is to Antiquity, and what the Holy Bible is to Christian iconography.

The image of Dracula has transcended time, and outlasted many subsequent imitators, hence the proof of the power of F.W. Murnau's original film, and the evidence that the shelf life of this cultural phenomenon Dracula sprang from Murnau's deft creation and iconography.

Moreover, Count Grof Orlok is easily more frightening and hideously grotesque than the Dracula in Werner Herzog's 1979 remake of the film; and Orlok is certainly more darkly effective and nightmarish than the star-smothered 1992 Dracula (starring Gary Oldman as Orlok; and featuring Keanu Reeves, Winona Ryder, and Anthony Hopkins), as well. 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.