As these on-set maladies and "accidents" continue, Schreck wields greater control over Murnau, who descends into a kind of obsessive art-for-art's-sake madness until diva costar Greta Schroeder (Catherine McCormack, doing wonderful work) is served up as the actor's ultimate motivation. Merhige and his actors (including Cary Elwes, as intrepid cameraman Fritz Wagner) have great fun with this ghastly escapade, and the humor is kept delicately subtle to balance the movie's artistic aspirations. To that end, Dafoe is just right, his bald pate and gaunt features a perfect match for the mysterious Schreck, his grimace and talon-like fingers suggesting a human vulture on the prowl. Likewise, the re-creation of Nosferatu's expressionist style is both fanciful and brilliantly authentic. Too bad, then, that this movie suffers a mild case of vampiric anemia; if it shared the depth and richness of, say, Ed Wood, this might have been a cult classic for the ages. --Jeff Shannon

With the double whammy of being black and white and silent, the film might be at Blockbuster, maybe one copy, but probably a cheap one, badly reproduced, just reinforcing people's stereotyping of silent films. I hope Shadow of the Vampire keeps rental copies of Nosferatu hopping.

And it just may, because it's a great film. Max Shreck, the actor playing the Nosferatu, is a real vampire. FF Murnau is a symbolic bloodsucker, slurping his actors dry, thinking only of the film.

In addition to being a great vampire film, this is a great period piece. Sometimes 21st century audiences need reminding that even though Nosferatu is set in Victorian times, it was made in the 1920's. I assume the Victorian atmosphere is well done, just because I don't see any evidence of 1922. At any rate, an era that is viewed as innocent by both us in 2001, and the cast of the film in 1922 is recreated. This is important, because the 20's themselves were a not-so-innocent time. So we have a period piece within a period piece, smooth and fascinating.

The atmospheric effect of the film is so good, I wish the cameraman would give lessons. The color of the film is wonderful. Although gore is restrained, the entire film looks as though it was shot through a vial of blood. There is a creepiness, but not the sort that you feel at a space alien or slasher movie, waiting for the moment that the monster is finally shown in full view. The creepiness here is the kind you get when you make a wrong turn and find yourself in a strange neighborhood, where people dress oddly, the buildings are in an unfamiliar style, and the more you try to find your way, the more lost you become.

The performances are superb, and this is all around a film worth watching, even for people who don't like horror films.


remarkable example of a horror subgenre   May 16, 2006
 16 out of 17 found this review helpful

SHADOW OF THE VAMPIRE belongs to a curious subgenre of horror cinema: dramatized speculations on the inspirations of true-life horror artists. THE SPECTRE OF EDGAR ALLAN POE told a wildly fictionalized account of splattery tragedies that would inform Poe's work. GOTHIC similarly dramatized a night of debauchery suffered by Mary Shelley that would inspire her FRANKENSTEIN. GODS AND MONSTERS fictionalized the final weeks of James Whale's retirement, still haunted by the personal demons informing BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN: World War One's trench warfare and Britain's class system.

Of the above films, GOD AND MONSTERS hews nearest historic facts, whereas SHADOW OF THE VAMPIRE veers to the opposite extreme, tossing aside history in a brilliantly imaginative, revisionist retelling of the making of F.W. Murnau's classic vampire film, NOSFERATU (1922).

In NOSFERATU, German character actor Max Schreck played the vampire, Count Orlock. So compelling was Schreck as Orlock, and so completely did he subsume himself in the roll, that his career was destroyed by subsequent typecasting. (A common risk for actors, one that ended the career of Karen Lynn Gorney after SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER). SHADOW OF THE VAMPIRE posits that the reason for Schreck's compelling performance was that ... it was no performance. Schreck was a vampire, and his "makeup" was his real face.

It's an intriguing idea, sublimely executed. SHADOW OF THE VAMPIRE opens with Murnau (played by John Malkovich), shooting his final scene in Germany, without Orlock. No one on his set knows yet who will play Orlock. Murnau informs them that he's found an obscure Method actor who's craft requires him to always be "in character." Thus, this mystery actor (named Max Schreck, played by Willem Defoe), will always be in makeup, and will only shoot at night.

The film company travels to the location in Czechoslovakia, where all are impressed with Schreck's "realism," even as they think he carries it too far. Such as when he goes overboard in attacking his co-star, or drinking a bat's blood. Murnau must control Schreck during the duration of the shoot, cajoling and bribing and threatening, at least until he has "his shot" and everything is "in the can."

John Malkovich's portrayal of Murnau is 90% perfect, but is hobbled to the extent that he plays a stereotype: the tyrannical, jackbooted, thick-accented German film director. Neither Malkovich, nor Merhige, nor Katz, do enough to raise the film's Murnau above this stereotype. One thing they might have done is lose the accents; since everyone in the film (except Orlock/Schreck) is German, there was no need for contrast. All could have spoken standard American English. But SHADOW OF THE VAMPIRE does little to contravene Teuton stereotypes, and the result is that Malkovich's Murnau is nearly perfect, rather than perfect.

Malkovich's Murnau also overlaps with a related stereotype: the director as manipulative deceiver. This broader (and not necessarily German) stereotype is similar to the first, but without the accent or pre-World War Two milieu. It evokes Peter O'Toole's manipulative director in THE STUNT MAN, who lies and connives and blackmails to get his shots. John Vernon in the Canadian slasher film CURTAINS also fits this category.

Willem Defoe offers the film's standout performance as the vampire Orlock/Schreck. Dafoe's vampire is feral yet sympathetic, brutish yet poignant. He pines over a photo of the film's leading lady (Greta, played by Catherine McCormack), implying a romantic heart; yet later pounces on her, slurping her blood as the animal he is.

Vampires are usually depicted as either alluring romantics or repulsive beasts. To his great credit, Defoe successfully blends the two personas. His Orlock simultaneously inspires both our revulsion and sympathy. Defoe's Orlock compares favorably to Karloff's Frankenstein monster: both creatures are physically abhorrent, yet beneath their ugliness, we detect pain, self-loathing, and a desire for a nobler existence. Orlock relates his descent from past worthiness, expressing his self-revulsion at what he has become.

Seeing Defoe in makeup and character, it's hard to believe he was Jesus in THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST -- the most "human" and multi-dimensional Jesus I've yet seen on film, the only cinematic Jesus one could relate to [until the brilliant THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST]. Defoe also portrayed a genteel and guilt-ridden T.S. Eliot in Tom & Viv, and a memorably chilling biker/sadist in STREETS OF FIRE (another of my personal favorite films). Defoe's range is remarkable.

Great villains make for great horror films. Villains that are morally ambiguous, who confound us by simultaneously evoking our sympathy (or at least, our empathy) and our disfavor. Dafoe's Orlock is that, yet arguably Murnau is the real monster. He has bribed Orlock with Greta, who Orlock may have once they finish their scenes. It's unclear whether Murnau initially intends to sacrifice Greta for art's sake, but it's intimated the possibility was on Murnau's mind from the start. Greta's life is certainly no priority. Murnau would readily sacrifice his cast and crew, and betray Orlock, to get his precious shots. Murnau continues filming his crew's deaths rather than intervene, much in the manner of war correspondents.

Indeed, Murnau's callousness might in part be explained by his living in a Europe still traumatized by World War One, aside for the fact that the war and its after-effects are curiously absent in SHADOW OF THE VAMPIRE. No hint of the war's human, financial, and political costs that burdened Germany in 1922. This is no irrelevant omission. Most film critics believe German expressionist cinema was influenced by the war. [See David J. Skal's THE MONSTER SHOW.]

The standout scene is also Defoe's, and will likely be remembered as one of those classic scenes in cinema that everyone recalls. (And proof of the poignant beauty of horror.) Orlock had earlier told Murnau that what he desires most is to see the sun again. After everyone has left the set, Orlock wanders to the film projector, gazes into the lens, and cranks the film. He sees a shot of a ship sailing with the sun behind it. Orlock is mesmerized, gazing into the lens, recalling all that he has lost, and how far he has fallen.

Willem Defoe deserves much credit, but credit is also due to director E. Elias Merhige, and screenwriter Steven Katz. Reportedly, this was one of those scripts that had been shuttled about for years before someone actually filmed it.

The film's title seems arbitrary. Orlock pines for the sun, and his lack of reflection in a mirror provides for a minor plot point, but there's nothing especially important about his shadow. Perhaps "shadow" is intended as a metaphor? The shadow of film's influence on the future? (Murnau speaks of film memory.) But if there's a metaphor to "shadow," it's unclear, and apparently not crucial. This film could just as easily have been called something else.

Udo Kier is likable as Murnau's producer, a contrast to Kier's sleazy Satanist in END OF DAYS. Catherine McCormack's Greta is debauched, shrewish, and thinly sketched, so we don't much care if Orlock desanguinates her.

A historical note: the Bram Stoker estate successfully sued NOSFERATU's producers for infringing Dracula's copyright. All prints were ordered destroyed, but NOSFERATU survived, so there's no excuse for a horror film fan not to have seen the original. SHADOW OF THE VAMPIRE is worth seeing in any event, but you may appreciate it more if you first see NOSFERATU and review its history.


Smart, scary, and unforgettable.   May 31, 2001
 12 out of 14 found this review helpful

SHADOW OF THE VAMPIRE is an amazing film. It operates on three separate levels. On one level it is a story of a filmmaker, F.W. Murnau (John Malkovich), obsessed with his own ambition and vision. He is remaking the Dracula legend, changing the name of the vampire to Count Orlock. His film will be called 'Nosferatu'. He has hired the 'ultimate method actor' named Max Schreck to play his vampire. Schreck is said to get into character and stay there, only wanting to be filmed at night and only responding to the name 'Count Orlock'. But as filming progresses, the truth becomes clearer and clearer... Schreck really IS a vampire, agreeing to star in Murnau's film in exchange for the chance to dine on the leading lady. It's a delicious concept, even more so after you've seen the classic, silent original. It's easier to believe that Schreck was some kind of monster then it was to believe he was simply an actor in makeup. That's how effective Schreck's performance in the 1922 German film is. The second level of the film is more familiar. It is a horror film. It has all the elements of a vampire film and it acts on all of them, actually reaching a degree of creepiness that you wouldn't expect from a film this (excuse the phrase) 'artsy'. And finally, SHADOW OF THE VAMPIRE is a seething satire, one where the lead actor cannabalizes the cast and crew to get what he wants and the director is so focused on his vision that he ignores the fact that the people around him are falling ill, they are merely meat puppets (Hitchcock and Kubrick would have been proud). This is a fun little film, with aspirations towards greatness that it all but reaches. The production design and brilliant cinematography allow for an accurate reproduction of the settings of the 1922 film. So dead-on, in fact, that when actual footage of the silent film is inserted into the film, we can't tell the difference. Director E. Elias Merhige work beautifully with an amazing casy which includes Malkovich, Udo Kier (of 'Andy Warhol's Dracula' fame). Eddie Izzard, Catherine McCormack, Cary Elwes, and Aden Gillett. But the real star here is Willem Dafoe, whose performance of Max Schreck as long suffering and desperate monster is so accutely creepy and inventive that it'll make your skin crawl.


Not as good as it could have been but not bad   March 26, 2001
 10 out of 14 found this review helpful

This movie is just not as good as it should have been. Somewhere during the film, the story gets lost in a big way. I understand what they were trying to say with the ending but the film should have built up to it. As it stands, the ending feels very tacked on and is, therefore, unenjoyable for me.

Having said that, there *are* plenty of enjoyable moments in this film. Willem Dafoe is exquisite. His portrayal of Max Shrek is both comic and very moving. It makes me think of a photograph of the real Max (taken during shooting of "Nosferatu") sitting on a hillside, looking very alone. If you're at all familiar with comedian Eddie Izzard, you'll love his performance as well. He had me in giggling fits (more often than I should have been, I warrant). John Malkovich is John Malkovich, as always. He's very charismatic so I can't say if I was entranced by his performance or by the man himself. I don't think he can be anything other than brillliant, even though I don't think his role was very well written. I don't feel Murnau's character was properly built up. You're left making too many assumptions. There were several times when I couldn't stop wondering what had been left on the editing room floor, and why? I felt that way quite often actually, and not just in regards to Murnau.

The best parts, for me, came when the crew was filming "Nosferatu." Malkovich was most amusing when giving directions to his actors. And it was interesting to watch the actors improvise those moments. But my favourite scene is the one in which Max (Willem) explains to Albin (Udo Kier) & Heinrick (Aden Gillett) why the book "Dracula" made him sad. It starts out very funny but quickly becomes very moving. There's quite a bit of that in the film: comedy to tragedy. Those moments kept me interested but left me desperately wanting a much better written/edited film. I can't help but wonder what got left out due to the project running out of filming time. If more attention had been paid, this could have been a masterpiece.


It's all about Willem Dafoe.   February 18, 2004
 8 out of 8 found this review helpful

What a great idea for a screenplay: What if the slightly mad German director of a legendary vampire film insisted on casting a real bloodsucker for the lead role? Sadly, the director has limited skills, and the supporting cast is just so-so. But, Willem Dafoe more than makes up for these flaws with an astonishing portrayal of an ancient, cranky vampire who is vain enough to want to be a movie star, and ordinary enough to be willing to suck the blood out of ferrets in return for being the center of attention on a movie set.

Is Dafoe's performance Oscar-worthy? I think so. It certainly is better than some of the mediocre performances that have won of late. The script is strong, as well, and the cinematography is beautiful at times.