Shadow of the Vampire...somebody please explain this movie to me! (1 Viewer)

[Brian_J]

Ok, after watching this film I am now really confused. What in the Hell was going on?

Brian

 

[Seth Paxton]

SPOILERS*****************************

In desperation the director found a real vampire. He knew this but kept it from the others. He wanted the film to have that power and was willing to make the compromise.

Vampire got a little out of hand and was hard to control.

The main hook to get the Vamp interested was the bait of his wife/girlfriend/star actress only (can't remember what she was now).

At the end they knew he was out of control and set him up to really be killed, but still wanted to get the film footage for the ending of the movie.

The implication (fantasy of course) is that the real film Nosferatu was made by using a real Vampire rather than effects.

In the meantime we get some great acting which takes us inside the troubled mind of the vampire. Defore was excellent in that role, IMO.

 

[Brian_J]

That's what I thought but as the movie went on I kept finding myself asking myself if the film was taking itself seriously or was some sort of black comedy. I remember studying this movie in film class and did not remember anyone saying that the director was a psycho who let multiple people get killed by an even bigger psycho so he could make a masterpiece. When it ended my wife and I both looked at each other like, "huh?"

Brian

 

[Dave Barth]

It wasn't a documentary or re-creation.

 

[Brian_J]

That's the whole point. It kind of sets itself up as a telling of the story around the making of the movie but yet it is not, and is in fact fictional non-fiction. Of course I did not know that going in and was expecting a true "behind the scenes" type story.

Brian

 

[Ben Motley]

It was historical fiction, and I found it extremely droll, with the exception of Willem Dafoe and Udo Kiers' performances. The props, sets, wardrobe were all fine, but I found the cinematography and story very poor. I personally would have appreciated much more a historically accurate dramatization of the making of the movie. Either that, or just a plain ole documentary. But then, it was somebody elses movie.

 

[Kirk Tsai]

The movie plays on the fact and fiction aspects, but the real analogy is made for us to see Murnau, at least protrayed in the movie, was a far larger monster than the vampire.

 

[Dan Hitchman]

While I found the performances fine-- I didn't find the editing to be all that great.

It seemed like they trimmed it, but didn't know what to trim and what to leave in, so the ending is kind of (heck, more than kind of) rushed. Character development for Cary Elwes' cinematographer wasn't that good either (or the vampire's love interest). Elwes starts out pretty funny as a wacked out loon (trying to get a real reaction from the actors by firing his pistol and then filming the mayhem-- that was a hoot!), but his character goes nowhere in the end.

Just an okay movie with brilliant performances.

Dan

 

[Joseph Young]

I thought the film's concept and performances were praise-worthy. However, like Dan and others I had a problem with the story (or lack thereof) and pacing - it seemed disjointed, like a hodgepodge of good ideas kind of thrown together and not ever culminating into a solid experience. I left the theater curiously dissatisfied. :frowning:
Joseph