Skip to content
Vampyr – 1932 Dreyer
- Once you get over that it’s going to be a somewhat (relative to a top 25 film of all-time) disappointing follow-up to the passion of joan of arc (Dreyer’s previous film) it’s a very impressive gothic/expressionist moody slow-burn of a film
- Gorgeous wallpaper throughout- great décor
- I’m guessing Julian West (plays lead Allan Grey) was chosen for those wide expressive eyes (he’s no Falconetti but still)
- The film is filled with film technique invention and experimentation. We have a great scene of a superimposed show of a creature along the river
- Plenty of work with shadows
- Rolling tracking shots along a dark coordinator (and that corridor has complicated mise-en-scene and silhouettes)
- Very atmospheric— draped in fog– really no narrative movement which is going to drive horror fans nuts
- The shadow expressionism here is clearly influenced by caligari and nosferatu by Murnau—the camera is also very adventurous like Murnau’s sunrise
- More experimentation with film techniques from Dreyer- we have him playing with film stock speed and reversing the photography as well— he also messes around with technology here making West transparent
- Eerie film that makes you feel like you’re floating or transported—quite lyrical
- Long title cards- seems like every 3-5 minutes
- The film has two main locations- the hotel and the house and the best scene is where he walks from the hotel to the house- it’s a stunner
- It’s absolutely fair to call this his “Murneau film”—and a damn good one
- Fabulous shot from inside and outside the coffin
- Reoccurring formal shot of the sky
- Strong climax with superimposed head outside and the camera whipping around
- Open ending. Is it the freedom of heaven (Dreyer auteurism) or is he another victim
- Must-See film- top 5 of the year quality
Drake2020-07-03T10:31:14-04:00
Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!
I saw Vampyr and The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari as sort of a double feature and would like to document my rough thoughts here.
I think both films are ‘M’asterpices and it might be my personal opinion but I think Vampyr is a slightly superior film.
First off, I’d like to say that these films were made in 1922 and 1932 respectively and to be frank there aren’t many films today of such visual ambition and narrative complexity/ coherence/intelligence. If these films were appreciated and understood by general public in their respective years of release and it was the only type of cinema they were consuming, then I think we are in a diminuendo.
The sheer visual and narrative ambition is audacious for the time. I found the images in Vampyr much more atmospheric, minimalistic expressionism. It’s narrative is much more complex, I didn’t get it fully need a revisit. It’s a more challenging film than Caligari. The sequence in Vampyr in which the protagonist goes to the upper floor of the mill and there’s a sequence where the moving camera sarts on him spying and then goes on to capture the soilder’s shadow, the dancing shadows, shadow band and the old woman yelling “silence” on the bottom floor- is the more superior individual cinematic sequence between the two films.
I think both are masterpieces and are of top 100 quality.
Caligari is 1920.
Both reminded me of David Lynch. Surreal nightmares of the protagonist/tour through their disturbed thoughts or psyche.
You are asking why was Julian West chosen for the part of Allan Gray- in a Bordwell book that I am just reading (FILM HISTORY: AN INTRODUCTION Third edition), he writes that West was a young bourgeoisie who promised the funding for the film, if he would play the main role.
@RujK- Thank you- good insight