Review #1734: Vampyr.
Cast:
Nicolas de Gunzburg (Allan Grey), Rena Mandel (Giséle), Sybille Schmitz (Léone), Jan Hieronimko (The Village Doctor), Henriette Gérard (Marguerite Chopin), Maurice Schutz (The Lord of the Manor), Albert Bras (Old Servant), N. Babanini (His Wife), Jane Mora (Nurse), and Georges Boidin (The Limping Soldier) Directed by Carl Theodor Dreyer (#950 - Master of the House)
Review:
"I wanted to create a waking dream on screen and show that horror is not to be found in the things around us but in our own subconscious,"
Oh sure, pick another director that dabbled once in horror and never again, why don't I. But with a reputation like Carl Theodor Dreyer, one can't exactly deny the curiosity that comes from a Danish-born director that liked to deal with personal struggles in provocative fashion that have made several folks believe him as one of the great directors of his time. From 1919 to 1964, he made fourteen feature films, and it is The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928) that is generally felt to be his magnum opus. Of course, we are here to talk about the film that followed that one, and Vampyr (his tenth feature) was a French-German production. As one might know from the restoration notes, the film was produced in three different language versions: German, French, and English, and the original negative for picture and sound was lost; the version one can watch now comes from partially complete prints of the former two language versions. While the film was shot in France, the dubbing was done back in Germany. Christen Jul and Dreyer wrote the film with elements adapted from In a Glass Darkly, a collection of five Gothic horror mystery stories (Green Tea, The Familiar, Mr. Justice Harbottle, The Room in the Dragon Volant, Carmilla) that was published in 1872 by Sheridan Le Fanu. Elements from two of the stories (i.e. the latter two) are present here, at least when it comes to a female vampire and a scene of someone being buried alive (incidentally, Carmilla has been argued to be a key inspiration for Bram Stoker's Dracula). Unfortunately, the film was a failure on initial release, with reactions ranging from demands for refunds to a mental breakdown for Dreyer (of course, it should mentioned that his previous effort was also a flop at the time before becoming acclaimed in future years), and he would take over a decade before his next film.
Dreyer wanted to make a different film from all other films, one that in his eyes would break new ground for cinema. One could say he made an inspired effort with an eerie curiosity that seems plucked in the middle ground of the silent and sound era, divulging information in the manner of the former but utilizing sound in an interesting manner that makes this a curious outlier in world cinema in horror; Dreyer, when asked about just presenting the pages of the book as simple title cards for a potential Danish version, responded that the book is just as much an actor as the others (at any rate, anyone saying they can follow the film from start to finish without trouble is probably lying to you). Of course, it is also a movie that require a good deal of patience and some interpretation to appreciate in full detail, because it has its own take on the vampire that draws curiosity rather than easy scares (of course, some of the best horror films don't even have to spring to cheap thrills, so there's that). In a sense, one just has to take it like a dream and let it sift through your mind for attention. What better way to mediate on life than with creatures of the night? The film stars Baron Nicolas de Gunzburg under the stage name of "Julian West". Gunzburg was a French socialite and magazine editor (such as for Vogue), and this was his first and only feature film; Schmitz and Schutz were the only professional actors present here, as Gerard was a widow, Hieronimko was a journalist, and Mandel was a model. In this sense, perhaps it fits to have Gunzburg as our eyes in a film all about what is and what isn't there, and he does well with a detached sense of self that fits the atmosphere of what is needed here that never looks outmatched at any time. The other actors go accordingly with the subdued nature of what is happening here, best represented by a curious Hieronimko, who gets the strange honor of getting to look out the window to a giant face to run away from alongside other interesting moments to look at twice if one watches the film a bit more than once. By the time one finishes the film after 73 minutes, one will probably look on it with curious wander, whether because of just what exactly they saw, or because they want to see the film and its (deliberately) washed out look and the merits that come from a movie focused on being different and brooding without having to strain hard in horror or in obviousness. It may not be for everyone, but it surely does what is needed in driving curiosity with the nature of life and death that makes a disorientating experience worth looking into at least once in a lifetime.
Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.
Next Time: The Mummy's Hand.
