Watch F.W. Murnau's Nosferatu and compare and contrast it with The Cabiniet of Dr. Caligari. Read Roger Ebert's essay on Munau's masterpiece as well as his essay on Caligari and use at least one quote from each. Your response should be at least 2 well-developed paragraphs. Your responses should include quotes from either Ebert's essays or the essays I handed out in class.
If you want to re-watch Caligari, go here. Nosferatu can be found here.
ReplyDeleteWhen someone thinks of the German expressionism movement that took place in the 1920’s, the two films that are almost guaranteed to pop up are Murnau’s Nosferatu and Wiene’s The Cabinet of Dr. Calrgari. Though these films are representative of this movement and were released a mere two years apart, the two have countless difference in just about every aspect. But first, what defines these works as a part of German expressionism? To start, the use of shadows is not only prominent in both films, but necessary to the understanding of both explicit and implicit meaning. In Caligari, shadows are painted on the wall and elongated to show the time of day is important, or that Cesare is moving in for his next victim. Whereas in Caligari the shadows of characters play an importance, Nosferatu has Orlok living in the shadows, and seemingly gliding out of them slowly when he appears, almost as if the shadows birthed the hideous monster. This extra layer of the shadow realm can be explored deeply, and it creates a second tier of fear for viewers. As stated by the late great Roger Ebert “In a sense, Murnau's film is about all of the things we worry about at 3 in the morning--cancer, war, disease, madness. It suggests these dark fears in the very style of its visuals.” These fears are common and we can all relate to them, and though the movie has nothing to do with them, viewers are drawn to levels of doubt and fright when confronted with something sinister as Orlok lurking in the shadows.
While Nosferatu focuses on two components two frighten the audience with, Caligari drifts far away from the subconscious and straight up front. There is nothing subtle about the sharp, jagged edges present in the same German town of Holstenwall. This alternate dimension Germany that filmmakers create is not meant to be realistic, but a direct representation of the viewer’s worst nightmares. Described by Ebert as “a mindscape, a subjective psychological fantasy. In this world, unspeakable horror becomes possible,” the world in which Caligari takes place strikes not only fear in the audience, but is meant to leave a lasting impact through harsh shapes and designs. Nosferatu’s sets are much more grand, and have a feel more realistic than present in Caligari. Long hallways that jut out and twist, ceilings that you will never reach, these elements within the set design of Caligari move the film to such a powerful place in people’s minds.
Murnau’s “Nosferatu” and Wiene’s “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari” both greatly influenced the film world for their creation of a new genre: horror. What I found most striking in “Caligari” was the abstract aesthetic it inhabited. The creation of sets used in this film was greatly executed to carry implied meanings of a character’s state of mind. In “Nosferatu” the sets were created to reflect a more realistic setting which added a new level of horror to the film: “this could easily happen to me”. In “Caligari” when Francis goes to investigate Caesar’s caretaker, the wall that holds the door to his office is covered with a design of curled long lines. These lines are a harsh black and they appear almost to be hands, they might reflect the darkness inside the caretakers mind, and how you will not be able to escape the hands of evil, which can relate back to Germany after World War One. The mise-en-scene was conveyed differently in “Nosferatu” with real items you might come across in your lifetime. The tall doors, windows, and chairs in Nosferatu’s castle are horrifying to the audience because they are in complete contrast with the decor in the village houses.
ReplyDeleteRoger Ebert explains why “Caligari” is the first true horror film: ““Caligari” creates a mindscape, a subjective psychological fantasy. In this world, unspeakable horror becomes possible.” The most terrifying aspect of this film is it’s ability to captivate the audience and believe the characters are inhabiting this fantasy world. Wiene is able to make the viewer connect with the characters, specifically Francis, and make us believe that the events occurring in this film are just versions of events occurring, or that have occurred where this film was made. Wiene uses cinema to convey the true horrors of the world around us and that is what really scares us. “Nosferatu” is not as scary because, although it’s diegesis is composed with items we could easily come across in our daily lives, it doesn’t carry strong underlying meanings of the world we live in. Ebert explains how he was not as captivated with this film, “I admire it more for its artistry and ideas, its atmosphere and images, than for its ability to manipulate my emotions like a skillful modern horror film”, I completely agree with his perspective. Murnau also chose not to incorporate some things that were huge characteristics of german expressionistic films, the avant garde aspects such as heavy makeup (just on Nosferatu), dramatic movement, and emphasis of non-realistic sets. These two films express the wide variety of german expressionism, and show the individualistic approaches both Murnau and Wiene took to horror.
"Nosferatu" by Murnau and "the Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" by Wiene were both influential on horror and expressionist films that followed them. The use of darkness and shadow in German Expressionist films is seen later on in the film noir genre. In Roger Ebert's essay on "the Cabinet of Dr. Caligari," he writes, "The sets are presented, as they must be, in mostly longer shots, establishing their spiky and ragged points and edges. The visual environment plays like a wilderness of blades; the effect is to deny the characters any place of safety or rest. It isn't surprising that the "Caligari" set design inspired so few other films, although its camera angles, lighting and drama can clearly be seen throughout film noir, for example in the visual style of "The Third Man" (1949)." In addition to their influence on later films, a similarity I saw between them was their use of color to show the amount of light in the scenes. They both used a warm, orange color to show that the scene was lit, and a pale blue color to show it was dark. They both expressed concerns in society as well. Roger Ebert writes about Nosferatu's possible message: "The Victorians feared venereal disease the way we fear AIDS, and vampirism may be a metaphor; the predator vampire lives without a mate, stalking his victims or seducing them with promises of bliss--like a rapist, or a pickup artist. The cure for vampirism is obviously not a stake through the heart, but nuclear families and bourgeois values." In "the Cabinet of Dr. Caligari," they show a concern for the dominating, militaristic government that Germany had, and the powerlessness of the people.
ReplyDeleteA difference I noticed is their use of special effects. In "Nosferatu" there were many things, like the characters fading in and out. In “the Cabinet of Dr. Caligari” the sets act as special effects, giving a surreal feeling to the film. “Nosferatu” feels much darker and more real, but “the Cabinet of Dr. Caligari” is more surreal and scarier. The story in “Nosferatu” is more simple to follow and understand what is going on than in Caligari.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari” and “Nosferatu” are two very influential films of German Expressionism. Both have characteristics that you even see today in popular horror films. Both have strong contrast between black and white which creates a spooky mood that is embedded in our minds as we watch horror films. We almost know it’s horror when we see the contrast. Both of the films also use the iris shot where the camera zooms in to reveal an important piece of information in the shot. Both of them put dialog on a separate screen in between cuts which is also an important characteristic of horror movies seeing as the text was often over exaggerated or scary looking. Both films play on the role of suspense rather than surprise which Roger Ebert explains in his commentary on “Nosferatu”,”It doesn’t scare us, but it haunts us. It shows not that vampires can jump out of shadows, but that evil can grow there, nourished on death.”. An example of suspense in “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari” is when Cesare is leering over the girl's bed and it takes him about forever to lift his knife over his head and try to kill her, but he doesn’t he kidnaps her instead. This is suspense and gives a more dramatic effect.
DeleteWhile there were many similarities there was also many differences. In “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari” all of it was the black and white, but in “Nosferatu” you can see they colored over the slides to give a dramatic effect. The yellow sepia feel gave us the old eery house feeling. In “Nosferatu” shadow plays a big role in plot one of my favorite uses of shadow is seeing Dracula’s shadow cast on the wall. There was almost no natural shadow in “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari” all the sets with shadows were hand made. The shadows were pre-set and painted. Another difference between the films is there intentions, “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari” as described by Roger Ebert,” It's said such movements were a reaction to the horror of World War I”. This is different from “Nosferatu” because it didn’t have any historical connections. “Nosferatu” was more for entertainment.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAt the core of German expressionism and possibly the origin of the horror genre of film, Robert Wiene formed his staple 1920's film "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari". However, a mere 2 years later, Director F.W. Murnau establishes a new realm of expressionist horror with "Nosferatu", a retelling of Bram Stoker's Dracula. One obvious difference between these films is practical effect. "...Caligari" utilizes the painted set in order to convey space. These sets are painted with jagged edges, and the properties used tend to be sharp, such as tents, in order to visually strike the audience's eyes. These dramatic angles convey enclosed, cramped spaces that trap the viewers, or dangerous pikes that insinuate danger. Meanwhile, "Nosferatu" uses real-life setting - physical sets - with subtle sharpness and enclosing arches to convey a similar visual interest, while utilizing the visualization of the antagonist (Nosferatu), inter-title language, and colored filters to suggest the real threat. A great example of maintaining that German expressionism is at 7:51 of the film, where the audience is presented a shot of a row of houses, with dramatically pointed roofs that recess in a diagonal fashion. Film reviewer Roger Ebert comments on Nosferatu and the vampire genre as a whole, that "The vampire should come across not like a flamboyant actor but like a man suffering from a dread curse." This analysis reflects on the evolution of film, where Caligari's innovation as a surrealist painting becomes Nosferatu's implied meaning on a relatable backdrop. This doesn't render Caligari any less of an impactful film, as Ebert also comments that "The first thing everyone notices and best remembers about "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" is the film's bizarre look. The actors inhabit a jagged landscape of sharp angles..."
DeleteThe continuity of time strikes a difference between these films. Even within two years, Nosferatu definitely innovated at a higher degree than Caligari. "Caligari" kept a two-day plot in the course of an hour consistently throughout the film, and "Nosferatu kept to the same plot-to-screen time relation as well, but "Nosferatu" innovated some of the earlier forms of a speedup and montage in film. The use of speedup comes from the stagecoach scene where the main character, Thomas Hutter, is sent on his way by horse drawn carriage, but these horses possess some daemonic power which races Tom across the mountain pass. Less frames were used per second in this scene to portray super-powered horses that could run extremely fast, giving a supernatural tone to the film. The montage is best Explained by Ebert again, as "Orlok [advances] on Hutter while, in Bremen, his wife, Ellen, sleepwalks and cries out a warning... Later, after Hutter realizes his danger, he escapes from the castle and races back to Bremen... while Orlok travels by sea... Murnau intercuts the coach with shipboard events and Ellen restlessly waiting." This is one of the earliest innovations of montage, which is now more frequently used in modern film.