Vampyr (1932)

CARL THEODOR DREYER

VAMPYR

GERMANY, 1932

10/10

"She must not die."

The first time I heard of director Dreyer's amazing, nightmarish masterpiece, VAMPYR (1932), was that it was very similar to the surrealist tone of one of my favorite films ever made, David Lynch's ERASERHEAD (1977). This piqued my interest, and this film found itself near the top of my watchlist. But I was still wary to watch this film. I heard about the strange, grainy video, the washed out dialogue, how this film was as surreal as surreal gets, and then some. But two nights ago, I decided that it was finally time to watch this film.

My initial reaction was the same reaction I had when I watched ERASERHEAD for the first time: "I have no fucking idea what's happening, but I think I like it." The plot is paper thin as we follow our protagonist, Allan Grey, as he uncovers the secrets of a small town he has come across. But the most interesting thing about Allan Grey is that he is completely fucking useless, he's completely one-dimensional, and we don't really know anything about him. While this would greatly annoy me in almost every other movie, in VAMPYR, it works, mainly because VAMPYR does not follow anything even resembling conventional movie-making techniques. 

The entire movie has a very surreal, dream-like quality to it (partly because of the aforementioned grainy and washed out footage as well as the delicate, soft dialogue). We are witness to a strange, unfamiliar world where we see images that are bizarre and intriguing, yet haunting and creepy (like the amazing shadow scene in the first half of the film). Dreyer's amazing, gliding camera work makes even those most stationary sets (such as the mansion where much of the film takes place) come to life and breathe before us. The film itself has much difficulty distinguishing reality from dream, and it does this better than almost every other film that attempts this feat.

This film is no doubt not for everyone. It is an incredibly unique film, and is very bizarre, even for fans of surreal cinema. Even ERASERHEAD, in my opinion, made a bit more sense than this. Viewers will no doubt be annoyed by how passive Allan Grey is. Even the few times he does help, he is often accompanied by another person who causes him to act. As I mentioned before, this works remarkably well in this film due to the fact that it is more of a dream. We are Allan Grey, passively witnessing events but very rarely acting.

A lot of the film, while not conventionally frightening, is very unsettling and its images stay with the viewer long after the screen turns to black. When I first watched this film, I was set on figuring out the significance of all the imagery and metaphors featured in the film. Because I was so set on analyzing this film the way I've analyzed films like ERASERHEAD, I don't think I was able to enjoy it properly right away. The next day, however, I sat back and watched the film again, not attempting any dissection, and let its imagery present itself to me, and discovered a much creepier and more haunting film than I had before. Sure, by the fourth or fifth viewing of this film, I will no doubt have a more concrete view of what I believe the film to represent, but for now, and I urge first time viewers to do this as well, it is good enough to be enjoyed on its own.

Some of the acting in this film is a little shaky, though this is mainly because Dreyer preferred to work with amateurs who had no real film experience, it doesn't distract from the film and actually works pretty well in this context. The direction is absolutely beautiful, and the light and shadows are some of the best I've seen in a black and white film. The entire film is covered in a haunting and, frankly, terrifying atmosphere, and this is the film's true appeal along with absolutely fantastic film-making, as the plot itself is nothing particularly revolutionary. While it was ignored by critics and audiences alike in the '30s, it has since found a very dedicated audience and a must-see for all horror fans and is, quite simply, a masterwork of horror cinema.

The Bride of Frankenstein (1935)

JAMES WHALE

THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN

USA, 1935

10/10

"You think I'm mad. Perhaps I am. But listen, Henry Frankenstein. While you were digging in your graves, piecing together dead tissues, I, my dear pupil, went for my material to the source of life. I grew my creatures, like cultures, grew them as nature does, from seed."

After the success of FRANKENSTEIN (1931), James Whale agreed to do a sequel as long as he had complete creative control. What resulted was THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935), one of the best horror films and one of the best sequels of all time. While the original was more of a straight-out horror film, BRIDE adds some self-parody comic relief into the mix, which, while it would seem out of place in the dark tone of the original, works wonderfully here.

The film opens with Mary Shelley, author of the original novel, telling that the story is not over, as she begins to tell the tale of the bride. While this story-telling device is very over-used nowadays, I do think it works very well here, especially since the same actress who plays Mary Shelley comes back into the movie at the end, this time in the role of the Bride. Also, Mary's storytelling never gets in the way of the story. It is introduced in the opening scene, and then pushed aside to make room for the fantastic film that follows, unlike how many films today that use that device constantly remind the audience of the fact that it's all a story.

The character of the Monster sees much character development in this film. Whereas in the original, he was a grunting, powerful figure, leaving a trail of destruction behind in his wake, in this film, he attempts to find a place where he belongs. We see him bond with a blind hermit who plays the violin and teaches him some words ("Bread. Good. Fire not good. Fire bad."). While Boris Karloff was against the idea of making the Monster talk (even though he does in the original novel), it does make the character seem largely sympathetic, and isn't that one of the points of the Frankenstein stories?

Lots of people say that BRIDE is better than the original FRANKENSTEIN, and I honestly would have to agree. A sequel is hard to do, especially when it isn't a planned sequel, or when the original is as amazing as FRANKENSTEIN was, but Whale proves that it is possible to make a sequel that's even better than the original. The set pieces in this film, largely influenced by German expressionism, are amazing, and the Creation scene off the Bride manages to be even more spectacular than the amazing Creation scene of the Monster in FRANKENSTEIN. BRIDE seems much more epic to me, whereas FRANKENSTEIN was very much a more tightly plotted film. Both methods work very, very well for each film, I just personally prefer BRIDE. 

A problem with this film is that all of the characters have become so iconic and familiar, and every shot has become so deep rooted in our popular culture that, by the time we see both films, many things are familiar. Even though the Bride is only unveiled towards the end of the film, we have all seen her and we all know what she looks like and how she reacts upon seeing the Monster. We've all see it before, we've all heard it before. But that still doesn't mean that this film isn't intriguing and interesting, because it is. 

As I said before, this film is injected with comedy, something that fans of the dark and grim original may find alienating, but I promise that if you sit back without any ideas about what you want the film to be and you let it present itself to you for what it is, you will discover that it is a very good, very enjoyable film, and an absolutely must-see for classic horror fans and, quite honestly, should be viewed by everyone at some point in their lives.