The 1001 Movie Club is a conglomerate of film bloggers inspired by the phenomenal book 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die, the title of which is fairly self explanatory. A tome of cinematic information and recommendation, it is a bible for movie buffs, and over the next four days, myself and the other members of the club will be reviewing four of the acclaimed films that can be found within its pages. Be sure to visit the club’s site where the reviews will be collected and an aggregate score bestowed, and if you are so inclined, feel free to join in on the fun.VAMPYR (1932)
Genre: Horror
Director: Carl Theodor Dreyer
Starring: Julian West, Rena Mandel, Sybille Schmitz, Jan Hieronimko, Maurice Schutz, Albert Bras
Running Time: 83 minutes
Released in 1932 and directed by beloved Danish director Carl Theodor Dreyer, Vampyr is an early filmic telling of the legend of vampires. The film is a mystical, nightmarish tale that follows a student of the occult, Alan Gray, who is drawn to a small village in France that is plagued by one of the eponymous beasts. Originally intended as a silent movie, Vampyr eventually became Dreyer’s first feature to incorporate sound, and so the film provides contemporary audiences with both a fascinating look at the early vampire myth, as well as an insight into the attempts of a critically acclaimed director to explore an entirely new medium of storytelling, albeit with only limited success.While I had never seen a Dreyer film before, his reputation as one of the greatest directors of all time preceded him, and upon diving into this movie I could certainly understand how his had garnered this praise. Vampyr is, visually, a very well made film; the mysterious dancing shadows cast on a wall without owners, the expression on the face of a newly transformed vampire as she gazes hungrily at her sister, and the villain’s final and somewhat bizarre demise suffocating in a flour mill are just a few of the highlights of the film, whilst then extended nightmare sequence in which Alan Gray dreams of being buried alive is so creepy and unsettling, and filmed in such a masterful way, that it is impressive even by today’s standards of film making. The cinematography is often slightly blurred or unfocused, giving the entire picture a dreamlike quality that keep the audience in a perpetual state of disquiet. Admittedly, the films actual story is quite weak and slow moving, but Dreyer puts more than enough on screen to keep a dedicated viewer compelled.
However, whilst the film is visually striking, Dreyer’s use of sound leaves far more to be desired. Vampyr was the directors’ first foray into sound features, and unfortunately it is indicative of a filmmaker who was either unwilling or unsure of how to fully utilize the new technology. The movie still makes use of title cards, a special effect usually reserved for silent features, and the dialogue is sparse and largely uninspired. What’s more, the film was original recorded in English, French and German (although only the German print remains) and so what dialogue there is was redubbed, which only further detracts from the already wooden performances from the cast of non-actors – the acting from the film’s star (and interestingly, producer) Nicolas de Gunzburg (credited as Julian West) was particularly poor. To give Dreyer credit, in contrast to the dialogue, the use of eerie background music is very absorbing, and the absence of the score in certain key scenes adds enormously to the films tension. But overall, as the movie unfolded, I couldn’t help but think that it would have worked far better as a silent feature, where Dreyer’s legendary skills as a visual artist would not have been hampered by his somewhat amateurish attempts to cross over into the world of sound.Perhaps the most interesting thing about this film from the modern perspective is seeing an earlier take on the vampire mythos. With the popularity of vampires in contemporary entertainment at an all times high, it is somewhat ironic that this film was itself inspired by the rousing success of theatrical productions of Dracula in the late 1920’s; apparently blood suckers never go out of style. But while today’s creatures of the night are of the more brooding, sparkling variety, vampires in Dreyer’s film are the bodies and souls of the dead who on the full moon rise from the grave and feast on the blood of children. Some aspects remain the same, such as the transformative powers of the vampires bite, but the only way to kill these demons is a stake through the heart, not of wood but of iron, tying them to their graves forever. Additionally, the seductive, sexualized undertones of the vampire legend can be seen even in this film, and whilst Dreyer’s was by no means the first vampire movie, it is still fascinating to see how the mythology has evolved since this film’s release.
On its initial release, Vampyr was met with a largely negative public and critical reception, and it took Dreyer a full eleven years before attempting to make another film. It seems that the films ethereal visual style and surreal, slow moving story made it largely inaccessible to audiences of the time, and to be honest the same will probably be true of most modern viewers. From my own point of view, the film held my interest not because of it’s story or even its style, but because of my own interest in cinematic technique and history, and so there is probably little to be found here unless you hold those same interests. Likewise, although the film does provide an interesting perspective on vampires, it seems unlikely to me that anyone who is a fan of the modern day equivalent would find any enjoyment in Dreyer’s work. Sorry ladies; these vampires don’t sparkle.Score
5/10
So does it deserve to be in the book?
I would say yes, less as a movie but more as a historical document. I didn't find it to be a particuarly memorable viewing experience, but I can certainly appreciate it as an important entry into a sub genre of horror films that continues to fascinate moviegoers even today. I am usually very wary of giving older films a 'free pass' simply because they're old, but Vampyr, despite it's flaws, earns it's place.
