SHADOW OF THE VAMPIRE
By: A. Neal
(2001) Starring Willem Dafoe, John Malkovich, Udo Keir, Eddie Izzard
Directed By E. Elias Merhige

Goths have at least one similarity to Hollywood's entertainment machine: they like to dig up the long-buried for their own amusements. Both appear titillated over carnivorous in-family cannibalism and straight-forward sexual ambiguity. It's all sorta about a "cheap date" -- one way or another.

The film a couple of years back about the "odd" director of the Universal Studios' classic "Frankenstien" made a big ballyhoo in Tinseltown, was nominated for a few Gold Statues and actually won one, and made a few bucks by using "limited opening" plateaus and "underground" word-of-mouth. The respectable "Gods And Monsters" was made because of the earlier, though not-so-respectful, "Ed Wood", which was about an "odd" director who made pseudo-classic "bad" films ("Plan 9 From Outer Space" and "Glen Or Glenda?"), and that empty-headed flick featuring Johnny Depp (!) was made because of the earlier unfocused John Goodman vehicle round-aboutly made on "odd", "cheesy", "low-budget" film writer/producer/director/master marketer William Castle, the guy who made hype into an art form unto itself.

The collective brain-trust of Hollywood has dredged through the remains of everybody, ANYbody -- even "nobodies" -- who ever made a movie that made a dollar whose relatives aren't still alive to sue. Hollywood has now reached back to the Turn-of-the-Century to milk one last buck out of a franchise.

The cockamamie premise of the recently released "Shadow of the Vampire" is: "What if the black-and-white 1922 classic 'Nosferatu's' lead character REALLY WAS A VAMPIRE!" Oh, shock! Oh, horror! Oh, brother! What if they kept Hitler's brain alive in a Petri dish? What if we never actually went to the moon? What if Zsa Zsa Gabor had actual talent? What if the dog really did eat your homework? I could keep that up all day. I say, what was wrong with "Nosferatu" standing on its own merits and leave it at that? Didn't they learn anything from "Psycho 2"?

"Nosferatu" earned its "classic" status the usual way -- by being mesmerizing, creative, original (even if stolen from the novel, Bram Stoker's "Dracula"), and it withstands the test of time. You can hardly deny its commitment to craftsmanship, even when the media itself was in an embryonic stage. Simply, the scene in "Nosferatu" in which a sea of rats pour from a coffin box shows a determination to go beyond the call of duty. Star Max Shriek's performance is slow and subtle and in keeping with the Germanistic abstractionist/expressionist tone of the era. Klaus Kinski's performance in the much-later "Nosferatu" remake was remarkable in its own right, but still no Max Shriek. With no sound or color, the first "Nosferatu" is fine example of how a good story and good acting and honest ingenuity supersedes technical limitations. Film schools and film institutes have recognized "Nosferatu" unique merits. If you haven't seen it, you should.

The convoluted "Shadow of the Vampire"comes from Lions Gates Films, Saturn Films, Long Shot Films, BBC Films, and Delux Productions -- immediately implying "Shadow" was intended as an English "Movie of the Week" that got out of control -- over-produced and under-realized -- and had to have gone way over budget with big-name talent and period sets and such. To recoup whatever costs, powers-that-be threw the limping film into theaters to ride a trend wave. All those producers and no one said anything about how stupid the idea was to begin with? All those amazingly-talented stars and not one of them aware of how ridiculous they come off? Waste comes to mind. Waste of time and effort and skill and film stock....

Having read the recent "novelization" in print about director Murneau and then viewing "Shadow", I get the impression the man's life wasn't exactly exciting enough as it was for the media. A post-Victorian, openly-homosexual German who was obsessed with death after witnessing his lover killed in World War 1, who's body was left to rot for days in front of him, needs punching up? Waste of a good story... And so "Shadow of the Vampire" goes awry in its inception. From its tedious, unquestionably-not-so-symbolic "entering a vagina" opening credits to its anti-climatic, head-scratching ending, "Shadow of the Vampire" is mystifying...and not in a good way.

No need to mention plot as it involves making a film and that's what's done -- no more, no less. It's about an "odd" director who makes a monster movie. To the credit of the producers, there are no formula love stories or predictable outcomes. There are no great sex or violence moments either. There are no sub-plots or undercurrents or complex motivations or actions. Whatever conflict occurs adds up to mere posturing. What dramatic lesson, point-of-view, or message the film-makers are trying to convey is not easily pin-pointed. So, I'll be damned but I have no idea what the movie is about -- even after two viewings.

The most profound misnomer is the idea of trying to disguise Willem Dafoe's character of "Max Shriek" as being a "real vampire" to other characters by explaining him as some sort of lunatic, genius-type "Method Actor" ("becoming" the character, realizing the character's inner motivations) -- except method acting wasn't invented until the 1950s (Marlon Brando is recognized as being the first to use this acting style in "A Streetcar Named Desire" in 1959). In that same vein (so to speak), "Max Shriek" is supposed to be "real", even though his poorly-applied, obviously-exposed bald cap seam on the back of his neck negates "realness" in almost every scene he is in. Which brings us to the hoo-haw Oscar buzz about Defoe's "daring" performance: the man didn't even go as far as to shave his head. Speaking of which, his outrageous face undulations are so severe, so over-the-top, I laughed out loud the first few times he is on-screen and groaned thereon, as though Dafoe is a graduate of the "Bette Midler School of Mugging". If I saw a student in a school play act in this manner (i.e. excessive OVER-acting to the extreme of having convulsions), I'd demand the school board to immediately fire the drama teacher, return the audiences money, and have the child put into therapy. I thought Dafoe was making a kamikaze career-suicide choice (which, one would have thought was the movie with Madonna), not making an embarrassing pitch for some awards.

Similarly, John Malkovich's crossed eyes (like in the case of President Bush) creates an air of stupidity, no matter what level of intelligence is being offered. And the fact he is wearing contact lenses you can see in shot after shot doesn't help. In this movie, he a sweating baboon. John Malkovich has always been just plain creepy -- period. Here, his persistent flared-nose ranting overshadows Murneau's known quiet, sullen introspection. Peculiar Udo Keir is relegated to play second-class, second-fiddle or the role once known as an "Eve Arden" supporting player -- the voice of reason. Why? Keir played the vampire lead in "Andy Warhol's Dracula" and was superbly-creepy in "My Own Private Idaho" (another great movie). Eddie Izzard, a true cross-dressing comedian, is making a name for himself in show biz and is completely under-utilized. Why not just turn on the cameras and let these riveting, extraordinarily-talent people discuss politics, sex, or even the weather? Whatever they'd utter would be miles ahead in entertainment than this drivel.

"Shadow of the Vampire" could have been great if in black-and-white, with no-names, concentrating on Murneau's life before and after "Nosferatu". Or, keeping in the "what-if-it's-real?" theme, paralleled the "Dracula" format by going to a far-off place to find a strange man, an extraordinary actor who influences others by sheer personality and who is misunderstood in his artic form, who ultimately must die alone -- just as what occurs in "Dracula".

There's a theory going around for a while that most of Hollywood's manufactured horror is based on latent, yet unacknowledged, homosexual impulses, that the impulsive "monster" attacking on screen is the repressed sexual "monster" eating us up inside -- thus making "Godzilla" a simple Freudian phallic symbol. In that case, is the "Frankenstien's" "Monster's" re-openable head a symbol of forced circumcision? Anyone with even a passing knowledge of art history is acquainted with the fact much of the world's great art was created by homosexuals -- as were many of the "great" leaders. If Hollywood really wants to be provocative, shocking, while remaining sternly politically correct, while still strip-mining public domain story-lines, how about delving into whatever drama lies there and making the sexuality of the character secondary? Or is that too scary? Too close to home? Too honest?

Don't settle for less. I suggest Goths ignore "Shadow of the Vampire" and hopefully, mercifully, a Goth will write a great script and get it produced -- even if it's a story about how no one understands Goth.