In her work on the history of the vampire mythology, Nina Auerbach suggests that "every age embraces the vampire it needs." Consider the changes which occurred to the representation of the vampire between the Englishman Polidori's early portrait in his 1819 short story and the German Murnau's (retelling of Bram Stoker's) version just over a century later. What changes are most striking, which are more subtle? How might these representations reflect the time and place that they were produced?
Choose one marked deviation of the vampire between the two works and suggest what might have motivated each artist to have presented the vampire in that way.
Hello all. Welcome to the blog comments section. In order to post here, you'll need a Blogspot or a Google account. They're free and easy to make. Then just sign in and push the comment link and you should be able to type in your comment. Let me know if you're having trouble.
ReplyDeleteAlso, be sure to include your name for now with any response. Thanks.
DeleteIPM
After watching the movie Nosferatu I noticed some changes and similarities between the main vampire character from the movie and the vampire from Polidori's, The Vampyre. Something that I found different between the two characters was that Nosferatu had more a vampire look to him. People knew that he was different and often feared him. An example was when the carriage driver said, "we will go no further, here begins the land of phantoms," so Harker had to continue his journey alone. Nosferatu's physical appearance was also different and he had a look of unease to him. Ruthven on the other was considered to be a classy, British man. People did not fear him because they did not know any better. In the story, Aubrey trusted Ruthven enough to travel with him even though they had just met.
ReplyDeleteA change that is more subtle between the two vampires is how the go about attacking their victims. Nosferatu goes after anyone. He will bite his victims right away or while they are sleeping, like he did to Harker and the gatekeeper. Ruthven is more mysterious and uses seduction to attack his victims. Both vampires end up biting their victims and getting what they want. Nosferatu was created much later after The Vampyre was written. The movie took many ideas of The Vampyre and in cooperated those ideas into the movie. The clothing in Nosferatu also depicted the time period that it was made. The 1920's were a time of depression so people had little money. The clothing that the characters were wearing in the movie were not the greatest, so it made sense for the setting.
One marked deviation that occurs between the two stories is the location of where the vampires live. Nosferatu lives alone in a large castle in Transylvania. Ruthven has just entered in to the large city of London. The fact the Nosferatu lives in an isolated area shows that he is mysterious and creepy. He is someone that you would not want to go near. Since Ruthven is located in a busy city, it shows that he has a secretive side to him. He wants to pretend to be normal when really has other motives.
I agree with everything that you say, and support all of your points and arguments. The difference in time periods plays a huge difference in these stories as you mentioned. One thing you didn't mention is the fact that Ruthven attacks only women, and this is a big difference between the two. Nosferatu kills more spontaneously and this makes it easier for him to get his fix. How ever, I would fear Ruthven much more because he can blend in more with society and is good at hurting the ones that you are closest too. Location also plays a large role in these stories as you mentioned, Germany being the depression makes the people poor and willing to rent out houses to anyone. This is how Nosferatu gets in and kills those of the town causing the "plague".
DeleteI agree with almost all of it. I like how you mentioned the areas where each story took place were different and how the vampires had extremely different backround stories and ways they killed their victims. I do not think the clothes aspect of the movie was done on purpose since that is the kind of clothing that people wore during that time period and there was nothing especially crappy about the characters' clothes. Other than that I think it was a good post on the topic.
DeleteI highly agree with all of your statments. I like how you mentioned the different choice Nosferatu and Ruthven had in their victums. Also, I liked how you mentioned that the apperance of a vampire has changed over time. Nosferatu was a much more scary looking vampie that Ruthven ever was.I also liked your idea behind the clothing choice in the movie. I thought this was a great post on the subject, in comparing both vampire stories.
Deletei completely agree with this. I liked how you compared the time periods and also connected the two in the sense of how they attacked their prey
DeleteAfter watching Nosferatu i noticed multiple differences between it and Polidori's vampire. First, was the appearance of the two, Ruthven blended in with society and did not display an obvious que that he was a vampire. In Nosferatu, it is quite obvious that he is something more than a human. Nosferatu is portrayed to be a very dark and creepy man, and the towns people fear him greatly. Not only does he act creepy, but he gives off this vibe of being up to no good. ANother difference is Ruthven targeted only women, where as Nosferatu attacked a man first. This difference can be attributed to the change in the time period. The fact of the matter is, that both have to kill in order to live, and will do anything to achieve this. Another clear difference is the time period and setting of the two tales. They both are dressed differently and are in two cities that are much different from one another. Nosferatu has no audio so we don't know his exact tone, but we can assume he had a very creepy and deep voice, where as Ruthven was a smooth talker who could interact with anyone.
ReplyDeleteOne obvious deviation is the way the two vampires dress. Ruthven is very suave and is a wealthy Brit with nice clothes and a nice house. Where as Nosferatu dresses in a cloak and looks very shady. Ruthven tries to blend in with society and not let anyone know his true identity. Nosferatu isn't as secretive, and just goes out and tries to get his daily fix at what ever cost. Even though both characters are very violent, I would much rather avoid Ruthven because it is much harder to tell his true identity.
I agree with your point that the appearaces of the two vampires are completely different. Like you said, since there is no audio in "Nosferatu" we are not sure of his tone, but I agree that we would assume that is very creepy and he would give off an eerie feeling. Another big differnce to go along with the appearance would be the fact that they both live in completely different environments. Ruthven had to blend because he lived in the area with all the other people. Nosferatu, however, lived in a secluded castle with no one around. I like how you pointed out that Nosferatu targeted men instead of just women. That is definitely a big change in times.
DeleteI like how you talked about there being no audio. With no audio in the movie it definitely gave a creepy vibe to it. You could never tell the tone of the character's, because all you can hear is the orchestra. I also like how you gave your input on which character you would rather avoid, giving us a sense of what a person in our current time period would choose to avoid.
DeleteI agree with your statements about the appearances being very different between the two vampires. The vampire in the movie seemed to have the more "normal" vampire look versus the vampire in the story that could look like anyone else.
DeleteI agree with your statement on how Nosferatu acted more suspicious and this resulted in him bringing attention onto himself. This caused the people of Transylvania to fear the sunset and the evil that it brought into the town. With the ideas about their clothing, I feel that Nosferatu’s attire fitted the setting of an isolated town, with the same being said about Polidori’s vampire. Lastly, the comment about which vampire to encounter is quite debatable. Being a male, I would much rather encounter Polidori’s vampire since he only targets females.
DeleteI agree with your opinion on their appearance. Within Nosferatu he is known to be scary and everyone stays away from him while Lord Ruthvan has a crowd that accepts him. I also agree that just looking at the film and not listening to the people gives off an extremely "creepy" vibe. It was annoying at first not to hear some of the characters emotions, (when Hutter leaves, and the wife is silently crying) but in the end the orchestra gave the impression of how the tone was supposed to be set. I agree with you that it is much easier to understand the tone when there is audio, but I think the creepiness was still there.
DeleteElana Wetherwax
ReplyDeleteIt seems that there are both similarities and differences between the representation of the vampire between the Englishman Polidori's early portrait in his 1819 short story and in Murnau's “Nosferatu”. I feel the changes that are more striking would be the vampire’s social interaction. In Polidori’s story, Lord Ruthven lived in an area where there were people always around. Nosferatu lived in a secluded castle. The only people around were him and his servants. Another change would be the sleeping condition and introduction to the coffin. Since this change still exists today, I think this is more striking. At one point the movie states that the vampire must sleep during daylight. Also they must sleep “in the same hallowed ground in which they had been buried”. More subtle differences seem to be the fangs. It was known that the vampires killed humans and lived off of their blood, but Murnau became a little bit more specific when he showed the vampires with fangs. This made it obvious on how the vampires killed and lived off their prey. One other subtle difference would be the clock striking midnight. Every time it became midnight something eerie happened, and the mood changed a little.
I think that in 1819 the representation was simpler. Besides the fact that a vampire killed humans and drank their blood to survive, there was not anything about the vampire that went into great detail. I feel like since “The Vampyre” was written at a time where life was simpler, that the presentation of the vampire was reflected off of that. Obviously due to technological advancements and becoming more creative with the vampire culture, Murnau’s movie and presentation gave a little more detail. The appearance of the vampire is represented in two different ways. Even though Lord Ruthven was described as different as everyone else, he was still able to find his way into the society because of his “winning tongue”. I think Polidori represented him this way because Lord Ruthven was in an area with a lot of people around. He had to fit in somehow. I think Murnau presented Nosferatu as a little creepier and not very human looking because it helped give him the eerie and dangerous feeling. Nosferatu lived in a secluded castle with no one around.
I agree with you in how Nosferatu lived in an area where it is very secluded while Lord Ruthven lived in with the society. The reason Lord Ruthven did this was because he wanted no one to find out that he was a vampire. People feared Nosferatu because they all knew how creepy he already was. I also agree with you in how everytime it was midnight or later, something strange would occur. That is because vampires do their work during the night not the day. I also agree with you in why the authors presented the vampires the way they did. I think Murnau presented his vampire that way because he wanted to give his vampire a dark and eerie feeling.
DeleteI definitely see where you are coming from. In Nosferatu, we can see sharp fangs, long fingernails, sunken eyesockets, pale skin, etc. However, Polidori uses little to no imagery to describe his vampire, Lord Ruthven; Polidori only speaks of Ruthven as a human-like monster that lives off blood. Murnau shows how he sees vampires in Nosferatu. With the aforementioned descriptions (sharp fangs, long fingernails, sunken eyesockets, pale skin, etc.), Murnau is able to create Count Ornof as a eerie, fiendish monster. Murnau's movie has most likely influenced the stereotypical vampires that we see today.
DeletePolidori’s “The Vampyre” and Murnau’s Nosferatu demonstrated how interpretations about vampires could vary from author to author. Although both authors’ vampires drained the life from their victims, only Murnau’s vampire actually possessed fangs. Polidori’s vampire left similar marks on his victims; however, these marks were not explained. In addition, Murnau’s vampire is easily recognizable compared to Polidori’s vampire. Murnau’s vampire is feared by the locals of Transylvania and lives in an isolated castle. On the other hand, Polidori’s vampire lives within the city limits and blends in with the people around him.
ReplyDeleteWhile the above changes are more noticeable and easily recognizable, there are numerous subtle differences. The main characters, Polidori’s Aubrey and Murnau’s Hutter, share the fact that they are traveling with or to see the vampire character. Aubrey’s motives are more towards leisure, while Hutter’s are business related. Additionally, both men lose someone very close to their hearts. Aubrey loses his sister, while Hutter loses his wife. With this in mind, Murnau’s vampire “thriller” was written almost a century later and he was able to incorporate his own ideas and motives into the movie. He placed the setting in a fictional German town because he grew up in Germany. Lastly, Murnau borrowed the majority of his ideas from Stoker and this is quite evident in his film.
One deviation noted between both author’s works was who the vampires attacked. Polidori’s vampire sought after women and slowly seduced them. He was very secretive in this matter and attacked only when the victims were alone. Murnau’s vampire attacked both men and women. At one point, he takes out the entire crew, of the boat, transporting his coffins. I think Polidori was warning women to be careful around certain men, while Murnau wanted to instill fear in the eyes of both men and women.
I think that its interesting that you mentioned how Polidor's vampire moved in a more subtle ways, and Nosferatu's does not. That is true; Lord Ruthven slowly gets close to his victims before he kills them, while Nosferatu attacked his on sight. I also agree that Polidor's vampire's marks were never specific to fangs while Nosferatu showed his throughout the movie. Both vampires did suck the life out of their victims and therefore no matter how one puts it, were killers
DeleteBetween the two vampires, I found more similarities but there were a few differences. One of differences between the vampire Lord Ruthven and Nosferatu was that Lord Ruthven victims were all women while Nosferatu victims were both men and women. Another difference between Lord Ruthven and Nosferatu was that Lord Ruthven had two sides to him while Nosferatu had only one side to him. Lord Ruthven is somewhat of a classy man but he also had a creepy side to him. Nosferatu is just plain out creepy. When Jonathan accidentally cut his finger, Nosferatu quickly tried to suck his blood. Lord Ruthven would only be creepy if no one was around because he didn't want to get caught by anyone. One subtle change was the power that each vampire possessed. Nosferatu had the power to control other people both physically and mentally while Lord Ruthven did not have that kind of power. One similarity they both had in power was how they could vanish very quickly.
ReplyDeleteOne way you could tell the time in the movie Nosferatu was with all the costuming in the movie. Those were many of the things people wore back in the 1920s. Another way you could tell the time of the movie was when they mentioned the plague. Back then, plagues were very popular and a lot of people feared them. Today, most people don't fear plagues.
The reason why John Polidoli presented his vampire the way he did was because he was comparing Lord Ruthven to Lord Byron. They both have similarities because they both liked to seduce women. John Polidoli was trying to insult Lord Byron with his depiction of Lord Ruthven. The director presented Nosferatu the way he did because he wanted to show the fears that people had back in the 1920s and one of those fears were plagues. Also people back in the 1920s depicted vampires as evil creatures and Nosferatu was something people thought of when thinking of vampires.
I think you made some very good point in you writing. I like how you went more deep with the details and pointed out the subtle differences that I didn't even think of. For example, the part about the cut finger, I would have never thought about that the way you did. I also like how you mentioned that Nosferatu had the power to control people mentally and physically. That is a very big difference that I did not think of. Over all I agree with what you wrote, and I think you did a good job of stating the facts.
DeleteBetween the two stories, I can see that there are noticeable differences between both, Polidori's vampire and Murnau's vampire. To begin, Ruthven, from "Vampyre, was a charmer. He tried to fit in and blend with society. He lived among the townspeople and interacted with them. Where as, Nosferatu lived far away from everyone and did not socialize. When he was seen people feared him. He was not accepted into society like Ruthven was. Another difference between the two vampires was there appearance. Ruthven looked well dressed and gentleman-like. He tried to get everyones attention and use his smooth talking to get them "hooked". You could not say the same about Nosferatu, he was creepy looking. He was not well groomed at all and did not seem to want to blend in with society. He chose to wear clothes that would stand out to people and get there attention in a bad way. Another difference between Polidori's creature and Murnau's creature is that Ruthven targeted and killed only women. He had no interest in killing men. On the other hand, Nosferatu did not care what gender his victim was. He killed anybody and everybody. Lastly, I noticed that Nosferatu was called "master" by those who he "casted his spell on". Ruthven was not called master. He did not need to get people like that. These two creatures had a different personality and a different strategy of "catching" their prey. In the end they both got what they wanted.
ReplyDeleteOne marked deviation that I noticed was the way they lived. Ruthven lived in the town with everyone and and came of as a very kind, smooth talking individual who caught women's attention with his charm. Nosferatu, lived the totally opposite life style. He lived in a dark castle in the middle of nowhere by himself. He looked eerie with is cloak and long pointy fingers. He always had the look of death in his eyes. There was absolutely no charm in him what so ever. I he were to look at me, it would be like looking death in the eyes. Ruthven seemed more casual and Nosferatu seemed more determined. Each of these authors got there point across, and gave us a good look into what a vampire is like. They just lived at different times and the society was a little different which made it so the vampires turned out a little different from each other.
ReplyDelete-Kyle Hede-
As I watched Nosferatu, there was one noticeable difference between the vampire in Polidori’s story, and the vampire in this video. The wealth of the vampires in both are very much different. Nosferatu is a somewhat poor man for his time era, living in a normal home, and seems to be very sketchy. While in Polidoris story he is an upper-middle class man with nicer clothes. It seems to me as if Polidori is trying to hide his inner-vampire, while Nosferatu is less secretive about it and just goes for it to get his ‘meal’. Nosferatu lives in secluded castle, giving him a creepier view towards him. From these two stories it would seem as if Polidori’s story was written after Nosferatu’s due to the face that Ruthven is dressed so much nicer than Nosferatu and the mindset of both are different, but it was actually the opposite, Polidori’s story was written first.
The change I believe to be subtler between the two vampires is the way in which they go after killing their victims. Nosferatu doesn’t do it as discreetly as Ruthven, he just goes about these killings in a less secretive way, simply just biting them immediately or as they are asleep. He will go after anybody, while Ruthven only goes after women. Ruthven is a more seductive killer, who goes after women only, to satisfy his ‘hunger’.
One marked deviation that I noticed was the way in which they lived. Nosferatu lived out in a dark eerie castle away from other people, while Ruthven lived in a city, London, and was a very personable gentleman who women were in love with. He had enough charm to get any lady he wanted.
I agree with your statements that you made about Nosferatu having less wealth than Lord Ruthven. His home was older and seemed to be weathered from many years of use. I also agree that Nosferatu kills in a non seductive manner. He goes after his victims like a predator goes after its prey. Overall, Nosferatu has a much more monstrous appeal that Lord Ruthven.
DeleteLouise Cortland
ReplyDeleteAfter watching Nosferatue, I noticed many change between that the previous century's portrayal of the vampire in Polordori's story. Polidori's version of the vampire, Lord Ruthven, attempted to blend in with society; he was very careful to not let his identity be known. That vampire in Nosferatue hid himself from the world; he only came out to feed at night. Lord Ruthven mingled out in society and was "proper," he never let anything slip about his true nature. The way the vampires thought was different too; Polidori's vampire fed on only women, he singled men out to torture them but only attacked the women close to them. Nosferatue's vampire fed on men as well as women, he was not ever seen out in daylight. He did not seem to have much of a motive; he fed to keep himself alive. For example, on the ship, he fed on multiple men and if there was a woman he would feed upon her. He did not single out a specific profile for his victims. He fed on a real a state agent, a sailor, along with women. Polidor's fed on only young privileged men, and then fed upon their female relationships. Another difference was their physical appearances. Lord Ruthven was an "upright gentleman", he was charming and dressed nicely to fit in with society. Nosferatue was dark and mysterious; he wore a dark cloak and did not fit in. He also showed "supernatural" powers. Such as floating, walking through walls, and lifting his lid to the coffin without actually touching it. Although there are many differences, both versions drank on their victims as a source of food. They would drink in order to sustain their own lives and would fight to the end to achieve that goal.
I would agree that they did change a lot between the vampire of 1922 from the vampire from Polidori. The whole feeding on everyone and not just women was very noticeable change in the vampire form. Perhaps it brought out a new scare tactic to people knowing that not only women could be attacked but also men. Maybe Ruthven did have these "supernatural" powers and he did not want to show them off, or maybe he did not know that he possessed these powers. The only thing that they did have extremely in common was that they did both have to feed to survive.
DeleteAfter reading Polidori's version of vampires and watching Murnau's "Nosferatu" I saw many differences between the two stories that stood out to me. The fact the appearances of the vampires is strikingly different,and Murnau's vampire does not just go after women.
ReplyDeleteThe image portrayed in Polidori's version speaks of a vampire that can fit in with the everyday public and go out and not really thought to be a killer. He can go out and interact with others and no have anyone second the fact that he is a vampire. Now in Nosferatu you can tell that the vampire is a vampire it is what we all think of when we think of one. That vampire would have a hard time going out in public and not being feared and ran from and yet the main character in the story trusts the vampire and thinks little of the fact that he looks so different. That situation just seems odd to me.
The vampire in Nosferatu does not just go after females. There was a part that shows that the main character has been bitten and being a man that differs from the other story where the vampire only goes after women. which goes along with the image of vampires more.
I agree with your statements on how you compared how they acted in public. Polidori's vampire represented the true gentleman of that time period and he was not feared among people as a vampire because he did not look like one. Nosferatu on the other hand was the clear definition of a monster that no one trusted. People obviously had their own opinions but Nosferatu was the pure vision of a hideous monster.
DeleteI dont agree with your statement on Nosferatu on the contrary. He does end up going after both male and female victims. Only Polidori's vampire represents the gentleman who would not feast on the blood of males, but only after he seduced females.
Samantha Amado
ReplyDeleteWatching Nosferatu I was able to depict many differences between the pieces of work, the movie and Palidori’s, The Vampyre. One pretty significant difference that I noticed was the Nosferatu did not care where he next kills or “fix” came from whether it was male or female, he had no preference. Where Ruthven liked to talk up the girl he was trying to get a “fix” on for that time. Also the way that they dressed stood out more, where as Ruthven liked to dress more for the public eye and visibly appealing, Nosferatu liked to dress in dark clothing and wear a cape, and was not as visibly appealing to others. Ruthven liked to be seen to the public eye and wanted people to be in his live as if it were a magical one and Nosferatu did not want anything to with anyone and wanted to live in his on little word and not have anyone to bother him.
Both of these pieces represent the time period from which they are. Ruthven a classy British man, who has worked his whole life to get money, while Nosferatu did not have the fancy clothing, he had the black cape that did not look as elegant. Knowing that Nosferatu was made in the 1922 and he can’t have the elegant clothing that Ruthven had. They displayed the time period that Nosferatu was made and what they were going through in the movie, such as with the clothes and the dark periods, which could be where vampire only comes out at night, since we were in a depression.
A noted deviation between the two works would be how the two vampires live. Nosferatu preferred to live alone and in a huge castle with a lot of land and no neighbors, while Ruthven wanted to go out and have the world see him. This shows how the two monsters of the night are truly different from one another. Nosferatu is coming off as the creepy neighbor that no one ever sees home and thinks he could be dead. Where are Ruthven is the person who is always having the parties and inviting people over to the house.
I agree with everything, and all the support and differences you made. The time difference is a huge impact in both. I liked how you mentioned the specific date for Nosferatu and how they were in depression which fit the mood of the story.
DeleteAfter watching the movie Nosferatu and reading Polidori’s The Vampyre, I noticed some changes and similarities between the vampire character from the movie, Nosferatu and the vampire from Polidori. One thing I found different between the two characters were the victims they went after. Ruthven only targeted and killed women while Nosferatu killed anyone he came upon. Also, another difference between the two is how they looked and acted. Nosferatu looked and dressed like a vampire. He was not well groomed and he didn’t want to be known in society. On the other hand, Ruthven was well dressed and he was a gentleman for the most part. Also, he used his charm to get everyone to like him.
ReplyDeleteA subtle change I found between the two vampires was how they attacked their victims. Nosferatu would kill them instantly or while they were sleeping just by biting them. Ruthven would be seductive and mysterious as he attacked his victims. These representations reflect the time and place they were produced because while Polidori based his writing on Lord Byron, Nosferatu was produced after Polidori’s story. Nosferatu was produced in the 1920’s. During this time, movies had no audio effect and they dressed differently which made the setting fit for this movie.
One marked deviation that occurs between the two stories is the location of where the vampires live. Nosferatu lived in Transylvania alone in a large castle whereas Ruthven was in London. Nosferatu hid himself from the world. This shows that he was someone you don’t want to be around since he is creepy and mysterious. Lord Ruthven attempted to blend into society without letting go of his identity. He also had other motives so he pretended to be normal.
I agree with the fact that you talked about how Ruthven only attacked women while Nosferatu did not attack a specific group of people but rather anyone he came upon. Also Ruthven was more creative in his attack methods while Nosferatu went for the obvious kill by biting his victims. The fact that Nosferatu had no audio and you could just hear the orchestra playing throughout the film gave it a creepy aspect. This can be represented through the fact that many people feared Nosferatu and ran from him when they had the chance. No one wanted to be out after dark because they knew that is the time when the vampires roam the town.
Delete~Kelsie Gardam
Nick Roeser:
ReplyDeleteThe main difference I noticed after watching the film was the appearance of the two. Nosferatu was not afraid of anybody. Once he arrived in Transylvania he was just walking through town carrying his coffin under his arm. His attire was different from Lord Ruthven such that he was dressed in dark, dreary clothing that gave a sense of haunting in the town. Lord Ruthven was a lot less noticeable. He just dressed like everyone else and tried to “charm” his victims and that is how he achieved what he needed from the women. Nosferatu was not such a charmer, he was a blood sucking animal and that’s all he wanted and did not even try to hide it. When Hutter cut his self when he was cutting the bread Nosferatu jumped right to attention and went for his finger. Comparing this to Lord Ruthven he would have resisted the urge because he did not want anyone to know his true identity. Also, something I found interesting was that Nosferatu was not limited to women, as long as he got his fix of blood he did not care if it was a woman or a man. As compared to Lord Ruthven all of his victims were females that he seduced before attacking. Hutter and Aubry both lost someone they were very close to due to the vampires. In both cases neither Hutter nor Aubry was around to stop it. Both vampires can relate because they caused them to not to be there at the time of the attacks. Lord Ruthven took Aubry on a walk and then left him in the woods so his sister would be alone. Nosferatu was not as deliberate but he scared Ellen into making Hutter go get someone else in the town.
It is interesting to me how you incorporated the time periods of the stories. Thinking logical, as time goes on you would think vampires would learn to adapt and blend in but it is almost like this is the exact opposite. Lord Ruthven took place before Nosferatu and yet he was more sly about everything he did
ReplyDeleteI just watched Nosferatu and the things that stood out to me most as different about the movie compared to John Polidori’s The Vampyre are the way the vampires attack their victims. Both go after them when their victim is by themselves, but Nosferatu prefers to attack his victims with no other motives other than to drink their blood while Ruthven seduces them first. The isolation of the victim and the fact that both of them are wealthy are the only similarities between the two other than that they seem to be as different as two vampires can be.
ReplyDeleteNosferatu is extremely dissimilar from Ruthven for several reasons. First off, he lives on the outskirts of society and all of the townspeople know he is to be avoided, while Ruthven is highly sought after and considered a very important man in society. Secondly, Nosferatu looks more like a monster than Ruthven does, he is pale, tall, has long fingernails and teeth, and his face is strange looking, while Ruthven is supposedly a handsome man. Next, Ruthven only attacks women, but Nosferatu goes after anyone he can get. Another example is Nosferatu is a known monster; there is a way listed in a book to kill him; however Ruthven appears to be impervious to death.
The changes in these monsters occur due to the changes in society that occurred over the 110 years in between each tale. In Polidori’s time people were afraid of losing their reputation almost more than losing their lives, in Murnau’s day people were far less afraid of losing their reputation and just focused on staying alive during the massive depression that was occurring across Germany. So this monster changes from one that will ruin your life to one that will end it. It changes from a sort of backstabbing hypocrite to a stone cold killer. Another significant reason for this change was the audience. Polidori was writing for a bunch of wealthy, educated, men, and Murnau is writing for a much wider viewing audience included the rich, poor, young, old, men, women, and children.
Nick Hatch
I think you bring up many good points about the time the two stories were created. Specifically, how the depression in Germany could have caused Murnau to focus more on the characters lifes than their reputations. In my opinion, this makes Nosferatu much more scary, since Harker was trying to survive. Aubrey, on the other hand, could have stopped Ruthven but didn't because of an oath he made to him. I also agree about Murnau writing for a broader audience, since movies are simple for anyone to watch, understand, and enjoy regardless of race, sex, rich or poor.
DeleteI never thought to link the depression in Germany to the way Harker went to no end to escape. Now that you bring it up though it makes sense because Renfield was, without regret, casted into a psychiatric ward which in any era would tarnish a reputation. As long as they survived the people in Nosferatu wold go through any lengths to survive. Aubrey however went through all lengths as long as his reputation was preserved.
DeleteThere were many differences between the two vampires in Polidori’s “The Vampyre” and Murnau's Nosferatu. Obviously one of the main differences was that Nosferatu wasn’t a monster hiding in plain sight, such as Lord Ruthven. He was ugly and characters in the movie could easily identify him as being a monster. He lived in isolation at the beginning of the film and only interacted with his servants. The rest of the town’s people feared him. Lord Ruthven, however, lived amongst the common man and used his charm to seduce and ultimately kill his victims, which were all women. Nosferatu used a more direct approach to killing and didn’t mind killing man or woman. Both would suck the blood of their victims to survive, but only Nosferatu had the fangs that vampires are now famous for. Another big difference is that Nosferatu has to sleep in the ground he was buried in. He even has to carry a coffin with the same dirt inside so that he can live away from his castle.
ReplyDeleteThese differences could be because the stories were created at different times by different people. Polidori’s story could have centered on a vampire who blended within society because he based in partly on his travels with Lord Byron. Murnau’s vampire was more secluded because he wanted a more disturbing monster. This could explain why Nosferatu is more grotesque and kills anyone, and why he dresses differently than others in the movie.
There are a lot of changes in the representation of the vampire between Polidori's vampire and Murnau's version of the vampire as well. The appearance of Polidori's vampire is more bearable and gentleman like, as where Murnau's vampire is hideous and defines the ideal image of a monster. Another striking change between the two vampires is the way they acted and presented themselves in public. Polidori's vampire was represented as a charming gentleman who was proper and had credibility with others. He also never struck anyone as a monster until they realized what he did. Nosferatu looked like a monster in numerous ways like how he dressed and behaved toward others. The last striking change I noticed was how the vampires killed their victims. Polidori's vampire went toward women and seduced them into his hands and then killed them. Nosferatu killed man or woman in a instant kill manor, not gentleman like to the slightest bit. A subtle change I noticed was how they killed their victims. They still went to suck their blood, but just had different methods on how they did it. These reflected the time period they were from because the first vampires were distinguished as gentleman, but as writers took a spin on things and changed the vampires image, a century later, they became more monster like and appeared as monsters as well.
ReplyDeleteOne deviation that is easy to point out is the way the vampires appeared and acted. Ruthven appeared as a gentleman who dressed to perfection and was very wealthy. Nosferatu wore a cloak which hid his monstrosity and didnt lived in regular society. I think the authors were motivated to present them that way because of the standards of that time period.
I definitely agree that one of the most significant differences is Polidori's vampire's gentlemanly qualities and Nosferatu's lack thereof. I believe that both were essentially savages, however Polidori gave his vampire a facade. Also, I agree that the presentation was based on the time period. In Polidori's time more emphasis and importance was probably put on being a gentleman.
DeleteThere are many changes that are present between Polidori's, “The Vampyre” and German Murnau's “Nosferatu.” The changes that are most striking would be the vocabulary and language used in the stories. Obviously the language used in the nineteenth century was very different from the language used in the twentieth century. Another striking change would be the living conditions in which the vampires were involved. In Murnau's story the vampyre lived in a much populated area, while in Nosferatu the vampire lived in a secluded castle in the hills. A subtle difference between the two vampires would be the fact that Nosferatu had two fangs while Ruthven did not. Another subtle difference would be that all of Ruthven's victims were women, while Nosferatu's victims were women and men. The fact that the use of languages were different would reflect the time and place that they were produced. One marked deviation between the two vampires would be the fangs that Nosferatu had and Ruthven did not. The fact that vampires are blood sucking creatures may be the reason that Murnau added the fangs to Nosferatu.
ReplyDeleteAfter viewing Nosferatu and reading Polidori's "The Vampyre" I have noticed many differences between the two stories. In Polidori's story, Ruthven seems to be the attractive young charmer who grabs many people's attention. In Nosferatu, he is a scary odd many who most people fear and know that something is strange about him. Everyone knows to fear Nosferatu, but when it comes to Ruthven, its almost like people are drawn to him. The way that the two vampire's dress is also very different. Nosferatu dresses like a vampire. He looks different and wears strange clothing. Ruthven on the other hand, dresses like a gentelman and looks like an average person in society. Another striking difference I noticed between the two stories would be the setting. Nosferatu is in a castle far away from everyone, almost like he is hiding. While Ruthven is living in a busy town in London, just blending in with the everyday crowd.
ReplyDeleteI would say a more subtle differene between the two stories would be the way that the vampire's attack their victums. Both Nosferatu, and Ruthven are attacking people, but Ruthven only goes after girls, and nosferatu will take anyone he can get. I think this shows that Nosferatu was ment to be a les mysterious and much scarier vampire that Ruthven. Ruthven would kill people too, but he would do it in a much more quiet and mysterious way.
I think the differences in the two stories could be based just simply on that fact that they were written by two different people. Like Nina Auerbach said that "every age embraces the vampire it needs" well, as the years go by the ages change, and so do the pepople. I think that Polidori and Murnau both gave accurate discriptions of what they think a vampire is. But no one really has a right to tell them that their vampire's are wrong they are just different forms of the same monster, a vampire.
I agree with many of the points you made in your response such as the obvious differences between the vampires' appearances and the difference in the way that the monsters would attack their victims. The idea that the time period and author of the story could have caused the discrepancies also makes sense because like you said "every age embraces the vampire it needs" and I think here that's especially true.
DeleteDifferences between Nosferatu and Lord Ruthven are obvious on how they live. Lord Ruthven lives in the open without anyone knowing his dark secret of living like a gentleman by day and by blood-sucking animal by night. He hides beneath his disguise of being rich and going to the most elegant parties, while Nosferatu hides in a deserted house where only he lives and no one goes near.
ReplyDeleteThey also share the difference of how they victimize people. Nosferatu will victimize anyone that stands in his way female or mail, but Lord Ruthven sticks to seducing women and feeding off of them.
Nosferatu showed a lot of the time period it was made in such as the way people transported and what clothing they were wearing. Not much money floating around at the time and this movie kind of depicts the horror of everyone dying and not much left but more people to die in such a dark time (like the darkness of the movie).
I agree with your points on how the two vampires are different such as their lifestyles and how they go about catching and killing their prey (also who their prey is). I think it is interesting that you pointed the subtle things like the mood and tone of the film being a reflection of the culture of where they lived, influenced by things like income and even the clothing they wore
DeleteOne subtle change between The Vampyre and Nosferatu is that in the Vampyre the attack victims were mostly female and in Nosferatu they were anyone he came across but his first victim was male. In the Vampyre Lord Ruthven attacked women by seducing them. Nosferatu went for the obvious kill by biting his victims. The change in attack victims can be attributed to the time period. Another subtle change is that in both cases the vampires had human qualities however more people realized Nosferatu was a vampire than Lord Ruthven. In Nosferatu, when Harker visited Dracula he did not realize that he was the one who had bit his neck, he assumed it was mosquitos or spiders. In the Vampyre, Aubrey does not realize immediately that Lord Ruthven is the one who attacks everyone they meet. Both vampires hide their true identities in the beginning and pretend to be human.
ReplyDeleteOne striking change is the living conditions of the vampires. In Nosferatu, Dracula sleeps during the day in a coffin and lives in a secluded mansion in Transylvania. In The Vampyre, Lord Ruthven lives in a crowded area and is always around people. Another striking change is in The Vampyre, Lord Ruthven cannot die. In Nosferatu, Dracula dies in the end after Nina breaks the spell by offering her blood freely to him keeps him by her side until the cock crows. Then suddenly the plague goes away and everyone becomes healthy again.
One deviation of the vampire is whether or not they can die. Lord Ruthven appears to die but then he is alive and well a few months later when Aubrey sees him again. Polidori may have represented the vampire in this way to argue the fact that vampires are stronger than humans and should be feared because they cannot be defeated. On the other hand, Nosferatu dies when Nina sacrifices her blood. Murnau may have represented the vampire in this way to show that vampires are not necessarily all powerful and that monsters can sometimes actually be defeated.
~Kelsie Gardam
I think that it was interesting how in Nosferatu, the vampire dies from a woman her blood where as in Polidori's story, woman are the victims. I thought is was an interesting reversal in roles.
DeleteI believe you make good points throughout the writing including the fact that vampires over time have always been presented in a way that makes them "stronger" than humans so to say. I don't think this is an actual physical strength that they possess but more of an everlasting life. Secondly I would just like to say that Nosferatu did not "go straight for the kill" because the people that he bite did not die like they did in Polidori's The Vampyre.
DeleteAfter viewing the classic film "Nosferatu", I was able to note many subtle differences between the vampires, Count Dracula and Lord Ruthven. One of the most obvious differences that I noticed between the two works involved the ways in which the vampires would prey upon their victims. In Polidori's short story, "Vampyre", Lord Ruthven chooses his victims tactfully and must engage them not only socially and emotionally, but literally as well before he is able to feast upon their blood and move to the next victim. His victims are also always females and are selected in a sense to cause some sort of distress to a male that may care about her.
ReplyDeleteThis is quite different from the feeding habits of Count Dracula, in Nosferatu, in the fact that he is indiscriminate when it comes to his next meal. He simply thirsts for blood and may feed on any person who may be vulnerable to his attack. Dracula even shows an almost instinctual connection to blood that can be seen when Harker cuts his finger at dinner. This difference between the vampires may be due to the story or warning the author or director was trying to portray at the time. For example, Dracula may have been indiscriminate between genders as a warning against sexuality at the time. An additional noticeable difference between the two vampires in the film and the story is whether or not the vampire is completely immortal.
Lord Ruthven could be considered truely immortal because he cannot die and survives the entire tale, while the Count could not be considered so since he was killed when Nina uses her blood as an offering near the end of the film to break his spell. The difference in ending between the two stories may have been due to a trend in movies at the time towards happier endings. Overall however, the two works portrayed very similar stories with very similar characters.
Sharon Ngugi
ReplyDeleteAfter viewing the film Nosferatu, I have noticed many changes between the representation of a vampire between Polidori and Murnau. The changes that caught my attention are how different the two vampires went about capturing and killing their victims. In Murnau’s version, the vampire would go after its victim like and animal during a hunt. It would also back the victim into a corner giving it no room to escape. In contrast, Polidori’s version of a vampire was vastly different. Lord Ruthven was a gentleman. He could never show his true intentions. He was able to fool everyone around him by having the appearance and manners of a person of high society. Also, I noticed a subtle difference in the genders the two vampires killed. Lord Ruthven only killed women, but Nosferatu killed both men and women.
These changes show how monster culture has changed between the formations of both vampires. Within a century, vampires were more direct in the way they killed their victims, and people were well informed of their existence. Vampires did not try to hide from people. As shown in Nosferatu, the vampire moved to a town full of people. He knew moving here would become another source of victims he could feed off of.
Furthermore, the portrayal of each vampire is significantly different. The greatest deviation I realized was the outward appearance of the two vampires. Nosferatu had a very ghoulish appearance. His dark sunken eyes and bony hands made him appear as a true monster. His towering frame and dark clothing also contributed to making him have a very suspicious appeal. However, Lord Ruthven dressed like a member of high society. He appeared to be normal person. Murnau may have depicted Nosferatu in this manner to show how powerful and scary monsters look. Also, Polidori may have portrayed his version of a vampire this way to show how monsters can deceive the people around them.
There were many changes between Polidori's representation of a vampire and in Nosfeatu. The most obvious changes were Lord Ruthven and Dracula's lifestyles. Lord Ruthven lives in very populated cities and travels freely and often, where as Dracula resides in a house that only he lives in and if he must travel he has to bring his own dirt, filled into his own coffin. Also Lord Ruthven was a gentleman that did not look much different than most people while Dracula was obviously a monster of some sort. Not all of the changes were this drastic though. While Ruthven only preyed on women, Dracula killed both men and women.
ReplyDeleteI think the area that the stories take place in influence the tone of the story very much. While The Vampyre takes place in Britain, even if they were going through a depression, they take great pride in their class and elegance. Where as in Transylvania they do not hold the same caring for being cultured and elegance, allowing for the darkness of Nosferatu
A deviation of the vampires is that monsters exist in the margins of reality. While Nosferatu follows this idea having Dracula clearly being a monster and not able to co-exist with the public at all, Lord Ruthven existed anywhere but the margins of reality. Polidori's version of a vampire creates a gentleman that is able to get along with any group of people, is very cultured, and able to charm women (his prey). Polidori may have been trying to disprove that a monster has to be an ugly, disformed beast, but can be anyone among the general public.
i agree with all of your points about how each character lived a different lifestyles. i feel that since Nosferatu lived in this big house by himself he could portray a much scarier monster. Lord Ruthven traveled a lot and had to hide his real appearance so people didn't know he was a monster. I didn't even think to look at what was going on in Europe at the time the stories where written. i think that the depression had a lot to do with the mood of the story.
DeleteAfter watching Nosferatu, the most obvious difference between the vampire in Nosferatu and the one in Polidori’s story is the character’s appearance. Nosferatu has a horrific and unsettling appearance with pointed ears and elongated fingers while Ruthven is seductive. Of course it is impossible for a creepy guy to attract women. I think the reason why Nosferatu looks so scary is that German Empire was ruined after the World War 1 (Year 1918) and society was insecure and unstable so Nosferatu’s appearance might reflect people’s fear and anxiety about neighbor surroundings.
ReplyDeleteAnother difference between Ruthven and Nosferatu is that Ruthven only kills or pursues those women who are proper and virtuous whereas Nosferatu doesn’t have clear preference. . What’s more, Ruthven first pretends to be a gentle man to seduce women and then drinks their blood whereas Nosferatu directly bites their necks. After World War 1, women’s status was improved because at that time men were levied for war while women went out to work. Aiming to be virtuous was throughout Victorian era especially for women. In addition, wealth contrast was prominent at Victorian era, which made a gap between upper class and the poor. So I think that’s why Ruthven is only interested in wealthy and proper women.
I agree with your assessment of the different character's appearances. I found Polidori's portrayal much more realistic than Count Orlok, as well the insecurities of Germany led to this portrayal of a terror, like for instance the lack of food and the incredible inflation, that could easily slip into the people's consciousness while the threat is so obvious, that the people could not do anything about it.
DeleteI would definitely agree with your first statement. The appearance of the two vampires is very different! I really like your idea about his appearance reflecting people's fears and anxieties. It certainly makes sense to me. I also agree with your reason for why Ruthven only preys on the upper class women. I wish you would have touched more on why Nosferatu doesn't have a clear preference though. I believe that it is simply because of the way he looks. Seriously, what woman could possibly be seduced by a man who looks like that? Ruthven may have been able to pull it off, but Nosferatu. . . I don't think so. He hardly looks human. That is why I think he isn't as selective of his victims as Ruthven. He just takes what he can get.
DeleteIn dedication to the movie I have altered my hours of operation to mirror that of which a vampire would demonstrate. The horror film Nosferatu was a peculiar one, portraying a version of the vampire that was, in ways, drastically different from the ghoul I’ve read about in older accounts. One of the most palpable differences was the reputation The Nosferatu had. In earlier depictions of this menacing creature authors such as Polidori described “Dracula” as an awkward being but never suspected of actually being a vampire. However, in Nosferatu as Jonathan Harker neared the city of Transylvania he was warned to stay clear of ‘Count Dracula’s’ castle during night time in fear of any phantoms. Also the fact that Harkers carriage refused to travel too close to the city hinted toward their awareness of the fatal happenings that occur throughout that land. This difference shows the ability of our culture to slowly but surely coexist with the monsters in our society.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to the reputation claimed by Dracula there were many more differences I noticed in Nosferatu from Polidori’s portrayal. The fact that the Nosferatu had a minion in Renfield who lured Harker into visiting the castle of Count Dracula was a new development. In Polidori version there was one beast and his undertakings were hidden from all others. The addition of this new character on the side of the antagonist hinted the change in culture. A majority of horror films in the century Nosferatu was made illustrated a main specter but with a henchman by their side. This small augment gave the vampire a more broad selection of victims thus a “no one is safe” aura preceding his name.
Polidori wrote of the Vampyre having a serpent’s tongue which gave him the ability to seduce his victims mostly of female gender. I feel as if this gave inspiration to the Nosferatu weakness being a woman “pure of heart.” Instead of preying on women exclusively he would feed on anyone’s blood which gave him an invisible appearance. That is until it was revealed that his only weakness was a woman who was willing to give her blood to him. This in turn would cause Dracula to lose track of time and burn to death as the sunlight arose and the “cock crowed.” The fact that Polidori portrayed women as vampires only prey and it transitioned into women being its only weakness in Nosferatu was a linked difference I found interesting.
Marcus Swafford ^^^
DeleteSome of the most obvious differences between the two stories include the appearance of Nosferatu and how it is radically different then the appearance portrayed in Polidori's the Vampyre. Nosferatu appears to be vampire through the entirety of the film. He has dark eyes, bushy untamed eyebrows and hair, a pale complexion, pointed ears, long skinny fingers, and is always dressed in a black cloak unlike Ruthven's noble look. Also his mannerisms are different then the ones of Ruthven. Ruthven, though described as mysterious, does not compare to Nosferatu who walks slowly, hunched over, constantly talking slowly, with a tone that tends to cause uncomfort amongst people.
ReplyDeleteAnother easily noticed difference among the film and Polidori's writing is how well known Nosferatu is for his doings and how little is known about what Ruthven does. Nosferatu in well known in his town which is shown when Hacker tells his waitresss to hurry with his means because he should already be at counts castle. When he says this every person in the room stops what they are doing to gaze upon him with worrisome eyes. I believe all these aesthetic these changes are made only to amplify the creepiness of the film and have nothing to do with the difference in time period.
With that being said there are a few changes that reflect the time period such as the vampire bites being portrayed as an epidemic. The depression in germany in the twenties was causing a lot of people to move into different homes and the owners of those homes to be eager to allow this, which is why Hacker is originally told by his employer to go to Transylvania. Another change based upon the period in which both works were made was how the vampire bites were portrayed over all and the effect of them. In Polidori's the vampyre the people he bites just die and thats that. In Nosferatu it seems as though the bites continue to spread from the bitten and onward. This causes an epidemic effect that they stressed in the film which was relevant to that time period. The lack of medical technology and experience made the thought of an unknown disease spreading around much more serious and also scary.
In comparing the early vampire portrayed by Polidori to the vampire of a century later, significant differences can be found. Nina Auerbach states that “every age embraces the vampire it needs”, and through analysis one can learn much about a certain time period by studying its monsters.
ReplyDeleteThe most striking difference between the versions appeared to be the vampire’s relation to human beings. In Polidori’s short story, intimacy and friendship were shared between the vampire and humans. Lord Ruthven, the vampire, engaged in concepts such as marriage and oath with human characters. A century later, vampires were viewed in a much different light. Humans kept their distance from vampirism and began to fear the creature. This reaction can most likely be attributed to the appearance of vampires in horror movies, in which the purpose was to bring fear to the human viewer. Also, after reading Polidori’s “The Vampyre”, one can surely see the downfalls of sharing a relationship with a vampire. One of the more subtle differences I noticed was that Ruthven possessed the qualities of a gentleman, which become nonexistent in later vampires. I feel that Polidori represented his vampire in such a manner to suggest that evil is closer than we may think, and to expose the idea of façade in nineteenth-century gentlemen. In Bram Stoker’s version, about a century later, I feel that he suggests vampires are a harmful monster that must be feared and shunned for the benefit of human kind.
By studying these two works, much can be learned about two completely different generations. Their needs and fears are encrypted in their portrayal of each vampire, as monsters prove to be an invaluable historical reference.
I found it interesting that you discussed the victim’s personal relationships with the vampire in each selection, and how we may not be able to fully trust those around us. Some of our closest acquaintances could lead to our own demise. You description of Nosferatu as a monster created to be feared is very poignant, because often there are warnings in the world put in place to prevent us from doing certain things. Don’t want to get injured in a car crash? Wear a seatbelt. Don’t want to become a victim of a vampire? Stay clear of them at all costs. I also agree with the idea that Ruthven is representative of the monsters within those closest to us and the little characteristics of those people that we may fall victim to, such as many of the female characters to Ruthven’s charm in “The Vampyre.”
DeleteAnyone who is familiar with Bram Stoker's Dracula can instantly recognize similarities between Nosferatu and Dracula, as well I noticed striking differences between Nosferatu and Polidori's portrayal of the bloodthirsty vampire. Since I am familiar with the novel of Dracula, it is rather interesting to see this adaptation to the vampire legend. I found it most interesting that instead of the gothic scientist Van Helsing, Murnau used a novel on the vampire Nosferatu. I found that very interesting, because while sometimes it is hard to follow this movie since I am so accustomed to having sound in movies, the novel shows crucial information on vampires. While in Polidori's version there is no mentioned idea of how to defeat the vampire, and since there was no weakness to be exploited the vampire was victorious.
ReplyDeleteWhile I was watching Nosferatu, I realized that based on what I have seen in previous movies, that vampires are portrayed in a similar way, since Nosferatu has Count Orlok having these grotesque, monstrous features such as the long, pointed fingers, pointed bat-like ears, and the sullen features of his face remind me of the way Dracula is described in Bram Stoker's novel. As well, there is a mayor difference between this vampire, Count Orlok, and how Polidori desribes his vampire. Polidori see the vampire as being like any other person, but he has a seductive tongue, which Draacula himself possesses as well. Noseferatu, however, has no such thing, since his methods are to only kill and suck as many people's blood as possible, not caring about who finds him out or anything like that, which was strange to me since most monsters, especially vampires need subtlety to survive for centuries.
I found the different weaknesses of the vampires rather interesting as well, but it is kind of an ironic weakness in Nosferatu from Polidori's Vampyre, since in Vampyre Lord Ruthven only preys on women, while Count Orlok feeds on anyone and everyone he can get a hold of. And in the novel narration, the vampire is said to have a weakness to a maiden that offers herself to him, which makes Nosferatu freeze, forgetting about time and eventually being destroyed by the morning sun. While it similarly depicts the vampire's weakness as being the sun, like that of Dracula, but with a twist that ironically links it to Polidori's Vampyre.
Some of the most striking differences between Nosferatu and The Vampyre would be the nature of the vampire. The Vampire in the Vampyre has more stealth than the vampire in Nosferatu. Aubrey would of never gone along with Lord Ruthven if he knew he was killing people. Nosferatu was creepy and straight to the point trying to suck the blood out of his victims. Another difference between the stories is the blood sucking aspect of being a vampire. Lord Ruthven didn’t really suck the blood of his victims he just killed them after he was done with them. Nosferatu’s main goal was to suck the blood of his victims like when he sucked the blood from Thomas Hutter.
ReplyDeleteThe roaring 20’s was the rise of the film industry and gave birth to special effects. Nosferatu had special effects that really brought the movie to life. For instance, when the vampire appeared on the boat from nothing looking to kill the person on the boat really made the vampire scary. The Vampyre was one of the first written vampire stories that sparked the whole genre of vampires.
One major deviation between the vampires would be the way they acted. Nosferatu was creepy and mysterious. Lord Ruthven was sneaky and sly. Nosferatu was created to be creepy to give off this scary vibe. No one would be afraid of normal looking person doing the things that Nosferatu did. The actor had to walk a certain way and dress differently to get his image across. There were no words in the film so image was important. Lord Ruthven was sneaky to try and trick the reader and keep them on their toes. For example when Aubrey is in Greece out of the blue Lord Ruthven shows up. Because there was no speaking in the film Nosferatu’s acting had to be more dramatic. When you read a story it is easier to understand what is going on than watching a movie with no words.
In the movie, Nosferatu, Hutter, the protagonist, travels to a distant land known as Transylvania. He is on business to meet a certain Count Orlok who wants to discuss buying an estate. Little does Hutter know that he is waking into a death trap; Count Orlok happens to be a monstrous, bloodthirsty vampire. Luckily, it does not take Hutter long to figure out that Orlok is the mythological creature, Nosferatu. Murnau does a very good job of portraying Count Orlok as the monster he is; the setting, clothing, body acting, and makeup help Hutter (and movie viewers) separate the protagonist from the antagonist.
ReplyDeleteMurnau’s Count Orlok is extremely different from Polidori’s Lord Ruthven from his novella, The Vampyre. Count Orlok, or Nosferatu, is instantly recognized as a monster; his pointed ears, oblong head, sharp fangs, and long fingernails help define his character. Even the villagers who live in the country of Transylvania know of Nosferatu’s evil presence, and they try to warn Huller about him. On the contrary, Polidori’s Ruthven is strange but human-like. His travelling companion, Aubrey, and his colleagues that he surrounds himself with find Ruthven to be odd, but they do not suspect his evil nature. Ruthven is also usually found in well-populated areas (a method for him to stalk his prey) except when he is indulging in his victims (he kills his victims in secluded areas such as the forest). However, there are many subtle differences between Nosferatu and Lord Ruthven as well. Nosferatu is more beast-like than Ruthven, so he acquires a minion in the city that helps him feed on anyone he can send. Ruthven is able to seduce his female victims because, unlike Nosferatu, he is able to get into close proximity to his prey.
These differences, big and small, are a reflection of the culture it was made in. As Nina Auerbach states, “every age embraces the vampire it needs.” During the time of Nosferatu, the world was in a deep state of inflation and depression. Money lost its value, and it took its toll on everyone. Hutter travelled to Transylvania to make money, and perhaps Murnau is trying to deter people from being greedy and that people from strange countries are not to be trusted. Murnau was German, and Nosferatu was made after World War II, so Nosferatu could allude to foreign countries of the Allies Power. Also, Hutter’s wife, Ellen was given a huge role in Nosferatu; she was the main facilitator in in Nosferatu’s death because she was “sinless”. Nosferatu died because he lost track of time and was exposed to the sunlight. This change may be because in the early 1920s, the women’s right movement was occurring in
Caleb Simpson
ReplyDeleteNosferatu was definitely one of the strangest movies I have ever seen. That may be in part to the time period in which it was made. They don't make movies like that anymore. I was a little put off by it to be honest. The whole "silent movie" thing just wasn't working for me. At some points in the film, the expressions of the actors didn't really seem to fit with the words on the screen. Also, I felt that the music was similarly unfitting in some of the scenes. . . That being said, I still found the movie pretty creepy and I did notice some differences between the vampire portrayed in this movie and the one from Polidori's shot story.
The main difference I noticed between the two was the way that they looked. While Lord Ruthven was said to be a gentleman and had the ability to seduce women, the vampire in Nosferatu was incredibly creepy looking. I seriously doubt he would be able to seduce any women. Lord Ruthven was actually welcomed in society and I believe this is why he was able to be more selective of his victims. The Nosferatu vampire was kind of shunned from society. He lived out away from everybody and you could tell that everyone thought he was creepy. For this reason, he couldn't be very selective of who he fed on. So he fed on anyone he could!
In the end of Nosferatu, the vampire dies after the woman sacrifices her blood. I found this very interesting because in Polidori's story, the vampire did not die. He actually came back to life! And to top if off, he escaped in the end! Nosferatu left little to the imagination in the end. You knew that he died, and there was no indication that he would be back. Lord Ruthven escaped in the end of Polidoris story, giving you a sense of fear that he is still out there somewhere. I believe that even though the vampire in Nosferatu looked scarier than Polidori's vampire was said to be, Polidori's story was more effective in instilling fear in the hearts of it's readers.
Richie Hardman
ReplyDeleteAfter watching Nosferatu, I found some very clear differences between it and Polidori's story. In Nosferatu, the way a vampire is pictured is very different than in the readings we did for class. The vampire in Nosferatu was an outcast of society. He had no real friends and was very separated from everyone else. This is unlike in Polidori's story how the vampire was someone everyone looked at and were intrigued by him. Lord Ruthven was very popular with society and able to act "normal" despite being a monster. In Nosferatu, this was not the case. Also, the vampire in Nosferatu dressed and acted differently than other vampires. He was visually disturbing and it was clear that he was a monster just by looking at him. I think that this is a very dramatic change.
A more subtle change between Nosferatu and Polidori's story is that the vampire in Nosferatu picked his prey differently than Lord Ruthven. Polidori makes his vampire appealing and thus he attracks his prey by his looks and charm. In Nosferatu, the vampire did not have this same ability since he was not as appealing. A similarity between the two is that they both preyed on women. I found this to be interesting because it seems to be a common theme in the stories we have read.
The movie was interesting to watch. At times it was hard to follow but the movie did a good job at depicting what a vampire would look like. I thought that just by looking, I knew right away it was a vampire. I think that the technology of the camera helped the idea of vampires to develop more and come into what we know vampires as today.
I agree with your depiction of both vampires from Polidori and Nosferatu being different by the degree of how well they related to other humans. Nosferatu felt more like a monster because of his lack of social contact and Lord Ruthven felt less horrific because of his ability to 'charm' other people with his wealth and wisdom. I think your depiction of how each vampire 'preyed' differently on their victims explains how they take a different approach but have the same intentions in the end.
DeleteEmily McDanels
ReplyDeleteThe first thing I noticed when I was watching the film was that the vampire looked and acted like a vampire. He was creepy looking, an outcast, and only came out at night. To me that is the bare minimum of requirements needed to me considered a vampire. It was great that the characters could finally be put to a face. Its one thing to have an image in your head of what a character looks like but being able to connect that to real life is what makes the story relatable and relevant. Having that personal connection makes a horror story truly terrifying.
A major difference I noticed between Polidori's "The Vampyre" and Nosferatu is the side stories. In the Vampyre there is a side story about Aubrey's sister but the story was mainly on his own struggles with the vampire. In Nosferatu there is a story about the wife left back home who loyally waits for him to return. The story of the agent who sent Harker to Count Dracula's castle and how he has gone mad! Along with the science class being taught about plants that eats bugs and lastly the journey Count Dracula takes on the ship which brings a plague. All these other stories added to the excitement of this horror story.
Of course the biggest difference of all is that in the end the monster is killed. In Polidari's version the moister gets away but in this one the monster does not. Also in Poldori's the woman victims were helpless. In Nosferatu's the women is the one to kill the monster and save the day. I liked that difference in the story because it gives hope to the reads/watchers that there is a way to stop the bad guy.
I like how you started off by saying how the look of the Nosferatu alone depicts a vampire, and how every vampire should look somewhat like that. I agree with that completely, how every vampire in any story should at least have some deformity. It would not create the same effects if the vampire resembled nothing close to what a vampire should look like, and almost take the terror out of the vampire if he looked normal. In the end I enjoy how you compared the endings, but I think its good how they differ. It doesn't offer the idea that one may think in the beginning that the vampire is going to be killed sometime in the end, and adds more suspense.
DeleteAfter having read John Polidori’s “The Vampyre” and watched Nosferatu, I noticed how drastic the differences in characterization can be of two people who are supposed to be vampires. The word “vampire” in and of itself does not necessarily mean the classic image of a tall thin man with a ghostly white face, a pronounced widow’s peak, and a long black cape. This description is not far off for Nosferatu in the self-titled movie, who dresses in a long black robe, has deep shadows under his eyes, and long skinny fingers with unnaturally long, claw-like nails. When travelling overseas to Bremen, he must sleep in coffins filled with earth from the unhallowed ground in which he was buried.
ReplyDeleteLord Ruthven, however, from “The Vampyre” has very few traits in common with Nosferatu. Both are wealthy and live on large estates, but their physical characteristics and mannerisms are much more divergent. Ruthven is suave, a smoothtalker, and works his way into high-society life while Nosferatu is very much an outcast who lives in a secluded part of Transylvania. Ruthven solely preys on women to quench his thirst for blood as opposed to Nosferatu who seems to have no known preference. But what makes these two vampires so different is not necessarily their physical characteristics or mannerisms, but rather the setting in which these horrific characters were created and placed.
Polidori’s tale was concocted after he returned from a long tour in England with Lord Byron, a well-known scientist of his day. Displeased by his superior’s habits of gambling and partying, Polidori wove in his negative feelings about Byron into the character Ruthven. Therefore, Ruthven himself represents misrepresentation, or appearing to be one thing but in actuality being another. He can be considered both a gentleman and a murderer with convincing arguments for each side. Meanwhile, Nosferatu is remniscent of Germany after World War I when the country was in a series of decline, feuds had broken out, and the Nazi party was rising to power. Instead, this vampire tale was created to keep people from being adventurous and wandering to new territories. Jonathon Harker journeys to Transylvania despite countless warnings, and it leads to his own demise. Had he not gone on this journey, he never would have encountered Nosferatu in the first place.
I found it interesting that you discussed the victim’s personal relationships with the vampire in each selection, and how we may not be able to fully trust those around us. Some of our closest acquaintances could lead to our own demise. You description of Nosferatu as a monster created to be feared is very poignant, because often there are warnings in the world put in place to prevent us from doing certain things. Don’t want to get injured in a car crash? Wear a seatbelt. Don’t want to become a victim of a vampire? Stay clear of them at all costs. I also agree with the idea that Ruthven is representative of the monsters within those closest to us and the little characteristics of those people that we may fall victim to, such as many of the female characters to Ruthven’s charm in “The Vampyre.”
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed watching the movie "Nosferatu" very much. I liked that representation of a vampire much better than the current view of a vampire. What I thought was interesting was the book that both Hutter and Ellen used to figure out how the vampire worked. It was almost like an owner's manual of sorts! It seemed quite clear that the town's people of Transylvania had then and for many years before figured out a way to stay out of harms reach from the Count. But Hutter, even after the warning he received in the bar and when his stage coach refused to take him all the way up to the castle, seemed to be completely oblivious to the horrors he was about to face! I think that Hutter had much more of a hint that the Count was in fact a danger, than Aubrey had in the "Vampyre".
ReplyDelete-Alex Thompson
After watching Nosferatu I saw changes and similarities in the main vampire from Nosferatu and the vampire from The Vampyre. The vampire in Nosferatu looked a lot more like the classic image of a vampire whereas the vampire in Polidori’s writing seemed much more hidden and blended into society and he wasn’t clearly a vampire. Everyone was afraid of the vampires in Nosferatu and clearly he was a scary figure. An example was when the carriage driver said, "we will go no further, here begins the land of phantoms," so the guy had to go to the mansion place by himself. Nosferatu's looked like a real freak and he exemplified the ideal “look” of a vampire. Ruthven is well off British man. People didn’t fear him because he didn’t look like a classic vampire image. Aubrey trusted Ruthven and traveled with him even though they had just met.
ReplyDeleteBoth of the vampires also are same in the sense that they go after their target relentlessly. Nosferatu attacks whoever. He goes after his prey when they are sleeping or direct and straight off, he did it to Harker and also the gatekeeper. Ruthven is mysterious and uses seduction to attack his victims. Both vampires end up biting their victims. Nosferatu was created much later after The Vampyre was written. The movie took many ideas of The Vampyre used those ideas in the movie. The clothing in Nosferatu also showed the times of the 1920's were a time of depression so people had little money. The clothing that the characters were wearing in the movie were not the greatest, so it made sense for the time period.
Nick Vourvopoulos
Polidori’s expression of the monster that is the vampire differs immensely to the one portrayed in the recreation of Bram Stoker’s novel, the film, Nosferatu. The relationship between Aubrey and Lord Ruthven is a lot more detailed than the relationship between Hutter and Count Orlock. Aubrey and Lord Ruthven travel to many parts of the world exploiting their money through gambling and take part in immoral vices. They begin to develop a social construct which builds suspense when Aubrey figures out the true monster that lies behind the face of Ruthven. On the other hand, Hutter’s sole purpose of visiting Lord Orlock in Transylvania was to sign over a housing contract in his hometown of Wisborg. It only takes Hutter till after his first night at his castle to realize Lord Orlock is an inhuman creature. There is not a lot of depth to the monster that is Nosferatu which is understandable since the movie is a silent film and the subtitles are limited.
ReplyDeleteUnlike Polidori’s short story, Nosferatu was able to place a more horrific label on the vampire and a feeling of an inability to escape the wrath of the monster. At the very beginning of the film, Hutter’s employer Knock tells him not run so quickly because no one can escape their destiny. The film is able to keep fear in the audience by the unavoidable terror that Lord Orlock brings with him to Wisborg. Polidori is unable to put such an emphasis on the horror of the vampire because the vampire is more relatable to the characters in the fact that Ruthven has some sense of control and does not try and kill or suck every living person’s blood he encounters. Both stories are expressed in different time periods and different types of media which gives a different feel for the monster of the vampire.
After viewing Nosferatu and reading Polidori's "The Vampyre" I have noticed many differences between the two stories. In Polidori's story, Ruthven seems to be the attractive young charmer who grabs many people's attention. Differences between Nosferatu and Lord Ruthven are obvious on how they live. Lord Ruthven lives in the open without anyone knowing his dark secret of living like a gentleman by day and by blood-sucking animal by night. He hides beneath his disguise of being rich and going to the most elegant parties, while Nosferatu hides in a deserted house where only he lives and no one goes near. In the end they both got what they wanted. The vampire in Nosferatu does not just go after females. There was a part that shows that the main character has been bitten and being a man that differs from the other story where the vampire only goes after women. Which goes along with the image of vampires more.
ReplyDeleteThere are a few differences that immediately stand out to me when I saw these two different stories. One is that Ruthven is a monster that is out in everyday life, almost like a normal person. When Nosferatu is purely monster looking, not like Ruthven who is to most people is a normal, rich, "lady killer" to so speak. Also while Ruthven is out being normal, Nosferatu is the opposite and stays inside his deserted house, in which no one goes and sees. These subtle changes in the vampires show how the author was feeling in the time in which he wrote it. Rutheven merely represents Polidori's enemy, lord byron, whom he despised so much. He created this character in order to somewhat take a stab back at him. On the other side Nosferatu is symbolized somewhat by how badly Germany was destroyed after the war. It is supposed to depict a run down, ruined nation.
ReplyDelete