Well, I'm sorry because I didn't know you were there EITHER when they filmed it.
Don't sweat it - it was a large crew ;) Sorry, couldn't help it - let's get serious now...
Overacting is not part of the expressionist "style" it's part of the standard of acting at the time. All acting is the same across board. Are you going to tell me Harold Lloyd was making expressionist cinema? No, he was making comedy. In the silent era this sort of overacting lends itself well to pratfalls and the like but mars serious drama, however we have evolved since then.
Obviously overacting
was also present because actors who were used to the space suddenly had to adjust their acting style to the new medium of film. You're right there.
That said - Gustav von Wangenheim is, in my opinion, the only actor who really hams it up in "Nosferatu". With the exception of Knock who is supposed to be complete loony anyway, all the other actors are actually fairly restrained. We know Murnau was a pretty skillful director, so are you claiming he was able to tell every actor what to do except for von Wangenheim?
Just because Murnau was making films 90 years ago doesn't make him blind, you know. If he thought von Wangenheim's buffoonish Hutter was ruining the film, I'm sure he'd try other options. And that's why I think Hutter is
meant to be a little off the charts. It makes the contrast between Hutter and Orlok much more explicit, so it does seem to serve a purpose.
I'm not going to claim Harold Lloyd did expressionist cinema, no. As a matter of fact, I'm gonna ignore that argument because an American silent film comedian has nothing to do with the aesthetics of a German horror film. How many Weimar-era slapstick comedies have
you seen?
Enjoy the film, call it your most favouritist film ever wever, but don't try to pretend / act / make us think that the bad acting was performed this way on purpose due expressionist style, that's just lies. They have to mime / exaggerate to an extent because it is silent and only because of that factor.
I've given you a few sources that state the opposite - where are your sources? If you really do think von Wangenheim's overacting is a result of Murnau not being able to tell that one actor what to do, fine. But at least give me something objective that supports your view if you're going to talk about "lies".
Don't think that a nobody like you is ever going to convince us much better people that you are right and we are wrong. You are oh so very wrong.
I am rubber, you are glue.
reply
share
Stink_Face
13 years ago
Very nice that you totaly ignored my inflamatory "Don't think that a nobody like you is ever going to convince us much better people that you are right and we are wrong. You are oh so very wrong." ha ha ha. Ermm, ok, no actual "hard" evidence, just more anecdotal really, you say amout Murnau controlling actors etc, I totally get that BUT how many films can you list where you know a lot of skill has gone into it but it's just lacking, for example how many Argento films are renowned for thier bad actors? Some artists can handle certain aspects of their craft to the detriment of other areas. Do you know what I mean? I think it'd be something that would be lengthy to write up below, but drop us reply to see if you get what I am trying to convey here and if you're not with me I'll try to explain better.
I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken!
reply
share
frederik olsen
13 years ago
Well, there's been enough mud thrown around, so I thought it best to let that one rest. Especially since I still don't think I'm wrong ;)
I think I know what you mean; people are mainly praising Murnau for his visuals. In "Nosferatu", the use of shadows and the locations are what stand out and in a later film like "Faust", there are these insanely elaborate (for their time) special effects, like the flying sequence. And you're wondering whether he focused more on that stuff than on his actors, right? Kinda like George Lucas whose heart seems to be with his CG set-ups rather than his actors. I do hope that's correct, cause here comes the rambling!
Again, I personally think he knew what he was doing. That's not to say I have any proof, but I think some aspects of "Nosferatu" and his later productions show that he was able to use his actors to great effect. Obviously, Max Schreck is in himself an example. As far as I know, Schreck was primarily a stage actor, and he would likely have been accustomed to that style of acting. Instead, he delivers a very restrained performance which is still surprisingly effective today. I can't think of any other villain in a silent horror film that has dated that well. So either this guy was exceptionally good at adapting his acting to this new environment or Murnau was pulling the strings. I think the latter is more likely. Murnau was used to filmmaking and Schreck had, according to IMDB, only started making films a year or so earlier. I don't think Schreck just walked onto the set and knew exactly what he was going to do. I think he was directed by a very skilled craftsman.
Another example of Murnau using acting would be "The Last Laugh". I've only watched excerpts, but as far as I know, there's hardly any title cards in it. The plot is pretty much told via the acting, especially that of Emil Jannings. Obviously overacting is present here, but now it's really part of the style. There's no sound and no written dialogue and yet, we understand what's going on. That film came out two years after "Nosferatu", so it's quite possible he was simply evolving as a director and trying out new things. There are definitely similarities between all of his films, though, so I'm tempted to say that if he knew how to direct actors to that degree in "The Last Laugh", he probably did in "Nosferatu" as well.
I think the bottom line is that even if the "overacting" in "Nosferatu" is the product of bad acting, there's really only one guy doing it. So to say the whole film is overacted is, I think, quite unfair. Because if you look at all of the other characters, they're always acting like they are for a reason. Of course there are other aspects of the production that look horrible today, like the fast-motion stuff, but overall, I think the acting in this film has aged considerably better than in other contemporary films.
reply
share
Stink_Face
13 years ago
George Lucas . . . CG set-ups rather than his actors - EXACTLY what I am sayin and that's what I am trying to say regarding our lead actor in question.
I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken!
reply
share