Vampyr (Dreyer, 1932)

[Chedney Honks]

I recently watched Carl Theodore Dreyer's tremendously moving The Passion of Joan of Arc and felt like I needed to see more from him. Vampyr, his first sound film, came only four years later and while I don't feel it's as powerful as Joan, it feels like a more technically accomplished, experimental and expansive work.

Like many of the best silent films, and it fundamentally is that, it creates so much emotion and atmosphere through the composition and lighting and angles and a lingering gaze on facial expressions and objects. Ninety years on, Vampyr still excels here. The lead non-actor, a certain Baron Nicolas de Gunzburg, barely performs at all but his listless expression and emotionally distant gaze is perfect for the lost soul of Allan Gray, an enthusiast of the supernatural who drifts into the village of the damned. A wealthy socialite, he funded the film in exchange for the lead role, and his innate aloofness gives him an odd presence that made more sense once I learned of his background.

I also loved Rena Mandel, another non-actor, who plays the sister of the girl whose strange illness becomes the focus of the film. She never appeared in anything else but she has a strange, languid beauty and her haunted doe eyes and eerie voice are captivating to me. I find it hard to take my eyes off her when she appears, she seems so sad and doomed. The doctor also has tremendous presence, despite being a weaselly little figure. He is inherently sinister in his expressions, language and voice, without being hammy. You're not sure exactly what's wrong with him, but you know instinctively.

Beyond these characters, the strength of the film is the hazy, gauzy atmosphere that captures a haunting, dreamlike quality that many many films have failed to match. Apparently, this effect was initially a mistake from the DOP but Dreyer loved it and insisted that it was replicated at certain key moments. It's strange to enjoy out of focus, bloomy, blown out exterior shots but it makes the freedom of the outside world seem far less real than the vivid horrors of the subconscious. There are plenty of scenes which feel like a waking nightmare, impossible to pin down the real and the imaginary. That's probably where the film best succeeds.

It's unfortunately a bit difficult to get hold of on BD so I imported the Region A Criterion edition which is great, loads of supplements and a commentary I'll look forward to checking out soon. Also, nice booklet of essays and a chunky little book with the original screenplay and a collection of the original stories which inspired the film. It's definitely one I'll revisit over the years because there is no shock value, there's no plot point or key moment in narrative, it's a pure mood piece that drips with atmosphere from beginning to end.

[Chedney Honks]

This is actually worth watching, by the way, if you want to see something apart from genre films.

[Small Man Big Horse]

I'm on catch up as I only got around to watching The Passion Of Joan Of Arc today, but it impressed me enough to want to check out his other films and I will watch this at some point for certain.

[Chedney Honks]

Great stuff, hope you enjoyed Joan. This is more modern in some respects but also very much its own thing.

[Small Man Big Horse]

I posted this short review in the non-new films thread:

The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928) - Horrendous old white men psychologically brutalize a nineteen year old woman. It's anchored by a stunning performance from Renée Jeanne Falconetti but director  Carl Theodor Dreyer also captures the ugliness of the male characters as they pray on Joan to stunning effect, and the photography is impressive throughout, it's perhaps a little repetitive but the ending is a powerful one. 7.1/10

But to expand upon it a little, it's an unusual film, one which I was fascinated by and the cinematography is stunning, but I have to admit that after around an hour of close up's I started to lose interest a little, though only briefly as then the ending really gripped me. I also felt like I was watching it in two different ways, the intended manner where it's a vicious, dehumanising ordeal suffered by a woman who believed that everything she was doing was for the good of her country, God and King, but also one where my own thoughts about religion intruded and it's a vicious, dehumanising ordeal suffered by a severely mentally ill woman. The latter makes it all the more horrendous of course, but it put a slightly different spin on it, and her martyrdom is ultimately completely pointless (in my view, at least) even though it was probably preferable to a life's imprisonment.

[Chedney Honks]

I didn't see that but I like your review.

I also felt as you did that the truly devastating element is that she was not in contact with God at all, and was suffering from a delusion or psychotic break of sorts, albeit one which galvanised her conviction. It made her demise both more romantic (if you give into the religious belief) and more tragic (if you don't). Beyond that, I also wondered whether the reason that these disgusting figures couldn't accept her faith is that they were men of ritual and institution rather than belief. Their scepticism wasn't purely because she was a young woman who refused to kowtow, it was that none of them shared her conviction that God was anything beyond a man-made construct.

Incredibly bleak film, but I loved it.

[Small Man Big Horse]

That's an interesting idea and it's not something I considered while watching it, but I imagine them not being able to cope with someone who truly believed could definitely be an aspect of it, for some of them at least, hence the need to break her mentally and destroy her faith, however briefly.

[zomgmouse]

arc is great and vampyr is great. incredible emotions and moods. day of wrath also very good. need to watch more

[Misspent Boners]

Full film on YouTube no dramas:

https://youtu.be/1QV96_is9eQ

Very intrigued to watch it

[Chedney Honks]

Well spotted. Will do the trick.

arc is great and vampyr is great. incredible emotions and moods. day of wrath also very good. need to watch more

Day of Wrath and Ordet are next on my list. Seems he didn't do that many films, and a lot appear in this pretty comprehensive BFI collection.

https://www2.bfi.org.uk/blu-rays-dvds/carl-theodor-dreyer-collection

Might ask for that for Crimbo.

[Smeraldina Rima]

I watched Ordet and Day of Wrath with chocolate teapot and we both liked them, Ordet especially. Anna Svierkier who plays the old woman accused of witchcraft in Day of Wrath gives one of my favourite performances. She's very charismatic, even when she's only pottering around the house with ambiguous herbs. She reminded me of chocolate teapot's mum, which I didn't mention at the time. According to IMDB it was her first of only two films.



I'm easily won over by films about faith, curses and miracles - The Virgin Spring being another good one - especially when it's difficult to judge the characters' claims and accusations and the director's ideas about religion in/out of the film. I don't really know what Dreyer wanted to show with Ordet. Been meaning to watch more of Dreyer's films. Looking them up now I hadn't realised there was a big gap between those two and the ones discussed here. Also noticed that before the Joan of Arc film by Dreyer and other versions that followed it there were two more silent versions by George Méliès and Cecil B. DeMille.

Tried watching Vampyr last night but fell asleep after ten minutes. I'll try again. Still never seen any JoA films so might start from the beginning which looks like Méliès' 1900 short film including some colour effects. Apparently it was lost until 1982 when it was discovered without the first scene. It's listed as 19 minutes and versions online are about 10 minutes, so I guess that just means the missing scene is known to have been about 9 minutes.

[Chedney Honks]

Hehe, I can well imagine Vampyr sending you to sleep because it did the same to me first time but I had a lovely, creepy memory of the dreamlike atmosphere. It feels very uhh liminal to reference the young folks. The whole film feels like that space between waking and sleeping so it's quite soporific. I mean that as a compliment, mind you.

I didn't know you were friends with chocolate teapot, by the way, someone else whose posts I really enjoy. Always great to read your thoughts, of course.

[Smeraldina Rima]

Badly expressed really, I just started watching it too late but I did like the woozy movement around the staircase. It reminded me of Maya Deren's Meshes of the Afternoon. Just got up to the message being delivered so looking forward to watching the rest tonight or tomorrow.

[Chedney Honks]

I don't know that but will look for it. Also, I've been meaning to reply to your great Berlin, die Sinfonie thread but wavering on the DVD because it will stick out on the shelf...I might just stream, it sounds superb.

[zomgmouse]

i think that foggy fuzzy ambience in the outside scenes in particular lends itself to that dreamlike feeling

[Smeraldina Rima]

After watching the Criterion version on Youtube I found some interesting things in a review of the two Criterion and Masters of Cinema releases. Apparently the Criterion version doesn't include two censored scenes which are on the Masters of Cinema version. The uncut staking scene is here:

Vampyr (1932) staking scene (DVD / Blu-ray vs uncensored version)

The screenplay also had blood spurts and the coffin becoming filled with spiders.

Haven't found the uncut flour scene, which is a more gruesome death that blends into a greater whiteness and the mist over the river.

And the screenplay had wild dogs chasing a child to the castle and Allan following him there to try to help (but this doesn't add anything to the Criterion edition):





The prolonged staking of the vampyr was not actually as shocking as I thought it would be from reading a description, but that scene along with the longer flour death and the dogs chasing the child to his death would have made a much darker film.

It's closer to the later films than I had thought it would be. The MoC booklet quotes Dreyer saying: 'a director must believe in the truth of his subject. He must believe in vampires and miracles', which is what I liked about Ordet and Day of Wrath.

That review by Peter Swaab highlights these as the main unresolved questions, even after seeing the screenplay and uncut versions:

We frequently can't tell, for instance, whether its hero is clairvoyant or dreaming.  Some of its mysteries are eventually cleared up, but others remain loose ends or riddles, such as the identity of the disfigured blind man in the inn, the nature of the shadows that seem able to kill, and the turning from outside a locked room of the key in the door inside.

Does anyone have their own answers to those mysteries?

I liked the actresses who played Léone and Gisèle (Gisèle is Rena Mandel as described in the opening post) and three scenes near the end: the flour suffocation/departure, the Lord of the manor's big face at the window and Allan's view from the coffin.

[Chedney Honks]

Thanks for all this info! I heard the commentaries on the MoC are also both really good and well worth the entrance fee alone. Hnnngh. Still pondering.

As for those mysteries, it's certainly one of my favourite things about the film and I can't give a concrete response. I enjoy the idea that, as a supernatural buff and enthusiast, he sometimes sees what he's looking for. It adds another layer to the horror and to the character, but it's a fine line. If it's all a figment of his imagination or a dream, the whole episode is pointless to me and Dreyer's quote there suggests otherwise, in any case. I can take many of the supernatural elements and say that a mind prone to exploring that interstitial space is likely to interpret mundane phenomena as something other. That works with the shadows and the key and even the appearance of certain unnerving figures, but it falls very short for the out-of-body scenes. I can't explain them at all.

I think a rewatch is on the cards soon. Appreciate the reply.

[Small Man Big Horse]

I truly hate being the kind of person who enters a thread only to be negative about a film, but I was really frustrated by this. For the first half an hour I was gripped by it, and loved the strange atmosphere it created, from the brief meeting with the disfigured man to the way the corner of the room lights up before the old man enters, and Gray stumbling around the castle and seeing the strange dancing shadows was fascinating. But just after the half hour mark where the vampyr attacks the young girl (and all but casually stumbles off afterwards) I started to struggle with it, finding it a lot less atmospheric and all rather bland. The final fifteen minutes somewhat make up for it,

Spoiler alert

and I loved the out of body sequence, the strange visions the Doctor sees, the death by flour and the (uncut version of) the staking,

[close]

but that mid section really sagged badly for me so I can only rate it 6.4/10.

[Menu]

I truly hate being the kind of person who enters a thread only to be negative about a film, but I was really frustrated by this. For the first half an hour I was gripped by it, and loved the strange atmosphere it created, from the brief meeting with the disfigured man to the way the corner of the room lights up before the old man enters, and Gray stumbling around the castle and seeing the strange dancing shadows was fascinating. But just after the half hour mark where the vampyr attacks the young girl (and all but casually stumbles off afterwards) I started to struggle with it, finding it a lot less atmospheric and all rather bland. The final fifteen minutes somewhat make up for it,

Spoiler alert

and I loved the out of body sequence, the strange visions the Doctor sees, the death by flour and the (uncut version of) the staking,

[close]

but that mid section really sagged badly for me so I can only rate it 6.4/10.

I find lots of German Expressionist films sag a bit at times. I think they were still struggling with narrative structure and that sort of thing. Some of those early Fritz Lang films are maddening in this regard.

[Small Man Big Horse]

I find lots of German Expressionist films sag a bit at times. I think they were still struggling with narrative structure and that sort of thing. Some of those early Fritz Lang films are maddening in this regard.

I was thinking about this earlier and I think part of my frustration comes from the vampyr getting so very little screen time, perhaps unfairly while watching it I was comparing it to the 1922 version of Nosferatu, but while there's a lot of weird craziness in Vampyr very little involves the actual creature herself.

[Menu]

Interesting. It's a bit like those 1930s Universal horrors such as 'Dracula; and 'Frankenstein'. There's virtually no horror in either of them. Frankenstein is more a tear-jerker in fact, and you basically just feel sorry for him. But most of all they are both just really boring.

[TrenterPercenter]

Vampyr is brilliant, totally mesmerising (think you can watch it on BFI Player at the moment).

I was thinking about this earlier and I think part of my frustration comes from the vampyr getting so very little screen time, perhaps unfairly while watching it I was comparing it to the 1922 version of Nosferatu, but while there's a lot of weird craziness in Vampyr very little involves the actual creature herself.

Yeah this isn't really fair as it isn't about Dracula it is a retelling of the Carmilla story in "In a Glass Darkly" the original influence on Dracula (or one of) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_a_Glass_Darkly.

Sorry if this has already been said.

[Small Man Big Horse]

Interesting. It's a bit like those 1930s Universal horrors such as 'Dracula; and 'Frankenstein'. There's virtually no horror in either of them. Frankenstein is more a tear-jerker in fact, and you basically just feel sorry for him. But most of all they are both just really boring.

There is a fair amount of horror and strangeness in Vampyr, and I'd say it's definitely a lot, lot better than either of those Universal films you mention, it's just that you see very, very little of the vampire herself.

Vampyr is brilliant, totally mesmerising (think you can watch it on BFI Player at the moment).

Yeah this isn't really fair as it isn't about Dracula it is a retelling of the Carmilla story in "In a Glass Darkly" the original influence on Dracula (or one of) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_a_Glass_Darkly.

Sorry if this has already been said.

You're not wrong, though I did know it was based on the Carmilla story (mainly as a friend is obsessed with it, and is hoping one day to make a stage play based on the story) it was just something lodged in my brain that I couldn't get rid of.