This week, for a change of pace, I’m going to be reviewing two of the earliest films in the horror film genre – Carl Dreyer’s Vampyr (1932) in this review and F.W. Murnau’s Nosferatu (1922) based on the Count Dracula legend, in the near future. I should acknowledge up-front that I’m not especially much of a fan of horror films, though I do have great respect for a two classics of the genre: Psycho and The Exorcist. My interest in Vampyr as a film derives from my experience with Dreyer’s great masterpiece Passion of Joan of Arc (1928). In fact, Dreyer was fresh from his successful production of The Passion (critically successful but not commercially) when he announced that he would next be making a horror film, much to the chagrin of many of his most ardent admirers. Dreyer repeatedly proved during his career that he would not be constrained by what was expected of him. One could depend on quality in a Dreyer film but little else.

Vampyr was the first sound film for the Danish director, Dreyer, but it is really a hybrid at the transition between silent films and talkies. Based loosely on a novel by Seridan Le Fanu entitled “In a Glass Darkly”, Vampyr was shot on location in a Paris castle.

The Story: A traveler named David Gray (Julian West) is fascinated by the occult. “His studies of devil worship and vampire terror of earlier centuries”, we are told, “have made him a dreamer for whom the boundaries between the real and the unreal have become dim.” At a mysterious inn, he encounters a wealthy family, including the father and Lord of the Manor (Maurice Schutz) and his two daughters, Leone (Sybille Schmitz) and Gisele (Rena Mandel). This family is in the grips of a vampire. The father gives Gray a package to be opened upon his death – which is not long in coming. The package contains a book by Paul Bonnard on the “History of Vampires.” From time to time, Gray reads passages from the book (which are shown concurrently as screens written in Gothic letters) that illuminate the story. One of the sisters, Leone, is extremely ill. Gray suspects that she has been bitten by a vampire and has a vision that seems to confirm his fear. Gisele remains untainted but seems doomed to be the vampire’s next victim. Even her own compromised sister eyes her wolfishly. The vampire is aided by a doctor (Jan Hieronimko). Gray desperately seeks a way to save the sisters from this curse. With the help of the book, Gray concludes that the vampire is an elderly (or, more precisely, an undead) woman, the former wife of the doctor, Marguerite Chopin (Henriette Gérard)

In a dramatic scene, Gray’s spirit separates from his body (Gray having been murdered in the process of donating blood for Leone). The soul is seen emerging, first splitting in two segments, then reuniting and walking off, leaving Gray’s limp body behind. Gray’s spirit, with the help of a servant, digs up Chopin’s grave and, following the dictates of the book, they drive a stake into her heart, turning her into a skeleton. The doctor is dispensed with as well. Leone nevertheless succumbs, but Gray escapes with Gisele in a row boat.

Strengths: Vampyr shares all of the technical mastery of Dreyer’s masterpiece The Passion of Joan of Arc. It is a spooky jewel with an emphasis on surreal visual imagery. Much of the film is shot as if in a light fog, an effect that was actually hit upon by sheer accident. As the shooting was just beginning, one of the cameras had a crack in the casing that allowed light to peak through, causing the film to fog up. Dreyer spotted the film, which was about to be discarded, and liked the effect so much that he decided to use it intentionally throughout the film. The result was to provide the entire picture with an ethereal quality. The setting in the castle provided an eerie gothic atmosphere as well. Rudoph Maté, a brilliant cinematographer who worked with many great directors, added special effects that were truly amazing for a film produced in 1932. His use of shadows and light effects was incredible. The shadows of characters occasionally separate from the corresponding body, going about their own business. Maté also used upside down reflections in water, shots from inside a casket looking out through a small window at the tops of trees and buildings, and shots peering in through that same window at the lifeless corpse (causing viewers to anticipate a blink of the eyes or the appearance of a sudden smile). There was also rich use of symbols, such as a scythe carried by a man near the film’s opening as he tolls the bell outside the inn. The strength of this film is the richness of the images. It is expressionist cinematography at its finest.

There is no persistent logic in the narrative, which leaves much to the imagination of each viewer. The film keeps us guessing as to how much of what we see is real and how much the overwrought imagination of David Gray (or our own hyper-excited imaginations). The musical score is comprised mainly of strings and piano. Its often sparse and sinister quality is highly effective. One famous section is known as the “Shadow Polka.”

Weaknesses: While this film is a model of technical accomplishment, it suffers from weaknesses in content, characters, and acting. Almost all of the actors were nonprofessionals that Dreyer encountered on the street. Unfortunately, it shows. The protagonist (if one can call him such), David Gray, was played by Julien West (a.k.a. Nicolas de Gunzburg). He was also the film’s producer and financier. The doctor was played by Jan Hieronimko, a Polish journalist. Rena Mandel who played one of the sisters was a French model. Sybille Schmitz, playing the other sister, was the only professional actress in the film. Not only are there no performances here remotely comparable to that of Falconetti in The Passion (few in the history of film are), there are also none here especially worth watching.

I found nothing engaging in the story line. The ambiguities of the plot were fine – and its main strength, in fact – but the story was neither powerful nor disturbing. It was mysterious but not scary at all (I feel that my threshold for scary film effects is on the low side, not the high side). The film has a moody, dreamlike quality, but moves slowly for no good purpose. When all is said and done, nothing very meaningful happens. None of the characters were well enough developed to elicit any investment on my part in the outcome. A couple of critics claim that Vampyr is a meditation on beliefs that forces one to explore one’s own beliefs and values. It had no such effect for me in that it raised no issues that bear any significant relationship to my beliefs or values.

Bottom-Line: This film has been known by a variety of other names, including “The Strange Adventures of David Gray”, “Castle of Doom”, and “Not Against the Flesh.” It is essential viewing for vampire aficionados and is widely considered one of the true classics of the horror film genre. The technical aspects of the filmmaking are truly impressive, not only for the standards of 1932 but, in its generation of a haunting atmosphere, by the standards of any film era. Don’t watch this film the night before you plan on giving a pint of blood! Otherwise, it is a worthwhile film viewing experience, though one that for me will be quite forgettable. The film is in German with English subtitles. For many years, this film was said to be “lost.” There are now about ten different recordings of it available and I’ve noticed that the running time varies quite a bit from one version to another, suggesting that the various versions derive from copies that vary it the cuts that were made.


*************************************************************************************************
You might want to check out these other excellent films from Denmark:

Babette's Feast
Celebration
Dancer in the Dark
Day of Wrath
Gertrud
The Kingdom
The Kingdom II
Passion of Joan of Arc
Pelle The Conqueror

Recommended:
Yes

Video Occasion: Fit for Friday Evening
Suitability For Children: Suitable for Children Age 13 and Older