Vampyr (AKA: The Vampire, AKA: Not Against the Flesh) (1932)

Vampyr (AKA: The Vampire, AKA: Not Against the Flesh) - 1932

Director – Carl Theodor Dreyer

Starring – Julian West, Maurice Schutz, and Rena Mandel

When I think of a good vampire story, I think of the grotesque, deformed creature typified by Max Schreck in Nosferatu.  I think of Bela Lugosi’s suave and seductive Count Dracula from the aptly named Dracula.  Hell, I even think of Kiefer Sutherland and Alex Winter as the perpetual, rebellious, angst-ridden teenagers in Lost Boys.  One thing I do not think of, despite it’s clever title, is Vampyr the nearly silent horror story from cinema pioneer Carl Theodor Dreyer.

Firstly, Vampyr is a vampire story in the loosest of terms.  There is an evil, in the form of a person, or people, terrorizing a small, eastern european village.  About halfway through the movie, mention is made of a young woman with a wound on her neck who is acting as if possessed.  It is there that the similarities end.

Now despite it not really being true to the vampire angle, the film does have its moments of creepy, skin crawling ingenuity.  Dreyer’s use of subtle editing tricks to make the shadows come alive pack quite a punch both visually, and in the scare department.  Ghostly shadow figures go about their business against walls, reflected in water, and along the ground, while our main character stares in disbelief.  These effects are used so often in fact that it is more accurate to call the film Shadowpyr than Vampyr.  It is unfortunate for the film, however, that this aspect of the story wasn’t explored further than just as creepy visuals.

Earlier I mentioned that this film was nearly silent, this is because when the film was produced it was still the early days of sound and not much was done other than the occasional section of dialogue or stray sound effect.  In a way, this lack of sound really helps the sections of the film dealing with the shadows.  It seems strange and off somewhat that we are unable to hear the shadow with a peg leg ascend the ladder, or the shadowy gravedigger digging a grave.  All the sections not utilizing the lack of sound in this way are left wanting.  The dialogue is rather garbled and mumbly and doesn’t seem to match up with the actor who is supposedly speaking the line.  This is partially because it is in a language I don’t understand, but it also helped along by the fact that there are title cards with the dialogue even though the film has sound.

By and large this was an interesting film.  Some of the visuals were very disturbing and effective, but this seems more like a footnote in cinema history rather than a benchmark.  Good, but not nearly as good as the director’s earlier work, and if you’re interested in that, start with La Passion de Jeanne d’Arc.  If you want a good movie about vampires, try Let The Right One In, or one of the films I mentioned earlier.

About these ads

5 thoughts on “Vampyr (AKA: The Vampire, AKA: Not Against the Flesh) (1932)

  1. Pingback: 1001 Movies – The Complete List « 1001 Movies I Must Comment On Before I Die!

  2. But to be fair, 95%-99% of all films are not as good as The Passion Of Joan Of Arc. That said, I never understood the hoopla over this Dreyer film either. I would leap right over this one to Day Of Wrath, Ordet, and Gertrud.

  3. Hey, I had that same idea! Right now I am working on a movie of all shadows called Shadowpyr, which is my take on Lost Boys, but with everyone off screen with their shadows doing all of the acting. I was thinking of taking this idea into other genres, such as action / adventure films like National Treasure 2. Imagine a movie called Shadownal Shadowure 2, where the entire retelling of Ben Gates chasing his family history is all done with shadows! Or Die Hard, but Shadowie Shadoward. Look for Shadowpyr some time in 2011.

  4. We seem to have very similar tastes in film. We differ a little on this one though. This film really got under my skin. The editing and murky look to the visuals really add a visceral, nightmarish quality to the film IMO, and there is a lot of pioneering camera work and trickery here. Dreyer’s use of a moving camera is very different to his usual, static style.

    You are right though, this is much more akin to European vampire fables rather than the romanticized versions we are now used to. It’s more about the hold a vampire has over a community, rather than the creature itself, so is quite different to what we initially think of as a vampire film.
    I initially wasn’t that keen on the film but found it had got under my skin and I kept thinking about it.

    Would recommend Michael by Dreyer, which is a very good character study and perhaps one of the earliest (subtext) representations of homosexuality on film.

    I agree with you about Passion of Joan of Arc though, that film kind of sets an impossible bar so you are likely to be disappointed by any of his other films following that.

    • Though I spoke more of what didn’t work for me, I was still amazed that a film made in the early thirties could have been so effective in terms of tone and visuals. It doesn’t stand out as a vampire movie per se, but it definitely stands out.

      I’m still fairly new to Dreyer, so I’ll totally check out Michael!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s