2/14/2001

that’s about enough of that, don’t you think?

last night i watched nosferatu with phil and javier.  phil is quite the vampire aficionado, so he had all the background necessary to understand the film, the plot of which would not have been terribly comprehensible without his help.  and for a critically lauded film, it had quite a few errors in geography and continuity.  renfield in the insane asylum was grabbing bugs from the air with his right hand, and pretending to eat them with his left.  and according to phil, quite a few things weren’t in accordance with generally accepted dracula myths.

me:  wait, so you said that dracula kills lucy, right?  how come that hasn’t happened yet?
phil:  i don’t know.  she dies about a fourth of the way through the book, in the book.
javier:  phil, that was pretty redundant.
phil:  i know.  allow myself to introduce…myself.

also, we were making fun of nosferatu, or comparing it to other dracula movies we’d seen.
phil:  this scene was done really well in vampire in brooklyn.
javier:  that’s not how it happened in dracula: dead and loving it.
me:  so if you’re a vampire, you’re already dead.  or, undead.  what’s it called if you die again?
phil:  i think it’s un-undead.
javier:  or re-dead.

but it’s only fun to be a philistine if you’re not one in actuality.  nosferatu was really quite good; it was well-filmed and with some really good acting on the part of max schreck, i thought.  there was a shot of a venus flytrap that was particularly beautiful.  there were quite a few special-effect fadeouts that were probably revolutionary in 1922, and were still pretty effective. all in all, it was worth an hour and a dollar for rental, and now i feel like i’m all prepared to see shadow of the vampire.