Blog Post #1--Nosferatu
In her work on the history of the
vampire mythology, Nina Auerbach suggests that "every age embraces the
vampire it needs." Consider the changes which occurred to the
representation of the vampire between the Englishman Polidori's early portrait
in his 1819 short story and the German Murnau's (retelling of Bram Stoker's)
version just over a century later. What changes are most striking, which are
more subtle? How might these representations reflect the time and place that
they were produced? Choose one marked deviation of the vampire between the two
works and suggest what might have motivated each artist to have presented the
vampire in that way.
There is a tremendous difference between Polidori's "Vampyre" and Murnau's Nosferatu, but they could easily be overlooked by the naked eye. It requires a deeper amount of observation, with the focus on the culture relevant to the film's time period. One of the characteristics between them that is very apparent is their appearance. Nosferatu presented himself as a frail, awkward, and disarming gentleman, while Lord Ruthven seemed to be rather charming and suave noble. Nosferatu when exposing his vampiric form looked very frightful, while Ruthven had no such threatening appearance. A more subtle difference is the ethnicity of the two monsters. Ruthven easiily fooled his audience into believing he was an englishman. However, Lord Orlok possessed a very foreign facial structure in comparison. Ruthven seemed to be a terror that exists within a society, while Orlok was an invading force who immigrated within a society.
ReplyDeleteTheir very different visual qualities can represent the time and place they were produced. In Polidori's work, the dignity and charisma possessed by Lord Ruthven could signify the perception of noble folk during the time period in which the film was created. As for Nosferatu, the vampire's overall foreign appearance could have symbolized an uneasiness felt by the film's society towards those who resembled him, thus presenting them as a fearful creature. One marked deviation between the vampires is the way they harassed the population within the film. Nosferatu was perceived as a plague that swept across towns, while Lord Ruthven seemed more selective in his style of killing. Polidori may have presented Ruthven as a British elite who preyed on those of a lower class in order to represent corruption among British noblemen, while Orlok may have symbolized a perceived foreign threat.
I agree with you about the differences being overlooked by the human eye because if you were to just skim through these readings or not pay attention to the film there wouldn't be that many apparent changes. I agree that that Lord Ruthven didn't have a very threatening appearance, but in the story it said that people knew something was different about him.
DeleteI disagree with the statement that the differences between Ruthven and Orlok could be overlooked. To me, it is very apparent that the two vampires are extremely different. Besides the fact that they both drink human blood, have special abilities, etc., they lead totally different lives. For example, Ruthven hangs around in the extravagant social scenes; whereas, Count Orlok hides in seclusion in his castle.
DeleteNina Auerabach states, “Every age embraces the vampire it needs.” In Polidori’s early story from the 1800’s the vampire is part human and can’t die. Polidori portrayed Lord Ruthven as a vampire who sucks blood, but people weren’t scared of him because they didn’t know he was capable of doing this. In Murnau’s story Count Orlock was a walking corpse. Peasants were scared of him and knew he was trouble.
ReplyDeleteThe change that is the most striking the difference of people being scared of the vampire or not. Another big change would be that Count Orlock was already dead. In the beginning of “The Vampyre” Lord Ruthven is a human and isn’t dead yet. Vampires have existed throughout the world for a long time. Each author had a different representation of a vampire because they were in different areas of the world, different time frames and surrounded by different cultures. As culture progresses people change and the image of things change also. As time goes on the image of vampires continues to evolve and adapt to the culture surround them. The vampires from each of these stories did have some things in common like the dark and erotic aspect of them.
I agree with you that the difference between Count Orlock being dead and Lord Ruthven being alive was a huge change between the stories. I think this correlated with Lord Ruthven's ability to charm ladies and be, quote on quote, popular. Count Orlock's appearance and attitude, and also his being "a walking corpse," led to his avoidance of society unless he desperately needed human blood.
DeleteI also have to concur that that difference is significant. The fact that Orlock is already a corpse could symbolize a problem established within the culture which created the film. Maybe his undead state represents a problem that the culture recognized as a stagnant one. Or rather a problem that has lived beyond it's limits and should be destroyed?
Delete@Kali:
DeleteWhat problem might that be?
As commented on above, there are various differences between the Vampires. One most striking difference to me was their attitudes. Lord Ruthven was a dapper, suave, gentelmen who's appearance and swagger caught everyone's attention and intrigued the whole town. The women especially wanted to know who this strange but enticing man was. Polidori's "vampyre" had more human like qualities in it's manner.
ReplyDeleteMurmau's Nosferatu was a monster indeed. To me, in every way this man was creepy. His attitude was more monster like than human. I want to use the scene where he slowly rose from the coffin. His hands were in a claw like gesture and his facial expression was beyond scary. His attitude in the film seemed dark and mysterious. He immediately gave the impression of a monstrous person that you ought to stay away from.
I agree with your statement that their attitudes was the most striking difference. I think that their attitude is also connected to their appearance. Their changes in appearance, Nosferatu being monstrous and Lord Ruthven was a ladies man. The way people reacted to their attitude would most likely be based on their differences in looks and appearances.
DeleteAttitudes and appearances definately are tied or connected to one another. The appearance of the two vampires were complete opposite. Nosferatu's vampire was outfitted in a cloak and seemingly dark clothing throughout the whole film. His facial expressions in turn could be describes as dark an unwelcoming. Lord Ruthven's appearance attracted positive attention and reactions while Nosferatu's attracted negative attention and reactions. In other words, I agree with Allie's claim that attitude is connected to there very opposite appearances.
DeleteThe most obvious difference between the two vampires is their attitudes and the people's perception of them. Lord Ruthven was a lady-killer, literally. He was charming and had a way with the women of the towns he visited. Ruthven was able to smooth talk anyone and make them feel comfortable. Although he was able to mask his cold blooded killer persona with his swagger and way with words.
ReplyDeleteNosferatu on the other hand was not hip and cool. Everyone he meet saw that he was a monster. The peasants of the town were afraid of him. His appearance screamed monster. Nosferatu was just plain ugly and was not able to mask his true identity like Lord Ruthven did.
I believe that you are right by stating that the vampires' attitudes are the most obvious difference. The two are are supposed to be the same creature yet they can act so differently. With Lord Ruthven he is less obviously seen as a monster and he can fit in with society more easily than Nosferatu. Nosferatu's appearance alone gives him away as someone who is not normal and should be kept at a far distance from most people.
Deleteyes I agree with Grant and Lindsey, these two vampires have many many different physical qualities but that is it. Other than their physical appearance they are pretty much the same monster. They still cause fear and panic and murder human beings for food. These monsters are just like different food coloring in a cake. whether the cake is green or blur it is still a cake. these different physical apearences is just one way for the writers and directors of the film to apply an older monster to a newer time
DeleteLord Ruthven was the more mysterious of the two vampires. He looked like the average man and people wanted to be around him. Many didn’t even know why they found him so interesting; they were just drawn to him. He preyed mostly upon woman. He was deceptive and led women to fall in love with him. After he had seduced them he would kill them. Ruthven was also on the border of good vampire versus bad vampire. He helped out people but then would turn around and stab them in the back, metaphorically of course.
ReplyDeleteNosferatu on the other hand was ugly. He had long, creepy fingers and abnormal-looking facial features. People were not drawn to him but afraid of him. It was no secret that there was something strange about him. Nosferatu didn’t have a preference; he would kill men and women. Although we know in the end it is in fact a willing woman that is required. There wasn’t really anything good about Nosferatu. Unlike Ruthven, he wasn’t helping people and giving money to those who need it. He was the plague who killed massive groups.
I think these differences represent the slight differences in the fears of the people. The totally normal appearance of Ruthven represents the fear of our own kind being monster-like individuals. The strange and creepy appearance of Nosferatu represents our fear of the unknown and of “outsiders.” It also seems to be always targeting the fear of woman and not so much of men.
I think Lord Ruthven, like you said, does represent a fear of a monster existing in our "own kind". He did not seem to be much different than the rest of the citizens of the town, and he could easily attract those around him. It would be strange to think that someone, such as Lord Ruthven, so common and so appealing, could turn out to be a horrific and sinister being. I also think that Nosferatu represents a fear of those with which we are not familiar. We tend to shun people and things that are different from what we are accustomed. Because of this, these people or things appear to be outcasts, and they will continue to be unknown and mysterious or unused like the sidewalk described in "The Uses of Sidewalks, Safety" by Jane Jacobs. I believe that, until these outcasts are noticed, they will continued to be feared by the majority of what is common.
Delete@Meghan,
DeleteYou make a good point when you note that Ruthven's tastes were for women exclusively while Nosferatu's were more open, and I think more could be said on that front, especially in light of McCrae's approach. The "willing woman" was required for his destruction, but it is interesting that, given that Nosferatu feeds on men and women, the book calls for a "willing woman," rather than a "willing victim." Why do you think this might be?
Vampires have existed for years, and as the years go by, changes occur within their stories. Polidori's The Vampyre is considered the first story in which this horrific monster appears as Lord Ruthven. He chooses to prey upon virgin women and steal their virtue, and he can easily seduce them with his charm and gallant behavior. It seems that Polidori was trying to prove a point in showing the disfigurement of the upper class and nobility of the time. In Murnau's story, however, Count Orlok chose to victimize an entire town. Rather than drawing people towards him, though, the men and women for which he hungered turned away in fear of his abnormality and eeriness. Here, it is evident that Murnau was trying portray Count Orlok as the plague, as expressed in the article “Nosferatu and the Figure of ‘The Jew’ in the Weimar Germany" by Alex Karambelas.
ReplyDeleteA very big and obvious change between Lord Ruthven and Count Orlok is their representation. Lord Ruthven, described as dull and gray, had a redeeming personality. In this sense, he was very attractive. Women lusted for him, and he could easily charm them. Count Orlok, on the other hand, was unappealing in both looks and personality. He did not seem to have any redeeming qualities, for his face and body were grotesque and the way he behaved towards Hutter was peculiar and outlandish. A more subtle difference is the fact that one vampire could be defeated while the other could not. Lord Ruthven always seemed to be able to come back to life. After "dying" and giving Aubrey his oath, he later came back to life with a different identity. Count Orlok could be killed though. Hutter's wife Ellen discovered this after reading the little monster book. She, a virgin-llike woman, willingly gives her blood and life to the monster, causing him to see the sun and perish.
I think its interesting why the authors choose to let Lord Ruthven live but Count Orlok die. I believe that the death of Count Orlok was very important in representing the destruction of the Jewish population. It was a comfort to know that the Jewish population could be defeated. However, Lord Ruthven represented an unknown fear. The people had no idea what was going to happen to the world and their wealth. Therefore, it was important that Lord Rutherford , the elite society, win in the end. Both vampires represented what the writer wanted to happen.
DeleteI think both comments here draw attention to an interesting change. The viability of stakes and, later, daylight as means of destroying vampires accrue to the legend over time. What does this sudden vulnerability of the vampire suggest. I think Emily has a fair claim in the case of Nosferatu--if the vampire here stands in allegorically for a German fear of a Jewish threat, the monster, once invented, "must be staked," to quote Ingebretsen. In this sense, Polidori represents an outlier.
DeleteThis leads to an interesting confrontation in the critical literature we've been reading. If Cohen is correct and "the monster always escapes," what do we do with Nosferatu?
The portrayal of monsters adapts as time and various cultures pass. For instance, Polidori’s depiction of a vampire was a lot tamer. Lord Ruthven was half human, making it easier for him to fit it. The locals also did not realize that Ruthven was a vampire, and they did not fear him. However, he did end up being a blood-sucking monster. On the other hand, Murnau creates Orlock as a sort of living corpse. Unlike Ruthven, the people of Transylvania knew to avoid Orlock and not go near his castle, especially after dark. In the end, Ruthven and Orlock turn out to be similar in the sense that they both suck blood from humans, but Ruthven is a much more toned down monster compared to Orlock.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the differences reflect how time drastically changes a culture. “The Vampyre” was written earlier and is the more subtle depiction of a monster. Smaller things scared society in those days because they did not have any experiences that would cause them to need outrageous entertainment in order to be scared. However, as culture progresses, we become less amused by the smaller things. Therefore, Murnau felt the need to make his monster more outrageous and extreme.
i really enjoyed your points and the overall flow of your response. and agree with your thought of how much less it took to scare people of the past. overall very well written
DeleteIs this horror's long-term legacy, a social gut check? It's pretty clear that you're correct regarding the increasing visceral-ness of entertainment and especially the horror genre. It's worth looking into when this begins. If one could argue with comedy that the object is to find the line between good taste and bad taste and cross it without going too far, could we say the same with horror?--that the best horror is that which finds the border of culturally appropriate violence and pushes the envelope without being egregious?
DeleteI agree with Nina Auerbach that “every age embraces the vampire it needs.” Every age creates a vampire that is appealing to its audience. Of course the characteristic changes of each vampire from Polidori’s The Vampyre to Murnau’s Nosferatu are strikingly different. Lord Ruthven: a suave, sociable, sophisticated “ladies’ man” and Count Orlock: a frightening, lanky, horrific beast. To catch the audience’s eye in 1819, Polidori used a character like Lord Ruthven, however over a century later, the audience wanted to be afraid of the bad guy. The artists each created a vampire which would be desired by the two separate audiences, and Nosferatu’s audience, as Cohen explains in his thesis, believed “fear of the monster is really a kind of desire.”
ReplyDeleteRuthven and Orlock differentiate from one another in other ways. Ruthven associates with many people, taking on the form of an Englishman, whereas Orlock demonstrates a typical monstrous quality in associating with nearly no one. A less subtle difference between the two is that Ruthven’s victims are attracted to him, whereas Count Orlock must lure his victims in because his horrific appearance naturally scares them away. The similarities and differences between the two vampires from two different centuries show that as cultures change, so does the kind of vampires they desire to see.
I agree that the writers create a monster that is desired by the audience. People know what they want, so in order for a write to be successful, he/she usually want to write what is going to go over well with people. I also agree with the point that Ruthven's victims are attracted to him. This is not a difference I would have noticed at first, but now that you point it out, it makes total sense.
DeleteI suppose my follow-up question is this: if Nosferatu represents a "kind of desire," what is that desire? We would need to begin, perhaps, by identifying what we thought Nosferatu represents, and then assess in what way that fear is also a form of sublimated longing. After all, what could any of us envy in the figure of Nosferatu?
DeleteI feel as though the desire Nosferatu presents is the desire of the undesirable. No matter how much society hates something we tend to be drawn in by the oppositions this something presents like the example used in class of hate watching. We do this because we are intrigued by the ways in which one behaves pr is presented to society defying all of our morals and values that we hold so strong to. The fear given off from Nosferatu is the fear society feels when something or someone causes a disruption in our everyday lives. I'd say we envy the resiliance the way the character never conforms to the society in which it is placed but tends to grab everyone's attention.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteObviously, the monsters from these stories share many differences. Polidori's character, Lord Ruthven was not as "scary" of a monster. Usually, what makes a monster scary is their appearance along with their actions. To elaborate, in modern times say at the airport, security would not fear a clean cut well dressed man, but if an unshaven "terrorist" looking man came through they might take a closer look at him simply because of his appearance. To relate, the public does not fear Ruthven as much simply because he is not creepy looking. The fact that he looks like everyone else takes away from his "scary" factor. On the other hand Nosferatu is a sickly, creepy looking man who could easily be seen to the public as a monster. The author wanted to add to the fear factor of this particular monster and that is why he is seen as creepier than the vampire from earlier times.
ReplyDeleteI like how you incorperated a real life scenario, because it is true, there is a huge difference is the obivous monsters (e.g. Frankenstein) to the monsters of our society such as a terrorist. The "scary"factor of a monster is not always present, and it is those people who we should fear the most because they're the ones that will be taken by surprise. Like Count Ruthven, all of his victims were tricked, they had no idea he could cause any harm. At least with Count Orlock, his appearance and behaviors made people stay away, and they remained unhurt.
DeleteI think your point about how we base a lot of our fears off of what we see is both interesting and relevant. Perhaps the idea between a manipulative monster versus a straightforward-aggressive monster plays into what these two generations really fear. I think what one could bring out of this is that one culture fears concrete, or more so present "monsters" and the other fears the unknown.
DeleteThere's a light irony here, however. Does marking the "otherness" of the monster really make it more scary, or do we do this to avoid the greater fear that the monster can look like us? (We'll get into this further when we reach "My Friend Dahmer".) After all, "terrorism" (an increasingly complicated term due to its own inculcation within monstrifying rhetorics) has a longer pedigree than the Middle-East (think the IRA in Ireland or the ETA in Spain). By coordinating the monster into a recognizable form, do we attempt to establish our own ethical nature? E.g., "I do not look like the monster, so I must therefore not be monstrous."
DeleteI agree with the comment that we fear what we see. When folktales were passed on among people before movies and tv and technology, everyone had to use their imaginations to picture the fearful creature. Today in society, horror movies put the image of fear into our minds as we watch them, making the sight of them more fearful, instead of the thought.
DeleteThe idea of a vampire is represented differently in Polidori’s version and Nesferatu because of the differences in society. Polidoris vampire, Lord Ruthven, is a distinguished gentleman with an air of mystery while Count Orlock in Nesferatu is a creepy, stealthy man. Lord Ruthven invited the company of people yet Count Orlok repulsed them. Polidoris vampire won his victims with his charm and shroud of mystery. Count Orklok took his victims suddenly and by using the method of fear. Although these differences are quite obvious, there are minuscule differences as well. For example, Lord Ruthven was often exposed to human contact while Count Orlock was always alone. These differences set different a different mood to each of the vampires.
ReplyDeleteThe mood of Lord Ruthven represented a fear of an elite society. This vampire was created as a symbol of the power of the upper class at a time when men from lower classes were given opportunities to succeed. He is portrayed, as a wealthy, handsome mysterious man who receives whatever he desires even overcoming death. The author portrayed in this way to show that there will always be elite group in society. However, Count Orlok was created from a different fear. Count Orlok is a silent killer who leaves only death in his wake. He represents a society that lived in fear of a change in culture. The German people were afraid of the new Jewish immigrant population. Therefore, the image of a vampire changes with the fears of society.
After reading your post I found some things that did not come to me at first. For instance, I didn't even think about their surroundings being a part of who they are, and it is a very good point. Lord Ruthven was surrounded by more people so maybe that is why he got to pick his victims whereas Count Orlok just took whoever came into his path. This also makes sense when it comes to society. During the time of Lord Ruthven, they were afraid of people on the inside hence the monster being an elite in society. During the time of Count Orlok, they were afraid of people from the outside (Jewish immigrants) coming in and changing their lifestyle. The authors did a good job at portraying the fears of the culture at hand.
DeleteThere are many changes between Polidori’s vampire and the vampire Murnau depicts in Nosferatu. One of the more subtle changes that was made is in the personalities. The earlier depiction of the vampire was someone that people, especially women, were interested in but were still cautious with him. That is not the case in Murnau’s story. In Nosferatu the vampire is scary. People shy away from him and do not want to be near him at all. A more obvious change is how the vampires looked. In Polidori’s description the vampire is actually attractive. In the later story the vampire is creepy and pale.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that throughout history the image of the vampire will change to fit the situation that the culture is in. During the time Nosferatu was made the plague was a problem and the culture was scared in general. I believe that the movie used the fear and incorporated it into the movie and made it a scary movie to reflect what was going on during that time. With Polidori’s story, the vampire seemed higher up in society that an average person but underneath the mask he was just a killer. This is hinting that the noble people during the time that this story was written were not behaving in the way that they should have been. They acted in a dignified way but underneath that they were not even close.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree with the points you made about what each vampire reflects. The one thing I'm not sure about is if the differences in personality were subtle ones. The differences in personalities seem pretty obvious to me. I didn't see a whole lot of differences in the personality of Ruthven and the personality of Nosferatu but the ones I did notice were pretty big. Ruthven was a kind gentleman to others (not when he killed them of course). The Count on the other hand was feared by everyone. Maybe that was because of his appearance but I believe it also has to do with his approach towards others.
DeleteYou note an important continuity here between Ruthven and Orlock and that is their sustained wealth. In both cases, the vampire is wealthy, but in neither is the source of that wealth identified. Rather, we assume that the money comes as a form of legacy. Count Orlock/Dracula carries an inherited title, and likewise, Ruthven picks up such a title at the end of "The Vampyre" (although it's not clear how). Is there something telling in the fact that both vampires are "entitled"?
DeleteIt is interesting to consider Auerbach's statement when relative to today's generation. Polidori's vampire is very similar to today's vampire, in the way that they both value social cliques, nightlife, vices, etc. On the outside, both seem to be more human in lifestyle. Whereas, Orlok is more on the monster side of the spectrum. His appearance hardly suggests he has any placement among humanity at all. His deformities are the deal breaker between uneasiness and flat-out monstrosity. This suggests that the age of Polidori and of today value appearances; whereas, the early 1900's generation was possibly looking for a more shocking horror that had never been seen before.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement that Polidori's vampire and our vampires today are more human-like than monstrous in appearance. However, today's vampires are known to transform their appearances into more monster-like features when attacking. Examples would be fangs suddenly appearing, eye color changing, super strength becoming apparent, and other minor things like these. I think today we like to have the best of both worlds. We like the human vampire side, but also its ability to become a monster.
DeleteThis is a very good point, Mollie, and identifies a way in which the perception of the vampire has come full circle in some ways, beginning with the social butterfly with a deadly secret, becoming the monstrous loner, then returning to the parlor, but this time with a twist. Can we see something of the concept of envy behind this return? If Cohen is right, and "the fear of the monster is a kind of desire," has the desire to become Ruthven transformed into a moral reality in the newer vampiric representations?
DeleteNina Auerbach explains how every age embraces the vampire it needs, and gets the vampire it deserves. Auerbach defines these vampires based on the national experience during a particular era, and uses them to analyze that specific time period. With that being said, Murnau’s “Nosferatu” and Polidori’s “Vampire” are immensely different.
ReplyDeleteThey differ mostly in appearance and how society viewed them. Nosferatu is a daunting, disfigured man with long creepy fingers. He did not blend into society well, in fact everyone knew he was different and accused him of being a phantom. Even when Hutter said his name at the restaurant, it caught everyone’s attention and they advised him not to go. Lord Ruthven, however, had a very normal appearance, very human-like. In fact nobody even knew that he was different until the aftermath when someone would end up broke, heartbroken, or dead. What this says about the time period is that they both illustrate evils in different ways. A century before Nosferatu, Polidori’s “Vampyre” was a rich ladies man who killed. In this sense, evil was presenting more hidden, as if Polidori having the vampire be a symbol for sin. Maybe Polidori was even trying to symbolize the hidden sin within all of us. Nosferatu was more an evil figure because he was feared, he was a phantom. In the end, the vampires were the same, they both killed. They just differed in how the story got to that point.
This may be overshooting things, but in my opinion, Auerbach was correct that the vampire reflects the monster of its time period. Adolf Hitler joined the German Worker's Party in 1919, which marks the rise of the Nazi party in Germany. This is when the Nosferatu monster was born. During this time, violence was emerging and a “monster-like” figure such as Hilter was a reality. Just like Nosferatu, everyone knew he was evil, it was no secret that he was feared. Count Ruthven, who came a century before this time of world war, was more settling. The audience was in a society where violence and war was not actuality, so instead their monster was their own sin. The differences in these monsters goes beyond this theory, however the time period may demonstrate some explanation to why the author made them the way they are.
The two main differences between John Polidori’s illustration of the Vampire and Murnau’s interpretation of the Vampire in Nosferatu is one of a physical nature.
ReplyDeleteWith that said, in the novel The Vampyre written by John Polidori, the author paints the image of a Vampire as a Charming, Young and Wealthy Aristocrat. And this image is brought to life by Lord Byron, who is described as “handsome, frank, and rich” (1). Furthermore, Polidori created a creature that reflected the fears of the proletariat during that era, for during the time of this novel's publication, England was withdrawing from the Napoleonic Wars, and the poor/working class were experiencing a recession. Yet, just as always, the rich never go poor, even in times of economic failure. So Polidori crafted an irrational creature that could be used as a device to physically confront the Fears of 18th Century England; The Rich. For this creature is nothing short of a manifestation of Jealousy as the "fear of the monster is really a kind of desire" (Cohen, theses 6). In other words, the “fear” of this vampire is just a form of jealousy, for what man does not want to be wealthy, young, and a lustful desire for women? This could be indicative of Polidori’s attempt at defacing the image of the English aristocracy during the 18th century.
In retrospect, Murnau’s depiction of “The Vampire” is drastically different from Polidori’s – For even though Count Orlok is Wealthy, he is ghoulish, unhealthy, and definitely not a seducer of women. Count Orlok possesses Long ears, a Long Hooked Nose, and long Claws, Which is possibly an anti-Semitic sentiment.
In Summation, the most apparent difference is the difference is physical attributes. When Compared, Lord Byron is Attractive – While Count Orlok is revolting. Lord Byron is young – Count Orlok looks as if he is pushing about 80. Lord Byron is well liked – Count Orlok is abhorred.
I found your view point on this matter interesting, and while I agree with some of what you described, I also disagree with some. It's very clear that the two vampires' physical characters are vastly different from each other. As you mentioned, on the outside, they're almost polar opposites. However, while I do agree that Ruthven was meant to represent the society's fears, I don't think that the character was stemmed from Polidor's jealousy, but rather his extreme dislike. Polidori hated the hypocrisy of the upper class, the way they looked down upon the actions of others, but had in fact partook in the very same deplorable actions. He mentions the tours that the young gentlemen of society go on and uses them as a stepping stool for Ruthven's debasement to spawn. Ruthven represents the sinners, the falsified outside hiding the evil within. And like you said, Polidori is using him to deface the English aristocracy.
DeleteAfter further reading of John Polidori's "The Vampyre" I would have to agree with you. I relied too heavily on only ONE theme found in Jerome Cohen's seven theses, whereas your perspective seems to consider all of them.
DeleteI also said Lord Byron instead of Lord Ruthven. Sorry.
DeleteI don't know, I think Garret's got a point here. Even though Polidori hated Byron, it was in no small part due to his wealth and the attendant privilege it gave him. Polidori was a very accomplished young man, but the nature of the social strata of the time prevented him from being deferred to on the same level as better-born, but less worthy contemporaries. So while he channels this resentment into sardonic anger, there remains, I suspect, a feature of disappointed desire.
DeleteExcellent points all around.
Vampires are constantly changing over time, molding themselves to the fears of society. In 1819, status and social standing were everything. Families prided themselves on their good name; as long as men acted like gentlemen and women stayed pristine everything was fine. So, in that time, the scariest being possible would be one that could ruin all of that. Lord Ruthven is seemingly harmless, if not a little mysterious. He is charming, of high class, and a gentlemen to all who perceive him at gatherings. No one suspects him, and that gives him his power. Because of the citizens’ blinded trust of his perfect façade, he is able to slip into their lives and tear them apart from the inside. Instead of terrorizing the people with a bloody massacre, he does, what is to them, something much, much worse- he destroys their reputations. Ruthven prides himself on finding innocent young women and soiling them so much that afterwards their entire family is shattered. The best part is that he gets away with it. All he has to do is change his outside appearance a little bit and come up with a new upper class fake identity and the society welcomes him with open arms.
ReplyDeleteMurnau’s vampire, on the other hand, is a horse of a different color. In Polidori’s version, the vampire plays the role of a civilized, strong featured, gentleman of high society, Nosferatu, on the other hand, is meant to represent a more obvious, outlandish depiction of the monster, with characteristics similar to those of Jewish decent. This makes sense because in the 1920s, when this story took place, people’s greatest fears were war and the incoming immigration of Jewish people from the east. He plays on societies fear of plague and mass destruction, in a much less subtle approach than Ruthven. Instead of quietly terrorizing family-by-family, Nosferatu kills an entire ship of people and brings along his plethora of mice-ridden coffins. While there are a few similarities, in that they both prey at night and seem to have some control over the human mind, the difference heavily outweighs them. Ruthven’s cunning nature and ignorant peers allowed him to carry on his legacy, whereas Nosferatu’s lack of subtlety is his down fall in the end.
There are a lot of changes between the two versions of Polidori's and Murnau's vampire. The image of the vampire is almost totally different because in Murnau's version the vampire and the story around it symbolized Germany. Germany was in the era of propaganda and was using the Jewish people as scapegoats for their problems.They also feared a plague or invasion from the East.For Polidori's vampire, he represented the high class or upper class of British society then and how the rich only took care of themselves. Their image is also different because in Murnau's version people knew of him and feared him, but in Polidori's version the vampire was apart of society and people did not know of his intentions. Both artists used the image of vampires through time to represent a certain of era of time and the conflicts of that time.
ReplyDeleteYes I agree with most people here that they are different. Noted that the harder that you look into these two monsters the more you will find that is different, but at face value they are also very different. Rothven is a rich, social, smooth talking killer. In the novel he was depicted as someone who everyone wanted to be, or at least wanted his social status. This appearance gave him the ability to be sneaky and stay a mystery because no one suspected a man like him to be committing these crimes. Where Orlock is looks like a physical monster and is well known as a monster. Orlock was immediately depicted as a monster. He was still sneaky and mysterious in the film but in different ways. You can dive deeper into the differences and similarities and find more and more, but there are indeed differences at face value.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said above and find that there appearance can be connected to the time periods in which they were made. When you look at Rothven it was made when people had lots of money just as many nobleman did. When you look at Germany after the war it was a very bad time. This can be connected to Orlock's dark scary figure.
DeleteI agree with how you state that Rothven and Orlock have completely different profiles for a general monster. It also tells us that monsters can either represent literal monsters that are disfugured and don't look human, or figurative monsters that look like normal people but with a dark side.
DeleteThe vampires in both Polidori's 'The Vampyre'and Murnau's 'Nosferatu' are completely diverse. Polidori's description of the vampire Lord Ruthven is more subtle because he describes him as a handsome and enticing aristocratic seducer. Murnau's version of a vampire is more striking because of Nosferatu's physical appearance and his overall symbolism of the propaganda during the time period of which the film was released. Nosferatu's appearance in the film is of course entirely different than how Polidori described his vampire; by my description, Nosferatu appeared to have a bit of mixed representations of an Imp, a Goblin, and an elf-like vampire(because of the pointed ears).
ReplyDeleteI agree that the culture basically shaped how the authors made these monsters. Nosferatu was more creepy looking because thats what the culture saw as scary. While Polidori's character fit in well with society because the people watching it were not ready for such a creepy character on screen. Since motion pictures were new to the times it would have scared them too much, and they werent ready for such a change. But as times went on and as Nosferatu came out, the people were ready for something that would shock them even more and thats why he is so creepy looking
DeleteThe most striking change to me was the status of the vampire. In Polidori’s short story the vampire is a proper upper class gentleman. He walks with society while looking down on them. Everyone wants to be in his company if not for his money then simply for a piece of his affection. On the other hand, Murnau’s vampire is a hideous recluse that is feared by all. The director does not take any care in hiding who the creature is. This obvious labeling of who the monster is caught me off guard. The more subtle change is in the way that the vampires conducted their killings. Murnau’s vampire has a devious plan by disguising himself with the plague of the rats but Polidori’s representation attacks and disappears into the wind. I believe it represents the times that Polidori and Murnau live in respectively. In Polidori’s time, people come and go without any word. It is a place without the communication advances that modern times provide. On the other hand in Murnau’s time, the Jews were viewed as an infestation and that is represented in the film. Of the two representations I chose Polidori. His vampire has power in every meaning of the word as well as influence. He is a gentleman and lives a clean and proper life.
ReplyDeleteI really like how you point out the fact that people look down on him and want his affection. I would have liked to see you bring up the point of where they live. This helps back up the point you made on how they go about killing people because ones very secretive while the Ruthven going out in public like hes just a normal human, yet he is a killer.
DeleteGeolocation is a good theme to focus on. With that said, I would like to pose a question, Why was Transylvania an area that seemed to be the culmination of the culture's societal fears? If you recall, in Nosferatu, the barkeep references a Werewolf as well as other various phantoms, ghouls and goblins.Furthermore, why didn't the other characters focus on those fears as well? Why were they subject to a hit and run reference?
DeleteI agree with Nina Auerbach"s statement that "every age embraces the vampire it needs." Each age has its own specific fears at the time and they are reflected through the vampires in these stories. This is shown in Polidori's "Vampyre" and Murnau's "Nosferatu" which have several differences between them.
ReplyDeleteThe vampire that Polidori describes is a gentleman, wealthy, attractive, and very human-like. No one knows he's a monster just by looking at him. He causes commotion and trouble in the town he enters, symbolizing the people's fear at the time of Invasion and plagues in Germany. He steals, lures women in, and kills, but is never suspected of doing these acts. The vampire in "Nosferatu", however, is a totally different type of monster. His appearance is shockingly deformed and abnormal. He is known for his height and long, creepy fingers that always appear in the shadows. This generation was obviously wanting a more physically distinctive monster. People feared unsettling appearances, associating them with monsters. His slow movements are eerie and lets the audience know that something bad is about to happen. His actions are more obvious and everyone knows he is the monster unlike the suave Lord Ruthven.
Overall, both vampires are considered monsters. They both kill and cause trouble in the society that they are in. The main difference is the physical appearance and ways they go about their missions. The culture of the time is shown through these differences.
Smash, I like the point you made about how the image the vampire takes on directly correlates with what society wants at that time period. It is interesting to think about people needing a more literal monster character. I think that Nosferatu is definitely a good representation of what people fear. He is different. He is deformed and scary, and a killer. He is far more recognizable compared to Lord Ruthven. This begs the question though of why different societies in different time periods want different kinds of monsters. Food for thought.
DeleteI agree with Auerbach's statement and believe The differences between Polidori’s dashing nobleman and Murnau’s ghoul are so apparent there isn’t much that needs said or hasn’t been beaten to death on this forum as we all answer the same question. People in the 20th century weren’t looking for a gentleman who could fit into society with ease and entertain the higher class; they wanted something to fear and hate and Nosferatu did the job. This reflects the countries at the time as Britain even though just wrapping up the war of 1812 and still in wars with france and spain was still overall cheery; they still had the same wanting for stories of lords and ladies and the shinanagins of the rich. The mood was all too opposite in Germany during the twenties, they had just lost a war, weren’t in the best mood and just wanted something negative, scary, and dark with subtle undertones to distract them from the dismal present.
ReplyDeleteAh, but you see, while the question is the same, due to the deep well of possible examples, the answers can take various individual forms. For example, here you aptly historicize the two works, noting the differing senses of *optimism* between Polidori's England and Murnau's Germany--one a voyeuristic inquiry into the closed parlors of the upper class and the other a populism defined by external threat. You "answer the same question," to be sure, but to your credit, you make some moves to open the easy answers up to something more complex.
DeleteIn short: don't confuse initial resistance with the validity of an excuse.
The nobleman's nobleman is what Polidori was trying to create and he did very well. I saw the same thing with Nosferatu having to be something other than a gentleman. He was created in a time that needed a demonized monster with ugly features that cause fear. He doesn't want the dashing looks or respect or notority but instead remains satisfied with being a feared creature.
DeleteThere are numerous differences between the two vampires from Polidori's, Vampyre and Murnau's, Nosferatu. One of the main differences was how they were both perceived by society. Polidori’s vampire was a very mysterious unknown man throughout the society. Everyone wanted to know more about him, particularly the women. People were trying to get closer to him, not knowing who he really was.
ReplyDeleteMurnau’s vampire was very acknowledged throughout the society as a terrible man. When people heard of Hutter going to see him they warned him and he soon found out why. He wasn’t good-looking like Lord Ruthven and people wanted to stay as distant as possible from him.
I find your point that both vampires had a different effect on society very fascinating. Nosferatu was avoided at all costs by society and Lord Ruthven drew in women with his charm. Both men had completely different ways of carrying themselves in public. Ruthven was a true gentlemen that intrigued women. Nosferatu was just the opposite, withdrawing from society and lingering in the shadows of his castle. I also agree with your point that both men held different statuses within society. Lord Ruthven was respected as an upper class man who displayed his wealth with his clothing by wearing suits. On the other hand, Nosferatu's appearance, with his ghoul-like features and eerie fingers was looked down upon in society and many people steered clear of him knowing that his appearance was not a normal look for society.
Delete@Sarah:
DeleteBut Orlock remains a "Count," a noble title reflecting inherited property. Ruthven--first "Lord" then "Earl"--also expresses his ability to both inherit and bequeath title and fortune. Does their differing representations between the two films reflect changing social opinions on older feudal forms of social hierarchy?
There are big differences between Polidori's vampire and Nosferatu. The main one being their physical appearances. Lord Ruthven, from Polidori's The Vamprye, had a human appearance. He was a noble man and seemed like the average english nobleman taking his journey around England, when in fact he was a monster. However in Nosferatu, Count Dracula was obviously a monster. He had the apperance of a monster with his disporportionally long arms, his long pointed ears, his long fingers with claw like nails, his hunch back, and his ugly face.
ReplyDeletePolidori's The Vampyre was written during the industrial period. The infarstructure of the classes in Europe were changing. It was possible for anyone to become apart of the high class community. Polidori's vampire was representative of the higher class, although they looked clean and proper they were in fact the monsters of that time period. Nosferatu represented the antisemtisim of that time period, the rats in the movie were to represent Jewish people
The description about the vampires between each story. The short story which is written by Poladori which describes the vampire as a guy who blends in and the people really dont know he is a vampire. After every scene the vampire seems to leave and there is always a scapegoat. As viewed in the story written by the german Murnau's the vampire was described as a vicious monster. Yes, he did bite people which was indicated by the two spots on the neck of the characters. The death in this story was huge "plague" like deaths. The "Rats" which represented the jews because they were always around when there was death. The main thing is that the vampires were seen as totally different influences throughout a century change. They were once viewed as not very scary and almost gentleman like and then a century later viewed a monster that kills people and bites them.
ReplyDeleteAs we have mentioned throughout this course, as culture changes so do the ways of the vampires. One of the more striking changes between these two vampires is their appearance. Lord Ruthven, who seemed to fit in more with society, came across as a ladies man and dressed like an Englishman. He became friends with his victims, and after he got to know them, proceeded to kill them. Count Orlok was more distant from society and dressed in all black and took on more of a ‘monstrous’ look. He didn’t take time to get to know his victims, as Lord Ruthven did, he just found someone and the thirst took over.
ReplyDeleteAs we see these evident changes, we can also see how culture influenced them. During the time when Lord Ruthven came to literature, namesake was the most important thing. Lord Ruthven had high class and many wanted to be around him. People thought that he was a prime example of what a man should be. It would be very frightening to find out that someone who seemed to fit in so well could be so dangerous, so I think that during this time, having someone who could deceive all was the ultimate monster. During the time of Count Orlok, many people were afraid of the plaque. They ultimately thought that the victims of Count Orlok were infected with the plague and that was their biggest fear. Looking at these two ‘monsters’ it is evident that culture does play a vey important part. Writers are going to make a monster represent that cultures worst fear.
Murnau and Polidori's creation of the model vampire is based on the culture of the times that these works were preseted. Polidori displays his monster as a gentleman, a ladies' man, and a nobleman. Money and status were of central focus during this time. Lord Ruthven blends easily into the mesh of humans at any social event, but is unique enough to stand out. His physical appearance draws the eye, but his mysterious and alluring personality draws in curiosity.
ReplyDeleteAs for Count Orlock, Murnau displays him as unattractive and unappealing in every manner. There are no characters that truly long for his attention because they are very fearful of him. This is shown through his attire, his jagged teeth, his talon-like fingernails, his pointed ears, and his balding head. One can see that the culture of this time had different issues at hand. For example, the Jewish man who is blamed for the plague represents foreign affairs. Count Orlock, also known as "Nosferatu", represents the plague, or many plagues. When you break down "nosferatu" into its original wording "nosophoros", the literal meaning is "plague-carrier" (http://www.reocities.com/faustus_08520/Nosferatu.html).
Despite that both vampires in Polidori’s and Murnau’s stories kill their victims by sucking their blood, there are actually many differences between the two vampires and how they are presented to the audience. The distinctions between Polidori’s “Vampyre” and Murnau’s “Nosferatu” are easily seen by the way the vampires are visually presented to the audience. Lord Ruthven blends into society; while Murnau presents Nosferatu as an eerie outcast that all of society openly fears. Nosferatu hides away in his castle and keeps to himself, displaying an introverted, mysterious disposition. On the other hand, Lord Ruthven carries himself well and socializes with many women using his charm and poise. Lord Ruthven was not capable of being defeated in Polidori’s story. However, Murnau had Nosferatu killed in his story.
ReplyDeletePolidori and Murnau created two distinct versions of “vampire” in this particular way because they reflected their societies at the time. Polidori wanted Lord Ruthven to represent the problems the upper class possessed during that time period. Polidori victimized this portion of society. On a grander scale, Murnau used Nosferatu to represent the fear of the Jewish immigrants into Germany and the country’s want to drive them out. It is possible Murnau has Nosferatu killed in his story because it’s supposed to represent the death of the Jewish immigrants into Germany. Nina Auerbach’s quote that, “Every age embraces the vampire it needs” applies very well here, explaining why viewers of both films were so pleased with the outcomes and showed interest in the story. Society’s current worries and qualms of the time were displayed and then distinguished in the films. Polidori and Murnau come from vastly different time periods, as a result their vampires also reflect this difference and mirror the fears society had during that time.
There are distinct differences in the two vampires portrayed in Mernau's and Polidori's works. Polidori's interpretation of a vampire, Lord Ruthven, was a sneaky, reserved vampire. His true identity wasn't really known until the end, because he was a normal member of society and did not show his real desires in the beginning. On the other hand Mernau's Nosferatu was more blunt. Within the first night of being around Renfield, he had already showed his love for blood. The way in which these vampires attacked may represent the way people were during that time period. Such as the way the Jews were treated as a "plague" and were dealt with very quickly and obnoxiously during the time period of Nosferatu. The approach of both stories really show the ways everyone acted during that time. A representation of their true colors.
ReplyDeleteSome changes that I found most strikingly different from both pieces were that lord Ruthven was part human, meaning he could easily blend in and go unnoticed. No one suspects him of being a vampire so he can go and kill people without them even realizing it is him. He was in the higher to upper class which aided in the ability to show how the rich looked down upon those in lower level incomes. In stokers piece however the vampire was known and feared all of the time. Orlok was immediately seen as a monster and stood out in the crowd. Ruthven hangs out in the public while Count Orlok lives up in the hills in a secluded castle. To me I felt as though Polidori’s story was written after Nosferatu’s mainly in the clothing style and how Ruthven is dressed so much nicer than Count Orlok. But actually it’s the opposite Polidoro’s story was written first.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nina Auerbach's statement that "every age embraces the vampire it needs" because vampires are continuously changing and adapting to each fear or desire of a certain age or era. This is displayed in Murnau's "Nosferatu" and Polidori's "Vampyre".
ReplyDeleteThe most striking difference of the two vampires is their attitudes and how society view them. Polidori's vampire Lord Ruthven was a charming, wealthy, ladies man who turned out to be a blood sucking killer. While Ruthven was human like, Nosferatu appeared to be the total opposite. Therefore, Nosferatu was creepy looking, a more obvious representation of a monster.
Lord Ruthven represents the fear of your own people being monsters while Nosferatu represents the people's fear of war.
Your final comment seems the most compelling, but it remains to general. You claim that Ruthven represents an indigenous fear whereas Nosferatu represents an exogenous fear: how so?
DeleteThe obvious difference between Polidori's Lord Ruthven and Murnau's Nosferatu is the way they are perceived by society. Lord Ruthven is a suave Englishman who is wealthy and very charismatic. People really like Lord Ruthven and would never suspect him of being a monster until it is too late. Nosferatu on the other hand is just the opposite. He is a deformed creature-like being that people are afraid of. He hides in his castle and separates himself from society, and they do the same. This is interesting because they are both vampires, but society perceives them in very different manners.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Ryan and what he says because Ruthven was a englishman who was wealthy and very charismatic and also the people never did suspect him of being a monster til the very end which I also agree with. Nosferatu was noticed as a monster because he was very noticable and showed traits.
DeleteI agree with the different vibes each vampire puts off. Lord Ruthven would most likely fit in with the vampires represented today in the fact that he is very desirable and well-liked. Usually vampires are no longer portrayed as "creature-like" and disgusting. Vampires are usually always feared but not in the same way as Nosferatu.
DeletePolidori’s vampire, Lord Ruthven, was accepted more in society and was sneaky. He attracted women and was able to get out of any situation and not get caught. No one knew he was a vampire and murderer until the end. In Murnau’s story, Nosferatu seemed like a different creature. He was feared and oddly demented. The most striking change was their appearance. In Polidori’s the vampire seemed to look like a normal human but in Murnau’s he looked like a monster. Polidori’s was written more like a story. He wrote about someone that he knew and made him into a vampire in the story. Murnau made it more like a horror story. He wanted people to fear vampires and make it real. The vampire’s appearance might have changed through time because of people’s fears and likes. In older times they might have liked love stories and mythical stories better than horror stories.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on how Lord Ruthven blended in society and was able to lure women to him. Also I agree when you said Nosferatu was more feared and was looked at as a monster because of the time period he was in and what he represented.
DeleteNina Auerbach was right when she said "every age embraces the vampire it needs" and this can be seen throughout all the works we have studied thus far. Polidori's 1819 short story presented the vampire as a soft smooth relatable character. This vampire isn't one that many would fear at first glance. Whereas Murnau presents the vampire as a being to be feared, problematic.
ReplyDeletePolidori's representation of the vampire shows how they were first created to relate with society presenting them in a glamourous way rather than horrific. This depiction shows that the vampire was to entice the characters rather than scare them away. The vampire was to be one envied not for his appearance but his ability to appear as humanily as possible while having alterior motives. This vampire isn't what society would have viewed as an endangermentoff of just a glance. Polidori questions society's stereotypes, are the ones that have the fingers pointed at them really the ones we need to fear?
Murnau's vampire is presented as scary,created to present fear. This vampire represents the ways in which the abnormal cause questioning. This vampire is an outcast not one to be accepted but ran from. Murnau causes his audience to anticipate the actions of the vampire and the ways in which society deal with these disruptions. This vampire represents the major problems in society the ones we have such a hard time relating to off of first glance but then we find out that this vampire is in deed relatable.
There is a huge difference between Polidori’s “Vampyre” and Murnau’s “Nosferatu”. For one in Nosferatu everything about that guy screamed creep and over obvious that he was something not so normal. In Vampyer, Lord Ruthven was a totally opposite then Nosferatu. Lord Ruthven was very charming, noble, and blended in with society perfectly. Nosferatu was like that he didn’t really have a good cover up on who he was vs. Lord Ruthven. Lord Ruthven portrayed himself as a upright English gentleman.
ReplyDelete