Nosferatu Pt2
Curing media illiteracy, how to read a film, erotic dreams, and the displacement of sexuality in Nosferatu (2024)
It’s hard to say which came first: our so-called media illiteracy or the dumbing down of the media. Complaints about our inability to read, interpret, or discern irony, subtlety, and nuance are as old as art. What feels new is the expectation, on the part of both makers and audiences, that there is such a thing as knowing definitively what a work of art means or stands for, aesthetically and politically. This strikes me as a blatant redefinition of art itself.
- Namwali Serpell “The New Literalism Plaguing Today’s Biggest Movies”
There seems to be an expectation for filmmakers to provide their audiences the answers to the abstractions of their work. Whether it’s conscious or unconscious filmmakers talk down to the viewer and belabor the point to make sure that we “get it” (it also could very well be that they’re just bad filmmakers).
Serpell’s article outlines how literalism has become a violent plague to the art of filmmaking. By literalism, Serpell does not mean “realistic or plainly literal. [she means] literalist, as when we say something is on the nose or heavy-handed, that it hammers away at us or beats a dead horse. As these phrases imply, to re-state the screamingly obvious does a kind of violence to art.”1
Cinema is full of abstractions, complexities, nuance, and ambiguity, and as outlined in Serpell’s article audiences no longer want to have to chew their own food but instead want the filmmakers to chew it for them and spit it down their throats like a mama bird. But I think if more people knew how to read and interpret a film they would want something rich and tasty to chew on, like a really good movie with complex and interesting narratives. We can use the elements of a film (sound, cinematography, dialogue, motifs, costume, contextual elements, etc) as bits of evidence to help us interpret meaning and theme. When we understand how to interpret a film the richness of thoughtful filmmaking is much more appetizing, and the dumbed-down media of today will be as revolting to you as it is to me and Serpell.
In William R. Schroeder’s essay “A Teachable Theory of Interpretation” he gives a good breakdown of interpretation. His essay is not specific to film and he has some theories I do not agree with (e.g radical pluralism ((radical pluralism asserts that any reader’s response to a text is a legitimate interpretation of it)); albeit he may be using “legitimate” loosely.... but I’ve seen a lot of illegitimate interpretations out there).
He says “To interpret is to determine the text’s meaning; to evaluate, its values”2 (Italics are his). An interpretation is any critique that makes claims or hypotheses that explain the text and its implications. It’s important to form a proportionate interpretation that applies relevant elements of the story to the hypothesis. I emphasize “relevant” because the elements of the film as it exists within the runtime are of relevancy; external elements or ideas outside of what the filmmaker has presented are tricky to support because there is no context for them within the space of the film.
I’m not trying to dismiss popular discourse; interpretation, analyzing, and just talking about theory or art in general, indicates its significance, whether it be good or bad that piece did not go ignored. “Texts become richer when they are illuminated by strong interpretations. Just as people radiate greater energy in the presence of appropriate partners, so too do texts become more complete when given powerful readings.”3
Returning to my reading of Eggers’ Nosferatu; the film touches on cultural norms of the era and one could say of our own era as well: Sexual repression(!), yearning, lack, romance, and desire.
I saw Nosferatu a few days after the American release date. So much of my social media feed was clamoring about how this was the “horniest/sexiest film of the year”. I watched the movie, and yes there are brief sexual scenes but I don’t think Eggers intended to make the horniest film of the year. I think that’s a gigantic projection of the audience base; maybe all Gen Z folks —who have been deemed a “sexless generation”— are projecting their horniness onto the film and interpreting it as such. The vampire genre has always been somewhat erotic, this movie is no different, but it’s not a top contender.
Serpell mentions The Substance (2024) and other Oscar-awarded and nominated films that suffer from this trend of literalism. As I agree with Serpell, I also think literalism harms the audience’s embrace of and experience with film as art —it’s placating our bad habits. I think people thought that Nosferatu was the “horniest film of the year” because they’re used to the answers being given to them —films have become a sort of what-you-see-is-what-you-get experience and the image of Lily-Rose Depp on her knees at Nicholas Holt’s feet seems to be the only thing they got. This stupid sentiment reduces this well-made remake to a smut film about a horny group of vampire hunters.
What Eggers and all other good directors set out to do is to tell a story, plain and simple. All the pieces needed to interpret that story are given to the audience within the duration of the film. The filmmakers who give you the answers and explain it all away, in a didactic —sort of heavy-handed way, rob the viewer of being quizzical about art, and to use Serpell’s language, it’s “condescending”.
(She goes on to reappropriate Freud’s phenomenon of “repetition compulsion” as she asserts that the reproduction of art and history severs us from and diminishes our experience of it, and ironically my essay is about a remake 0_0... but then she goes on to say that there is a space between repetition and repetition where creativity can emerge and maybe Nosferatu is in that space…. I suggest reading the entire article.)
My interpretation of the 2024 film centers around the themes of sexual repression and the displacement of sexuality due to cultural norms. Elements such as Ellen’s night terrors, and the personification of evil contribute to the theme.
If you need a synopsis of the film please see part 1, matter of fact if you didn’t read part 1 go read that now and then come back right here, and I’ll save your spot.
Great, welcome back, I’m going to jump right into the film.
In the scene where Ellen and Count Orlok have their first face-to-face encounter, she accuses Orlok of “taking advantage of her” as a young girl desperate for comfort. Orlok asserts that his presence in Ellen’s life is to appease “an appetite, nothing more”. Using this scene we can theorize that Ellen's experience with Count Orlok began to fulfill a burgeoning appetite of desire. Ellen’s night terrors stem from a place of lack, a void that only Count Orlok can fill. According to Plato, we are all able to control our appetites of desire with practical conscious acts such as reason, but “sleep present[s] a dangerous moment. While reason slumbered the way was open for the savage part of the soul to break free and express itself”4. Thomas is Ellen’s waking version of reason, he is the reason Count Orlok was not able to penetrate her dreams when they were together, but when Thomas left, the void was reopened.
Additionally, Ellen is unable to find someone who understands her dark connection to the supernatural, except Professor of the Occult Von Franz (Willem Defoe’s character). Her terrors are commonly dismissed by a traditional doctor as symptoms of menstruation, hysteria, and or psychosomatic and caused by Thomas’s absence.
Here is where claims of the “horniest film of the year” are preposterous to me. Ellen writhes about in her bed in a way that could be interpreted as sexual or erotic, but if OP5 is claiming that this film is super horny based on her night terrors alone, that’s not supportive enough. To create a better foundation for this claim I would use the cultural setting as supportive evidence. As I talked about in Part 1 the original novel was published in 1887 and during that time culturally a woman’s sexuality was not openly expressed. So, Ellen’s night terrors could amount to repressed eroticism specifically because “The erotic nightmare consequently developed in the West as a culturally interpreted set of symptoms, verging on what anthropologists used to call a 'culture-bound syndrome' (Low 1985)...these complexes are not permanent cultural badges, but symptoms of [the culture].”6 Ellen’s night terrors could be seen as a sublimation of her longing for love and desire for Thomas, or even her unconscious yearning for Orlok. Again the erotic nightmare is a symptom —an attempt to purge repressed desire.
Ellen’s terrors are something any one of us could experience under the appropriate circumstances (I’m talking about repression, not if a vampire marries you in a weird ancient magical marriage ceremony) however Ellen is special, she is the one who holds the power over Count Orlok (as we see in the end). Ellen’s dreams predict and give eerie warnings that “he’s coming”. Ancient Greek dream interpreter Artemidorus “divided dreams into two main categories: enypnia and oneiroi. Enypnia directly expressed current desire or bodily states... Oneiroi, on the other hand, were prophetic dreams produced by the soul, or possibly sent by the gods.”7 Although Ellen’s dreams are prophetic, Ellen is not taken seriously by the men of importance in the town, they do not heed her warning that “he is coming” and thus the town suffers Nosferatu’s wrath. Dreams/night terrors/erotic nightmares/etc, etc are an extremely important recurring device, (a.k.a a motif) that helps us give a proportionate interpretation that deepens and sharpens our grasp on the film.
In the end, Ellen scrums to both her and Nosferatu’s desires, and it kills her, but it also kills Nosferatu and saves the world. I think there could be something to say there about sexuality, sexual fears and repression of the time, and the consequences of that desire...but that’s just off the top of my head.
I had a lot of fun doing research for this post and for the 2024 film in general, finding the links between ancient Greek dream interpreters and Eggers remake was exciting and made the film even more satisfactory. All of this to say is that a thoughtful interpretation can expand your understanding and appreciation of a film.
Serpell, Namwali. “The New Literalism Plaguing Today’s Biggest Movies.” The New Yorker, March 8, 2025. https://www.newyorker.com/culture/critics-notebook/the-new-literalism-plaguing-todays-biggest-movies.
Schroeder, William R. “A Teachable Theory Of Interpretation.” Essay. In Theory in the Classroom, 9–45. 1986. Page 12
Schroeder, William R. “A Teachable Theory Of Interpretation.” Essay. In Theory in the Classroom, 9–45. 1986. Page 25
Stewart, Charles. “Erotic Dreams and Nightmares from Antiquity to the Present.” The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 8, no. 2 (2002): 279–309. Page 285
OP is an acronym/slang for original poster, as in the author of the “post” you’re referring to
Stewart, Charles. “Erotic Dreams and Nightmares from Antiquity to the Present.” The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 8, no. 2 (2002): 279–309. Page 282
Stewart, Charles. “Erotic Dreams and Nightmares from Antiquity to the Present.” The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 8, no. 2 (2002): 279–309. Page 284