Vampyr (1932)

Many early talkies aimed to take full advantage of sound, but some would have lost next to nothing as silents. Apart from some eerie, mysterious noises, Vampyr, the first talkie from The Passion of Joan of Arc director Carl Dreyer, falls in the latter camp. The music is nearly constant, several narrative intertitles appear, and it has about one minute of dialog in total. In fairness, dubbing was more difficult in those days: The same people had to speak or at least convincingly mouth German, French, and English for different releases. (I settled on German with subtitles.)

Dreyer didn't care for Nosferatu and resented Dracula for stealing his thunder in 1931, but I assure you that Vampyr is no retread. In fact, of the dozen films I've seen that include vampires in some capacity, it is probably the most singular and certainly the most artsy (eat your heart out, Warhol). It is also the most confusing, to the point that, for the first time in my life, I watched the whole thing again with commentary. Hey, it's only about 74 minutes.

Plotwise, it's neither complex nor original. Some heroes notice suspicious symptoms in sick or dead villagers, discover the truth of vampires, and do something about it. So what makes it confusing?

The presentation. Dreyer liked the subject of subjectivity and dispensed with the usual rules of filmmaking. You know how, when you see a character staring at something and then see something interesting, you assume it's his POV? Doesn't work here, most of the time. The cinematography defies mental mapping in a brand of surreality that reminded me of the sets in The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, only more subtle. Interposed cuts need not have anything to do with what else is happening. You keep asking yourself questions of what, who, where, when, why, and how, including "How much of this is in the protagonist's mind?" If this were a Hollywood project, I would deride it as clumsy if not lazy.

Those are hardly the only questionable decisions on Dreyer's part. Most of the actors had no acting experience; they had either aristocratic celebrity power (which didn't make Paris Hilton in House of Wax a hit) or the right look for the part. Note that "questionable" need not be bad, just daring. Sometimes underacting works better. The one halfway-major experienced actress, playing a victim who starts to lose her grip on sanity, does her part quite well.

Furthermore, the (main?) vampire herself gets little screen time or attention. We never see her attacks in progress; there's more focus on her assistant, who may or may not be a vampire himself. With no real climax, the intensity is basically always at a slow simmer. I dare say that the creepiest parts of the movie have nothing to do with either of them, being more along the lines of semi-minimalist mood setting with symbols, shadows, and potential hallucinations.

The included commentator is no expert on presentation. He drones and expresses too much uncertainty about both trivia (use IMDb, buddy) and which edition we're seeing. Nevertheless, I'm glad I listened to him. The parts that still confuse me at least have my aesthetic respect now that I have enough information. I just don't recommend hearing him on the first go-round, as he keeps talking about what will happen later.