Tags: #wip Dracula (1931) Nosferatu - A Symphony of Horror (1922) Nosferatu (2024) Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979) Dracula and the Expression of Repressed Sexuality The Other Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)

References

What makes Dracula and Nosferatu different?

Hello, if you are reading this then that means that you're here on my website to read the script to my video. I'm gonna start doing a new thing where I share random little facts (or just straight up silly comments) and things that are somewhat relevant, but that I feel I could not add to the final video without it being a little distracting. They'll all be written in this code format with the grey text. Enjoy the random little factoids and commentary, have fun reading!

Intro

In May of 1897, Author Bram Stoker released the Gothic horror novel "Dracula". It's quite an interesting read, with a narrative told through many different letters, diary entries, and even newspaper articles, almost like an 1800s equivalent of a found-footage horror movie. This format is is called an epistolary novel. Now, over a century later, it's grown to be a massive success, Dracula's story has been told many times and over the past century he has become the Quintessential vampire. But, it wasn't always that way. Bram Stoker passed away in 1912, just 15 years after the release of Dracula. It hadn't yet taken off to be the international success it is now, which left his widow Florence in a financial struggle. Her only source of income at the time was the sales of Dracula, but that wasn't nearly enough for her to get by.

10 years later, a costume party was held in the Berlin Zoological Garden, where the German film "Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror" premiered. It terrified audiences and was praised for it's atmosphere and visuals. Reactions were generally positive, and it was looking to be a decent debut for Prana film, the production company behind it. There was only one problem with this success, the film was a completely unauthorized adaptation of Stoker's novel. Some changes were made as an attempt to avoid copyright infringement, such as character names and some plot details, but it would soon be made clear that their efforts were not enough to prevent legal action.

When word of this got to Florence, she took the matter to court and began demanding financial compensation. But, upon learning that Prana film hadn't made much off of it, she settled with all existing prints of the film being destroyed. She won the case and German courts ordered ordered her demands to be enacted, but it was too late. The film had already been passed around worldwide, and at that point it was impossible for every copy to be accounted for. So today, much to the dismay of the Stoker estate, you can watch it for free just about anywhere. There's several different uploads on YouTube, it's available for download on the Internet Archive, you can stream it on Tubi, heck you can watch the whole thing on the film's Wikipedia page.

In 2025 Nosferatu has become quite relevant again with the release of the Robert Eggers remake at the end of 2024. Many horror fans are viewing it completely unaware of the history, or that it's even connected to Dracula at all. Is Nosferatu the same as Dracula? Well, yes and no. It is an adaptation, it's very similar in many ways, but I think it has made it's own unique identity. There's a reason that Eggers made a Nosferatu film and not a Dracula film. So, after seeing the newest film a few times as well as watching and rewatching a bunch of other films, I decided to take it upon myself to do a sort of analysis about what differs the "Nosferatu" name from the "Dracula" name.

Plot Synopsis

But before I do that, it's probably important that we all know the basic plot of both the original novel and the 1922 film. There will be spoilers for these two things ahead, as well as pretty much every adaptation based on them, so continue watching at your own discretion.

Dracula Synopsis

Our story begins with the diary of Jonathan Harker during an unspecified year in the 1890s. Jonathan, an English solicitor, is on his way to Transylvania to visit Count Dracula, and assist him in purchasing property in England. During his travels he encounters many locals warning him to stay away, or giving him crucifixes and other charms to ward off evil, while speaking of unnerving superstitions. Nonetheless, Jonathan continues on his journey, and after boarding the count's carriage and nearly being attacked by wolves, he arrives at the castle.

The Count introduces himself, and Jonathan perceives him to be quite well educated, and a generous host. This is until the first of many strange incidents occurs. While Jonathan is in his quarters shaving by a window, he is startled by the Count greeting him. This is quite odd to Jonathan, as he did not see the Count approaching in the reflection of his shaving glass. Jonathan had accidentally cut himself in the process, and as the blood began to trickle down his chin the Count suddenly reaches for him, until he comes in contact with the crucifix around Jonathan's neck. He then backs away, telling him to be careful with cutting himself, and then proceeds to throw Jonathan's mirror out the window. This is when Jonathan comes to realize that something pretty weird is going on, and he starts to see himself as more of a prisoner in this castle than a guest.

As Jonathan continues investigating his situation, he comes to realize that the Count has some kind of supernatural and inhuman abilities, like crawling around the outside of the castle like he's Spider-Man. One night, Jonathan chooses to directly disobey the Count's orders at a time he knows he will be away, and Jonathan is nearly killed by three beautiful and seductive female vampires. Luckily, before they can do anything, they are stopped by the Count, who tosses them a living infant child in a bag to feast upon. A couple weeks later, Dracula takes a ship called the Demeter to England along with fifty boxes of earth, and Jonathan attempts to escape the castle.

We then go to England where we read a conversation through letters between Jonathan's Fiancée Mina Murray and her friend Lucy Westenra. Lucy is in a situation where she has to choose between three men that have asked for her hand in marriage; Dr John Seward, an administrator at a psychiatric hospital, Arthur Holmwood, a young heir, and Quincey Morris, a young rich American man from Texas. She chooses Arthur but expresses her sadness having to reject the other two, and they all remain friends.

Mina goes to visit Lucy in a town called Whitby, where a ship has wrecked onto the shore. The ships crew is missing, the captain is dead, and the only cargo aboard is fifty boxes of earth. Soon after, Lucy begins sleepwalking, and is found in a cemetery with two red marks on her throat. She is being preyed upon by Count Dracula. She becomes incredibly ill, and is left bedridden. Dr. Seward attempts to tend to her but is stumped, so he calls for his old mentor Professor Van Helsing. Around this time, Jonathan reappears in Budapest. He is suffering from a severe brain fever, and Mina leaves Whitby to visit him.

Van Helsing arrives in Whitby and assesses Lucy's situation. He decides to take traditional preventative measures against vampires, covering her room in garlic. They start performing blood transfusions as well, and she begins to recover. But her mother, completely unaware of the purpose of the garlic, removes it from the room, leaving Lucy vulnerable to attack. A wolf breaks into the home, shocking Lucy's mother to death, and Lucy's health begins to decline again. After many more blood transfusions and attempts to save her, she sadly passes away.

Lucy's burial is held, and soon after newspapers are reporting children being stalked and lured away in the night by a so called "Bloofer Lady". Van Helsing believes this "Bloofer Lady" to be none other than Lucy, and leads Arthur, Quincey, and Dr. Seward to her tomb, telling them that she has been transformed into a vampire by Dracula. They arrive and when they witness her preying on a young child, decide she must be taken care of. They free her soul by driving a stake through her heart, beheading her, and stuffing her mouth with garlic. After this, they pledge to destroy Dracula as well.

Mina and Jonathan return to Whitby now married and join the group of vampire hunters, currently operating out of the hospital where Dr Seward works. They collect all the diary entries, journals, and letters that they've individually written to learn all they can about Count Dracula. They determine that the 50 boxes of earth the Count came with are the only place he can safely rest, so they track them down and place bits of consecrated wafer in them. This effectively sterilizes them, making them uninhabitable and forcing the Count out of hiding. Things are going well, until a man named Renfield, a current patient of Dr Seward and servant of Dracula, lets the Count into the institution where he begins targeting Mina. She starts a slow transition into a vampire much like Lucy did before her.

At this point almost every box of earth has been sterilized, and the group makes a plan to trap the Count at the site of the last box. Unfortunately their plan doesn't work out, and the Count boards another ship, making his way back to Transylvania. Our vampire hunters make haste and follow closely behind. They split up; Jonathan and Arthur travel at sea to pursue the Count's ship directly, Quincey and Dr. Seward follow them on land, while Van Helsing and Mina start to make their way to the castle directly in an attempt to cut the Count off. When they arrive at the castle, they begin to sterilize it similar to the boxes of earth. They seal off the entrances, and Van Helsing kills the three female vampires that tried to attack Jonathan much earlier in the story.

Once Dracula gets closer to his castle he is loaded off of the ship and onto a carriage, and the men following start to close in. Just as Dracula is about to arrive at the castle, Jonathan and Quincey fight their way through the men aboard the carriage, and throw Dracula's box to the ground. Quincey is badly injured by one of the carriage men, but they back down when Arthur and Dr Seward draw their rifles on them. Dracula's box is ripped open, and in one quick move Jonathan slashes his throat while Quincey plunges a knife into his heart. Dracula crumbles to dust, Quincey succumbs to his injuries and it's over, just before nightfall.

Seven years later, Jonathan Harker leaves a note saying that he and Mina had a son that was born on the anniversary of the day that Quincey Morris died, and hoping that he will share the same brave Texan spirit, he is named Quincey. And just like that, Bram Stoker's "Dracula" comes to an end.

An unauthorized adaptation

As we go into a synopsis of the 1922 film Nosferatu, I'd like to again remind you that the film is heavily based on and inspired by the novel that we just discussed. Many things, especially in the early plot, might seem like I'm repeating everything I just said. However, there's plenty of notable changes throughout the film, even in the earlier plot moments. The most obvious of these changes would be the character names. Count Dracula is instead Count Orlok, Jonathan Harker is now Thomas Hutter, and Thomas' wife Ellen Hutter does a bit of double duty, taking the role of Mina and Lucy merged into one.

There are more comparisons that could be made, but most other characters are either much less significant to the plot in this film, or play a completely different role. These three, are definitely the most important and most direct comparisons. I'll mention any other notable character connections as they come up in the synopsis.

Nosferatu Synopsis

The year is 1838 in a fictional German town called Wisborg, and Thomas Hutter is a young real estate agent that's about to be presented with a great opportunity. His boss Herr Knock (our Renfield stand in) wants to send him to Transylvania to assist Count Orlok in purchasing a new home, a home that is coincidentally right across the street from Thomas'. He goes home and tells his wife Ellen the news of his travel as he begins excitedly packing his things, but Ellen appears to be devastated by his departure. Thomas sends Ellen to stay with his friend Harding (this film's version of Arthur) and his sister Ruth (who you can interpret to be Lucy instead of Ellen if you'd rather).

After saying his final goodbyes to Ellen, Thomas begins his journey towards Transylvania, and on his way stops at an inn just outside the Carpathian mountains for the night. He is greeted with a warm welcome and all is well until he mentions his destination, and the mood becomes much less joyful. He's warned not to go any further, and even told that a werewolf roams the woods ahead. But Thomas completely disregards their warnings and laughs them off. When he goes to his room, he picks up and reads a book on vampires, telling him of the danger, which he also disregards, and places it in his bag. He actually just throws it on the floor only for it to reappear in his bag later in the film. His complete and utter disregard for the warnings the universe is sending him baffles me.

The next morning he boards a carriage and continues making his way to the castle. As they get closer, the carriage stops, telling Thomas they will go no further as it is too frightening up ahead. For a time Thomas continues on foot, but it's not long until he is picked up by a mysterious dark carriage driven by a strange man, who takes him the rest of the way. He enters the castle and is greeted by Count Orlok, who looks eerily similar to the man driving the carriage that we just saw leave.

The Count invites Thomas in for dinner, he accepts and eats while Orlok looks over some of the property documents. A clock begins to chime, and Thomas accidentally slices his thumb, beginning to bleed a little. Orlok becomes fixated on it and attempts to consume Thomas' blood, frightening him and backing him into a corner where he falls asleep. He awakes the next morning discovering two marks on his neck. He seems completely undisturbed by this though, writing to Ellen after breakfast saying he believes they are mosquito bites.

That night, he continues his business with Orlok, looking over more documents and discussing the property. A locket with a portrait of Ellen falls out of Thomas' coat and the Count is fascinated by it. He examines it closely, says that she has a lovely neck, and confirms the transaction purchasing the home across from theirs. Later in his quarters, Thomas looks at the book from the inn again suspecting that Orlok might be a vampire. The clock strikes midnight, Thomas peers out the door and witnesses Orlok staring back at him from across the hall. He closes the door and tries desperately to hide under the covers of his bed, when the door starts to open on its own and Orlok enters.

(By the way, if any of you know where I can get a clock like the one in Orlok's castle, please let me know.)

At the same time back in Wisborg, Ellen begins sleepwalking, balancing on the railing of her bedrooms balcony. Harding witnesses this and brings her back to her bed calling for a Doctor. Ellen has visions of the Count approaching and preying upon Thomas, and calls out her husband's name. Orlok somehow hears this cry, and retreats. A doctor named Sievers (this films version of Seward) arrives, diagnosing her with blood congestion, completely disregarding her experiences and fears.

The next morning, Thomas awakes safely and explores the castle. He discovers a coffin in a crypt, and opens it up to discover Orlok inside. He retreats back to his room in fear and stays there all day. At night he peers out the window and witnesses the Count loading many coffins onto carriage, and climbing into one himself as the carriage leaves the castle. Fearing for Ellen's safety, Thomas begins to make his escape but injures himself in the process, waking up in a hospital and rushing back home.

Orlok's coffins are loaded onto a ship called the Empusa. The ship is making it's way to Wisborg, and although the crew open one of the coffins and discover it to be full of rats, they transport it nonetheless. Once at sea, sailors aboard the ship begin to fall ill and die one by one as the Count slowly takes control. As the ship approaches, Knock, who has now been admitted into Sievers' Psychiatric hospital, begins acting up. He starts catching flies out of the air and eating them, proclaiming "Blood is life!" repeatedly. Thomas in a carriage, and Orlok aboard his ship, arrive at Wisborg in unison.

Ellen is caught sleepwalking by Ruth, and she says "I must go to him. He's coming!" although it is unclear if she was referring to Thomas or the Count. Knock escapes his confinement and starts making his way to Orlok.

Orlok exits the ship, carrying one of his coffins, and moves into the home that he purchased. Harding, who works at the shipyard, investigates the ship with others, and when they discover a journal kept by the captain, they become aware of a plague that was spreading throughout the ship, and inform everyone to stay indoors. However, the rats aboard the ship have already begun spreading, and many townspeople are now dying.

Ellen decides to read the book that Thomas brought from the inn. It states that a vampire can be destroyed if a pure-hearted woman distracts it from the rising sun by offering her blood of her own free will, and she chooses to do this. That night, Ellen fakes ill and tells Thomas to find Professor Bulwer, a physician, and the closest character to "Van Helsing" in this film.

Ellen throws the windows open, inviting Orlok in. He creeps his way in, and as Ellen falls under his shadow he begins to feast on her blood. He's unable to resist, and at dawn he is caught in the sunlight. He vanishes in a puff of smoke, defeated. Thomas returns just in time to quickly embrace Ellen in her final moments, and she passes away.

One final text card shows on screen, "And the miracle shall be told in truth. At that very hour, the great death ceased and the shadow of the vampire vanished, as if overcome by the victorious rays of the living sun." We then see a shot of Orlok's castle, crumbled and ruined, and the film ends.

Surface Level Differences

Now that we've gone over the plot of the novel, and the original Nosferatu film, we're going to address some of the most obvious changes. Many characters have different names, some characters are reduced to minor and unimportant roles or even completely absent, the primary setting is Germany instead of England, and Orlok had a pretty significant change in his design compared to his description in the book.

All these changes could easily be written off when you take into consideration that they were trying to avoid copyright infringement. But, when Orlok arrives in the second half, we get some pretty major changes to the plot that seem much more intentional. If you came to this expecting a 1 to 1 adaptation of the novel, you'll be unpleasantly surprised by a severe lack of vampire hunting. They don't pursue him across countries or make their way back to Transylvania, they don't ever form heroic team, and there's no real Van Helsing character to organize or lead any of this.

There's no mention of a plague in the novel, and Nosferatu features zero characters being turned by the Count. Orlok dying in the sunlight (a trope that this movie invented by the way) is completely different from how Dracula is defeated, and perhaps most important of all, there are no young, wealthy, attractive Texan men in the film. Poor Quincey didn't make the cut.

You could probably spend a whole day picking apart all these surface level changes, but I think that they point to something bigger. So, we're going to move our attention to the thematic differences between the two, I believe that this is where the real answer lies.

Themes in Dracula

Because the 1897 novel is the source material that at least influenced a lot of we will be talking about today, we're gonna cover it with a bit more depth. A lot of what we're about to discuss can be applied to pretty much everything else after this in one way or another, including the Nosferatu titles, so just keep that in mind as we move forward.

The Novel

The original 1897 novel can be interpreted and analyzed in countless ways, and it has been over the years. This novel has had so many critical pieces written on it it's crazy. But most analysis is rooted in Victorian era norms, and fear of things that differ from these norms, or "The Other". We're gonna explore this concept more fully in a bit, but first we are going to start with:

Sexuality and Gender

Sexuality, and gender are some of the most frequently analyzed themes in the novel. There is a lot to be discussed here, and this one section by itself will probably be the biggest section of the video, but still won't cover everything. If you'd like to learn more about it, I'd highly recommend doing your own research. There's plenty of videos and articles on this very topic, I'll even link one in the description.

The New Woman

Victorian England had very strict and prominent gender roles. Women were expected to be chaste until marriage, and then completely submissive to their husbands, having virtually no agency in their own sexuality, or really anything for that matter, as it was a very male dominated society. But, at the tail end of the 19th century there was a feminist movement built around the term "new woman". The book "Alice Freeman Palmer: The Evolution of a New Woman" by Ruth Bordin sums it up really well, saying:

"The term New Woman always referred to women who exercised control over their own lives be it personal, social, or economic."

Bram Stoker writes Lucy and Mina to represent two different depictions and aspects of the new woman, and after being targeted by Dracula and beginning their vampire transformation, this becomes much more clear. Lucy represents a sort of radically sexualized new woman, she's quite curious and feels restricted by what is expected of her. This is shown after she receives her three proposals, when she expresses her desires:

"Why can't they let a girl marry three men, or as many as want her, and save all this trouble? But this is heresy, and I must not say it."

Although this reads in a sort of playful manner, her comment afterwards saying that it's heresy for her to express this makes it seem like it's a very real and genuine desire she has and wishes she could explore. This might seem a little tame for me to say that she is "radically sexualized", but for Victorian standards, I guess this really was crazy enough to be described in that way, especially once she is turned to a vampire and all of her traits are amplified. We can read her vampirism as a sort of sexual awakening, choosing to act on her heretical desires and take control over her own life.

When Van Helsing leads the gang to her tomb to "free her soul", they discover her preying on a child, showing us that she has completely defied the maternal expectations of women. Dr. Seward describes her vampiric state as heartless, cruel, and impure. He even uses the word "wanton" two times, which is just a dated word that basically means lewd or immoral, and at the time was even used as a noun for prostitutes. If we continue viewing vampirism as an allegory for the new woman, and Lucy's sexual awakening, then we can take all this description very literally. This gives their goal of "freeing her soul" a very different meaning.

Lucy is violently killed, with a stake driven through her heart and her head removed. The three men that were once her suitors feel as though they lost control over her, so they demonize her, and attempt to reclaim this control and restore her purity, or "free her soul", by taking her life.

Mina embodies the new woman in a way that simply put, was more socially acceptable. She's educated, intelligent, and resourceful. She's skilled in shorthand, she knows how to use a typewriter, and is a self described "train fiend", always paying attention to the time tables. Even Van Helsing is impressed by her, calling her a "wonderful woman". However, just like Lucy, she too is preyed upon by Dracula, and begins her transformation into a vampire. She's even marked "unclean" with a red scar on her forehead, left by a sacred wafer.

But where things differ from Lucy is the way that things are handled by the men around her. Because of Lucy's "wantonness", she is demonized and hunted. She's destroyed by the men that view her as too far gone, and at a point where her only chance of redemption is to be "freed" in the way that they see fit. Mina is different. She doesn't reject many traditional feminine values of the time, like devotion or modesty. She's very faithful and supportive of her husband, and strives to remain pure emotionally and morally. She tries her best to fight against Dracula's growing control, and never fully succumbs. The men around her might not fully agree with her behavior, but they believe it to be more appropriate than Lucy's, so they determine that she can still be saved.

Homoeroticism

In the Victorian era, women weren't the only ones with social expectations, their were standards for men as well. As a man you were expected to be strong, honorable, stoic, you were to be a provider and protector, but perhaps most importantly you were expected to be 110% heterosexual. It's a common belief that Bram Stoker was perhaps a gay or bisexual man, struggling with his identity and the standards of the Victorian society he was a part of. If this was the case, he couldn't let anybody know. If you were discovered to be anything but heterosexual it would be incredibly scandalous. You'd be exiled, or even criminally charged. On April 6th, 1895, this is exactly what happened to the Irish author Oscar Wilde, who was arrested and later imprisoned for gross indecency and homosexual acts.

Bram Stoker was very good friends with Wilde, they were often in the same circles, and the two were also in a bit of a love triangle for a time. You see, before Florence Balcombe became the wife of Stoker, she had been in a pretty serious relationship with Wilde. After going on their first date they were absolutely smitten with one another, but when Wilde started attending Oxford University they didn't ever share quite the same relationship again. This is when Stoker arrived, and he and Florence were married in 1878. Wilde was devastated by this for a while, but in time he was once again friends with the couple.

However, it was rumored that Florence and Bram's marriage was sexless. This in combination with Stoker and Wilde's history and continued friendship after the marriage leads many to believe that Bram Stoker was a closeted gay man, and that his marriage to Florence was actually a sort of social stunt to hide the real relationship between Stoker and Wilde.

That's not the only evidence that suggests this either. On February 18th, 1872, a 24 year old Stoker wrote a nearly 2,000 word letter to the American poet Walt Whitman. (The same guy that's mentioned in Breaking Bad a few times 💀) This letter goes far beyond your typical fan-mail, even opening by telling Whitman:

"If you are the man I take you to be you will like to get this letter. If you are not I don't care whether you like it or not and only ask you to put it into the fire without reading any further."

If this were just an average piece of fan mail, that would be a really weird way to start. But this instead suggests that Stoker has to hide the contents if Whitman is not to be trusted with what will be revealed here. The letter overall reads very intimately, even romantically. Stoker is deeply vulnerable and emotional, and he seems almost desperate to connect with Whitman. For instance, the second to last sentence in this letter says:

"How sweet a thing it is for a strong healthy man with a woman's eyes and a child's wishes to feel that he can speak so to a man who can be if he wishes father, and brother and wife to his soul."

Stoker writes that he sees a lot of qualities in Whitman that could put him in many different positions. Sure, a father figure or a brotherly relationship isn't too far out there, but then he ends the thought by saying that Whitman could be a wife to his soul. I dunno about you, but that seems pretty suspicious. Stoker didn't actually send this letter till just short of 4 years later.

On February 14th, 1876 (Just being completely honest, writing this on Valentine's day is not helping with the gay allegations) Bram Stoker picked up the pen and wrote another letter to the poet. This second letter feels more like a typical piece of fan-mail. It's much shorter, much more mature, and not quite as direct as the original, while still carrying some of the intimate moments. However, that all being said, this second letter acts more so as an introduction to the letter from 4 years prior, which he enclosed as well.

If you'd like to draw your own conclusion on Bram Stoker's sexuality, I'll leave a link in the description where you can read both of these letters, as well as Walt Whitman's response. But for now I don't want to get too deep into it. For now, I just want to ensure that you have enough background knowledge on Bram Stoker's potential struggles with his sexuality so we can understand that "Dracula" has many moments that are potentially an expression of Stoker's own deeply hidden and repressed desires.

There are several scenes and ideas in the novel that you could argue support this claim, but for this video I just want to talk about one. The scene where Jonathan is attacked by the three female vampires, or as they're often called Dracula's wives, in the Count's castle. In this scene, Jonathan had fallen asleep outside of his assigned quarters, something he was expressly told not to do by the Count. Now, he's suffering the consequences. He was awoken by Dracula's brides, unsure if the events that are happening are even real or a dream. They approach and advance upon him while Jonathan remains a passive victim. Very similar to Lucy in her vampiric form, they are described as both beautiful and frightening, Jonathan writes himself:

"There was something about them that made me uneasy, some longing and at the same time some deadly fear."

Now we could read this the same way as we do with Lucy. Bram Stoker is trying to convey a fear of the unnatural and frightening expression of female sexuality and desires. We are meant to see these three as the utterly horrifying "New Woman". But, I think there's another way that we can choose to look at it given what we know about Stoker, and the way that it is written.

This scene flips the traditional gender roles of the time. As we've discussed already, in the Victorian era women were expected to play a more submissive role to the advances of their husband. Here, we have the exact opposite. Jonathan remains passive, and doesn't fight back against the advances of Dracula's brides. He expresses that he's both thrilled and terrified, repulsed even. One of them bends down over him and presses her teeth to his neck, and right at the moment Jonathan would have likely perished, the Count steps in.

"How dare you touch him, any of you? How dare you cast your eyes on him when I had forbidden it? Back, I tell you all! This man belongs to me! Beware how you meddle with him or you'll have to deal with me."

Now the homoeroticism in Dracula's very strong and possessive language here is pretty clear. But taking into consideration the swapped gender roles, Stoker's own history and sexuality, and how sexuality was handled in the Victorian era, I think that this whole scene can be seen as the fear a gay man would have sleeping with a woman. Perhaps this is how Stoker felt in his own marriage, and how it ended up being "nearly sexless" the way it was rumored to be. Maybe he felt captive trapped in a relationship that he didn't necessarily want to be in, but felt forced into by the world around him. Maybe he had a secret wish that an alluring foreign man would come save him, I dunno.

Science, Religion, and the Paranormal

During the Victorian Era, and the larger 19th century as a whole, society saw a rapid growth in scientific understanding and technological progress. In 1859 Charles Darwin published "On the Origin of Species" creating the foundation of evolutionary biology. About a decade later, the periodic table was introduced by Dmitri Mendeleev. Anesthesia was used in surgery for the first time in 1842, and 1889 saw aspirin patented. Thomas Edison patented incandescent light bulbs in 1879, and just a few years later the streets and homes of London and New York were lit by his bulbs. These advancements, along with several others, were actively and radically changing the way that people lived day to day, and our very understanding of the world around us.

By the way, in the year 1890 the cardboard box was invented by a Scottish man named Robert Gair. I almost feel like they should be more recent than that.

Alongside these scientific advances was a growing fascination with the supernatural. The Spiritualist movement began in the mid 19th century and it was gaining widespread practice throughout Western countries. Within the movement it was believed that the spirits of those that have passed would continue to evolve, that they have a greater understanding, and that they could be contacted and communicated with by just about anyone with enough study and practice. This communication was done through seances, automatic writing, and very famously through Ouija boards. Spirit photography was getting very popular, many were learning to practice mediumship, and by 1897, the year Bram Stoker's novel released, it's believed that there were over eight million followers of the movement across the United States and Europe. That's over 2 million more than the estimated population of London that same year.

Both science and superstition were changing the way people viewed the world around them, providing new and interesting ways to understand and justify the way things worked. It was all happening so rapidly, and it caused a deep growing anxiety in many people. Occult beliefs and practices stood in the way of traditional Christian views, and scientific rationalism seemed to slowly diminish the need for faith. It seemed that while our understanding of the world grew, the need for religion dwindled, and many thought it would be replaced outright with these new ideas. When reading Dracula you can see how this concept plays a large role in the story, but it seems that Stoker suggests that these three ways of understanding are not mutually exclusive. It proposes that they can coexist, and even potentially complement each other.

The novel sees significant use of scientific, religious, and superstitious practices as meaningful ways to progress in the battle against Dracula. Modern technology such as typewriters or phonographs are used to document their journey, while blood transfusions are performed to prolong Lucy's life. Superstitious and folkloric practices are used, such as garlic warding off vampires and freeing those that are infected, and wooden stakes being used to kill them. But religious symbols like the crucifix or communion wafer prove to be just as effective as a defense, powerful enough to render Dracula's own boxes of earth useless as sanctuary.

Van Helsing is a primary character showing all three of these perspectives to be viable and necessary. He's a scientist and a doctor, being the first one to suggest the necessary blood transfusions to keep Lucy alive. He's a religious man, frequently making use of a golden crucifix as a defense against the vampires of the novel. But he also understands the truth and power of the superstitious side of things, turning to garlic flower as a first defense during Lucy's illness and explaining the unusual manner she has to be killed in after her vampirism. Van Helsing embodies this central argument that the world is full of mysteries that can't be understood through just one lens. He shows that in the novel, science, religion, and superstition each provide valuable tools, but none of them can fully explain or overcome the threat they are facing. Those who cling too tightly to just one framework are risking blind spots in their understanding. He explains this to Dr Seward, who initially dismisses the supernatural elements at play and nearly costs them everything. In conversation with John, he states:

"You are clever man, friend John; you reason well, and your wit is bold; but you are too prejudiced. You do not let your eyes see nor your ears hear, and that which is outside your daily life is not of account to you. Do you not think that there are things which you cannot understand, and yet which are; that some people see things that others cannot? But there are things old and new which must not be contemplate by men’s eyes, because they know—or think they know—some things which other men have told them. Ah, it is the fault of our science that it wants to explain all; and if it explain not, then it says there is nothing to explain."

Van Helsing does not fault science directly, but simply acknowledges and explains that there are some things in this world that are beyond it. He embraces multiple perspectives, and because of this he's the guiding force of the group making their victory over the Count possible. I believe that Van Helsing is a sort of stand in for Bram Stoker himself and his beliefs. He's not suggesting that superstition is better than science, or that everything can be understood with strictly religion, but suggesting that real wisdom lies in acknowledging the limits human understanding can have. He shows us that he believes some things are simply beyond explanation. Stoker suggests that if we recognize and understand the shortcomings of our understanding, we can keep an open mind and find true wisdom.

The Other

I told you we'd come back to this. "The Other" is a philosophical concept relating to the formation of identity, usually in a social setting. The "Other" is an individual or group that is perceived as being inherently different, foreign, or otherwise not belonging, by another individual or group. Being an "Other" can originate from many different places, such as nationality, religion, gender, physical appearance, sexual orientation, and much more.

In the context of Dracula, "The Other" does bring more to the conversation, but acts as kind of a catchall for everything else that we've discussed to this point as well. The new woman is an other because it challenged traditional gender norms and expectations. Homosexuality is an other, because of the way that it was viewed as unnatural, immoral, and even sinful. Those that think outside of the realm of traditional Christianity are an other because of the potential threat they pose. But in the case of the novel, Count Dracula is at the center of it all.

When Jonathan begins his journey to Transylvania, he's quite literally venturing into the unknown. In the opening few paragraphs of the book we are told by Jonathan himself that while researching in the British Museum, he discovered that there is virtually nothing known about the district he is heading to, he's unable to find a map or any documentation about it at all, saying that it's "One of the wildest and least known portions of Europe." Knowing that you're going into uncharted territory must already be a bit daunting, but as he gets closer to Castle Dracula and hearing more from the locals, it starts to become apparent that it's believed to be incredibly dangerous. This is made even more clear when Jonathan is told by the Count himself upon his arrival, saying:

"We are in Transylvania; and Transylvania is not England. Our ways are not your ways, and there shall be to you many strange things."

Knowing the Count and his perception, this definitely feels less like a friendly reminder, and more like a stern warning for Jonathan to mind his own business.

But although it's certainly a big part of it, his otherness is more than just being foreign. As we discussed before, Dracula is beyond traditional understanding. He's not quite dead and not quite alive, he's an immortal creature sustained by living blood. He can't really be explained with a single world view, be it science, religion, or superstition. He exists outside of all of that, and even with an open mind I don't think he can quite be rationalized.

Dracula is a foreign man from a foreign land and a foreign plane of understanding. All we really know about him is that he's mysterious in every aspect, he's unnerving, and he's dangerous. In this way he's kind of the ultimate other. When he migrates to England, we already know his true intentions and gain the perspective that his arrival isn't a friendly visit or the Count looking for a fresh start, but is more of an invasion. He's not just an outsider who doesn't fit in, or some kind of but an utter threat to English society and a chaos to destroy the established order.

Dracula is a corrupter, he is an other that spreads by transforming people around him. When Lucy falls under Dracula's influence, she eventually transforms into a vampire as well. She's unrecognizable from the woman she once was, and is now an other herself, both because she's now a vampire and because of her sexual awakening that we discussed before. Either way we view this, our group of vampire hunters come to the same conclusion. She is no longer just a victim, she's now something dangerous that needs to be taken care of to restore order, the same as Dracula himself. They're taking it all very seriously, and we can see this in the urgency that they have when trying to save Mina from the same fate.

I think that's what's at the core of Dracula and the fear that he brings. He's feared because he's an outsider, he corrupts the purity of others, and dismantles everything that is familiar and safe. He represents the fear of the other, but shows that it's not just an external factor. He shows an Other that can spread outside of it's own physical boundaries, infecting and taking root in what is viewed as safe.

Other Adaptations and Appearances of Dracula

While Stoker's novel is the original source of all things Dracula, in 2025 our understanding of the character stems from a lot more than just that. Today, Dracula is a pop culture icon nearly synonymous with the vampire. He's appeared in hundreds, thousands, maybe even millions of different places. I think it would be fair to say that a majority of people out there know who Dracula is, but aren't even familiar with the original novel.

Many of these portrayals have expanded upon what we often think of when we think Dracula. It's given the character new dimensions, such as the Francis Ford Coppola film "Bram Stoker's Dracula" giving him a tragic backstory, linking his vampirism to his grief and lost love, portraying him as more of a passionate romantic figure, almost humanizing the undead Count. The 1931 film simply titled "Dracula" defined our perception of the Count with Bela Lugosi's iconic performance. The cape, the hair, the very exaggerated speech and accent, all stems from this performance of the character. Dracula has been used to explore the curse of eternal life and loneliness, the loss of your own humanity, resistance to change, addiction, and much much more. But I think the most important thing we can learn about Dracula is that "They're sick in the head, they forgot I'm him"

Themes in Nosferatu

1922 "Nosferatu"

Nosferatu has some themes in common with Dracula, most prevalently "The Other" and it's depiction of the traditional gender roles at the time. However, I feel that it presents a lot of completely unique perspectives, and so I'm not just repeating myself, those unique perspectives are what we're going to have our main focus on. Just as we did with Dracula, we'll first be discussing the original 1922 film in depth, and then more briefly covering a few adaptations.

War

Being released just 4 years after it ended, World War I had a pretty big influence on the film. Several people involved in the film, namely Producer Albin Grau, Director F.W. Murnau, and the actor that played Count Orlok himself Max Schreck, were in the German military during the war. Murnau was a commander in the trenches of the Eastern Front, Grau served in the army on the Serbian Front, and not much is known about Schreck's time as he stayed pretty quiet about it and kept to himself. It's suspected that he suffered some form of PTSD because of it. Grau himself made a comparison between the war and vampirism, saying "this monstrous event that is unleashed across the Earth, like a cosmic vampire to drink the blood of millions and millions of men."

Grau also supposedly said that his idea for the film sparked from a conversation that he had during his time in Serbia, where a local farmer told him that he believed his father had become an undead vampire. I saw this in a couple Reddit posts and comments, and this story is on both the Nosferatu and Albin Grau Wikipedia pages. But, the only source that I found was this footnote on Grau's Wikipedia page which references a book written by Lotte Eisner in 1973 called "Murnau", a study on the Director and his films. I went looking to see if I could read it anywhere and could only find it on Amazon for like $200 dollars, but then the next day I found it on the Internet Archive's Open Library for free. It kind of ruined this bit, but that's okay I guess.

In the book on page 108, Eisner says the story is from an article Grau wrote on vampires, which was published in an issue of a film journal which happened to be running advertisements for Nosferatu just before his article. So it's suspected that he probably just made it up to be part of the promotion, but maybe it really did happen who knows. Eisner's analysis in this book is fascinating, if you'd like to read it yourself, I've put a link to it in the description. Everyone say thank you to the internet archive they're the best.

Disease

As we discussed before, Count Dracula is often portrayed as an invasive, but mysterious and charming aristocrat. Count Orlok on the other hand is usually represented as an inhuman monster, almost more rat like than man. Upon Dracula's arrival to London, he hides in plain sight by seamlessly integrating himself into society with his charismatic demeanor. Count Orlok stays hidden, he's nearly invisible to the public as he infects and invades it. He's a plague personified. He is black death itself, leaving nothing but death and suffering in his wake.

When Herr Knock pulls a newspaper from someone sweeping his cell, it reads that a plague has started spreading in Transylvania, as well as parts of Bulgaria and other areas on Romania. Every victim is found with the same mark upon their neck. This soon begins to spread to every sailor on board the ship transferring Orlok, killing every one of them by the time he arrives in Wisborg. From there, Orlok and his rats pour out of the ship spreading around the town, bringing hysteria, sickness, and death. I believe this to be symbolic of many prominent events at the time. It's usually compared to the Bubonic Plague pandemic, or the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic.

The theme of disease also connects back to war in a really interesting way. During the first world war, trench warfare was incredibly common. In those trenches resided thousands, or even millions, of rats, breeding at a rapid pace because of the corpses and debris filling the area. These rats had a massive impact on the soldiers occupying them because they often carried and spread very contagious diseases. They also brought a strong psychological effect. The noise from the rats during the night would sometimes make soldiers believe there was an incoming enemy attack, causing intense paranoia, and destructive actions like shooting out blindly. Makes you wonder why they made Orlok look like a rat.

The Occult

I'd like to start this section real quick by specifying that I am not super knowledgeable in the occult and honestly don't really know what I'm talking about, so if you'd like to take a deeper dive into this specific topic I'd suggest looking elsewhere. There's plenty of plenty of experts on the subject online, I'm sure you can find something.

Nosferatu was the one and only film produced by the film studio "Prana Film", founded by Enrico Dieckmann and Albin Grau. Grau was an occultist and artist, and planned on creating several films dedicated to the occult and supernatural. He really had a vision for what he wanted Nosferatu to be and was responsible for much of the look of the film. He created the costumes and sets, and the concept art and storyboarding that influenced much of how the film was directed. He also did the sick artwork in the posters.

All of this is to say that the film is strongly rooted in the occult and displays plenty of that. We first see evidence of this with our introduction to Herr Knock, who we know to be communicating with Count Orlok. We get a good look at a document sent to him by the count that's written in strange symbols, but this is a real written language called "Enochian". It's said to be received from angels by occultist Jon Dee and his colleague Edward Kelley who acted as a scryer. It was recorded in their private journals in the early to mid 1580s. It has a super interesting history, if you wanna learn more about it I'm gonna link a really good video by the YouTube channel Esoterica in the description.

Later, after Thomas arrives at an inn he finds a book about vampires, revealing that Count Orlok is a creation of the archdemon Belial. Belial is a Hebrew word seen in the Old Testament often characterizing the wicked or worthless. Belial appears in "The Lesser Key of Solomon", an anonymously authored book of sorceries and magic compiled in the mid 17th century. This paints Orlok to be someone who practiced dark sorcery, or black magic in his past life before he was a vampire.

Under the "World War 1" heading on Wikipedia, it also says that Lotte Eisner, the Author of the book "Murnau" we talked about earlier, makes an interesting connection between war and the occult. She wrote "Mysticism and magic, the dark forces to which Germans have always been more than willing to commit themselves, had flourished in the face of death on the battlefields". It doesn't really directly relate to the topic so I didn't feel like I should put it in the video, but it's interesting nonetheless.

Natural Inevitability

I might want to add something about nature here. I feel like it ties a lot of stuff together in a good way 👍 (also the italicized lowercase k in this font looks so fire. So do most letters. I really like the z and f as well. They get boring when they're made uppercase. K Z F k z f

Nosferatu is a film about futility, and fatalism. Every moment and every death feels like it was set into motion long before it happened, and like it played out exactly as it was planned to. Most characters are powerless. There is no Van Helsing, and no team of vampire hunters coming together to defeat Orlok, just ordinary people suffering in his cruel trap. For example, the only character that really accomplishes anything against Orlok in the story is Ellen. After reading the book on vampires Thomas discovered at the inn, she learns that she can destroy Orlok if she willingly distracts him till the sun rises, where he will die in its light.

1979 "Nosferatu the Vampyre"

In 1979, German director the first remake of Nosferatu was released, written and directed by Werner Herzog. He made the decision to go back to the original names from the novel rather than the new ones for Nosferatu, but it is still a Nosferatu film through and through. In a lot of ways this film feels fairly similar to the 1992 film "Bram Stoker's Dracula". Our Dracula, portrayed here by Klaus Kinski, is a tragic and lonely, pitiful creature, just as much as he is a monster. This film really emphasizes on the existential burden and isolation that comes with vampirism and immortality. We also kind of get a representation of this with the pacing of the film. It moves very slow, some scenes seem almost unnecessarily long, and I believe this to be representative of the passage of time, and how it must seem to someone cursed to be around for eternity. Dracula says himself, "Can you imagine enduring centuries, experiencing each day the same futilities."

This film also puts a much larger focus on Ellen, or as she's known in this Film, Lucy. (It's kind of confusing because her name in the novel is actually Mina, and Lucy is a different character, but Mina and Lucy are kind of just combined into one in character in Nosferatu, but I dunno it's whatever I guess.) Of course in the original film she still played a pretty big role, but I'd say that here, she's truly the protagonist. Throughout the film we see Lucy recognizing the danger, or expressing her concerns, and trying to explain what's going on, but time and time again is told she is being ridiculous, hysteric, or even just flat out ignored. [^9:00,1:23:09,1:23:44,1:25:01] This forces her to take matters into her own hands, leading to her self sacrifice.

Also, this film is very beautiful. Herzog would express his love for the German Romanticism period from around the 1790s to 1850s, and you can definitely see that in this film. Many of the shots look like they are right out of a Caspar David Friedrich landscape, who you might know for the painting "Wanderer Above the Sea of Fog"

Pasted image 20250221135825.png

Pasted image 20250221135851.png

2024 "Nosferatu"

Did you know that the 1922 film "Nosferatu" is what got Robert Eggers interested in directing in the first place? When he was 9 he watched a copy of the film on VHS, and it was a spark that pushed him all the way to where he is today. He even co-directed a stage adaptation of it in highschool at the age of 17, where he also played the role of Orlok.

This movie is still pretty new, so I'll try to avoid spoiling it. But, it does follow the same basic plot as the other two Nosferatu films we've discussed, so if you've made it this far then it was already kind of spoiled which I apologize for. I did warn you earlier though. However there are some different things in this one, with some new characters and plot moments. So if you haven't yet seen it and you feel interested in seeing it, you should ASAP.

Robert Eggers' Nosferatu feels like a culmination of many different influences. Ellen remains a sacrificial figure like in the original 1922 release, she remains the protagonist like in the 1979 film, but she moves up one step further here. Ellen is not only the solution here, but the cause as well. The film begins with her praying and pleading for a some celestial being to provide comfort and protection, which is what initially awakens Orlok and creates the connection between them.

Early in the film we learn that Ellen has had a history of depression since she was a young girl, but it has been suppressed her whole life. We even see Thomas tell her to "never speak of these things aloud" and that she's just having "foolish dreams". Her depression is continually written off as unimportant by everyone around her for pretty much the whole film. Count Orlok in this film can very easily be seen as a direct representation of Ellen's depression, and even suicidal thoughts, as he is quite literally described as "death itself" throughout the film. If you'd like to take a deeper dive into this interpretation specifically I'd highly recommend watching "'Nosferatu' Symbolism & Ending Explained" by the channel "Book & Hearth", which I will link in the description

There's also an overtly sexual connection that can't be ignored. In this way we can link back to the themes of gender roles and sexuality from the Dracula side of things. In the film Count Orlok declares himself as "an appetite, nothing more". This "appetite" can definitely be interpreted in a couple different ways, but I think it's representing Ellen's internal desires. Ellen is a "new woman" with her own sexual desires and cravings that are suppressed by social norms and her gender role as a "traditional" woman. Orlok declares himself as a manifestation of this appetite, and an answer to it.

Defining the difference between Dracula and Nosferatu

So after all this, what can we learn? How can we make a simple differentiation between the two names that share the same roots, but aren't quite the same? How do we answer the question "what differs the "Nosferatu" name from the "Dracula" name?" They share the same origin and DNA, they both reflect the fears and anxieties of their respective times, but they portray evil in two very different ways.

Dracula at its core is about the human struggle against the fear of the other. As we discussed before, the other is seen in nearly everything that poses a threat to our characters, whether it's the nearly alien Count Dracula himself, or just every day people challenging traditional gender norms. But it's also a story about resistance, proposing that when keeping an open mind, we can understand what is seemingly beyond our understanding, and do something about it. This is the key to what ultimately leads to Dracula's defeat.

In contrast, Nosferatu is much more about inevitability. It's deeply rooted in the dangers of things that are simply beyond the control of individuals, things like war, disease, or death itself. It proposes that evil is not a challenge that can be understood, overcome, subdued, or fought back against, but instead simply endured. Count Orlok is defeated in the end, yes, but because of the required loss of Ellen's life, it doesn't quite have the same victorious feeling that Dracula does.

In this way I believe that they are two sides of the same coin. One side portrays the ability understand and overcome, standing triumphant and victorious, while the other side portrays a bleak and cruel tragedy, where you may have won, but at the cost of all that's near and dear to you. Dracula tells us that no matter how dire the situation, there is always something we can do about it to prevail, and Nosferatu tells us there's nothing we can do. Dracula offers a hopeful point of view that seems to tell us that we can choose to endure and continue forward with strength, where Nosferatu is more nihilistic, saying that all we can do is endure and accept our fates for what they are.

Conclusion / Outro

Description

Learn about the Enochian language here: https://youtu.be/Ns9zLz1x-y4?si=9ybTVStE_m8A4ydn
Read Lotte Eisner's "Murnau" here: https://openlibrary.org/works/OL1319348W/Murnau
The awesome Book & Hearth video I mentioned: https://youtu.be/8R4XMmnKIIc?si=FOaS5Y8y80JBQunl
Read Bram Stoker's letters to Walt Whitman here: https://lettersofnote.com/2013/11/11/you-are-a-true-man/