Shadow of the Vampire (2000) – What Happened to This Horror Movie?

Last Updated on November 25, 2024

If there’s one horror genre that gets the blood pumping in this particular gore-hound; it’s vampires! Ever since the German classic, Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror, one of the greatest silent films ever made, bared its teeth way back in 1922, I’ve been obsessed with the genre. And no, you cheeky undead humanoid creatures, I’m not old enough to have caught that movie way back when. I can’t even remember where I first caught the sight of Max Schreck as Count Orlok, but it left a lasting impression. Ever since, I’ve gorged on human blood, figuratively speaking of course, with everything from The Lost Boys, Bram Stoker’s Dracula and Let the Right One In, to more action oriented series like Blade and Underworld. Plus many, many more. The small screen has also had its fair share of awesome vampire action, with the countless TV re-imaginings of Dracula, the sex and claret spilling extravaganza that was True Blood, plus of course, the hilarious What We Do in the Shadows, on both the big and small screen. Leading up to the early noughties, the vampire genre had been simmering nicely, if not spectacularly, and the nineties brought us the aforementioned Bram Stoker’s Dracula plus other fun entries like From Dusk Till Dawn. We also got a young Kirsten Dunst drinking blood alongside Tom Cruise in platform shoes, in the better-than-you-may-remember Interview with the Vampire from 1994. These are just a few examples of how the genre had legs, or should that be fangs? However, for every decent entry, we also got prize turkeys like the lamentable Eddie Murphy horror comedy, Vampire in Brooklyn. So, by the time the year 2000 arrived, it also brought a deeply bizarre black horror-comedy about the Nosferatu vampire legend, with awesomely absurd central performances, including a vampire performance that you could legitimately compare to the silent 1922 classic. However, looking back on Shadow of the Vampire (watch it HERE) twenty four years after it was first released, does it still have fangs? Terrible jokes aside, let’s find out here on WTF happened to Shadow of the Vampire.

On March 4, 1922, eager members of the public filtered into the Marble Hall of the Berlin Zoological Garden to witness horror movie history with the aforementioned Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror. The legendary silent movie opens with a young clerk traveling to see a wealthy count at his castle in the mountains. When he gets there, a tall man dressed all in black greets him. Before long the clerk soon begins to realize that his host has been spending his days asleep in a coffin beneath the building and may in fact be a blood sucking vampire. The movie brought many memorable images to the big screen that have been pilfered ever since; Count Orlok’s shadow creeping across a wall, or his fatal reaction to sunlight, are now tropes of the genre the film helped to create. However, Nosferatu’s innovations were overshadowed by a copyright battle over the film’s blatant similarity to Bram Stoker’s famed 1897 novel, Dracula, the result of which burned all but one existing print. Much like a vampire in the sunlight.

However, artistic license wasn’t much of an issue for Shadow of the Vampire director E. Elias Merhige, when it came to his vision of a piece of Hollywood folk legend. I mean, this was the guy who brought to the world the experimental silent horror movie Begotten, which features an opening scene where God disembowels himself with a straight-razor. Subtlety wasn’t in his wheelhouse, clearly. Which, let’s face it, is no bad thing gore-hounds! So, instead of making a formulaic, traditional Hollywood picture, Merhige proposed the theory that Max Schreck was so completely and utterly convincing as vampire Count Orlok because, and here’s the kicker; he was actually a vampire. He makes a pact with the movie’s director, F.W. Murnau that he would agree to appear in the movie, in return for the promise of feasting upon the blood of its leading lady.

The premise is great, and as well as featuring holy disembowelment in his previous movies, director Merhige had form for creating horrific imagery in his work; which is probably why the likes of Marylin Manson and Danzig came to him to direct music videos for them. However, who did Merhige turn to in order to bring to life, so to speak, not only a convincing real life vampire, but also an egotistical and delusional director? For the latter he turned to the great John Malkovich whose previous work was more than enough evidence that he could play an unhinged movie director in his sleep. Just take a look at any scene from the weird and wonderful Being John Malkovich from 1999 and you’ll see that the prolific actor was the perfect choice as Friedrich Wilhelm.

The role of ‘real life’ vampire Count Orlok was arguably a touch more difficult to cast, but with the movie being produced by Nicholas Cage’s Saturn Films, another one of his past co-stars ultimately won the role; Willem Defoe. Cage was initially keen to play Orlok but later turned to the versatile Defoe when he expressed an interest in the project. Defoe is amazing in the movie but just imagine what kind of crazy shenanigans Cage would have brought to it. Perhaps that’s why he chose not to play the count, as the production needed something slightly more subtle, rather than bombastic. Joining the lead cast members was an eclectic cast featuring the awesome and hilarious English comedian / actor Eddie Izzard as actor Gustav von Wangenheim, and Udo Kier as producer Abin Grau. We also get the evergreen Cary Elwes (I mean, does this guy ever properly age?) as photographer Fritz Arno Wagner, Catherine McCormack as leading actress Greta Schroder, plus smaller roles for Aden Gillett, Nicholas Elliot and Ronan Vibert.

Another cool little tasty morsel to note is that the movie was originally due to be called Burned to Light, which would have been a neat way of shoehorning some vampire and filmmaking terminology into the movie. However, bizarrely, Willem Defoe thought the title was ‘Burn Ed to Light’ and asked his perplexed director who this Ed dude was. Shadow of the Vampire is a cool title and ties in nicely with the classic imagery from 1922’s Nosferatu, but Burned to Light would have been a decent alternative. Also, to create the aesthetic of old film sock, cinematographer Lou Bogue shot much of the film with Kodak Vision 800T film stock, a high speed specialty stock with very coarse grain, in Super 35mm format, which further enhanced the effect when cropped and enlarged to anamorphic.

When all is said and done though, does Shadow of the Vampire have enough avant garde bite and blood spilling to satisfy the most hardened gore hounds? Well, there’s plenty of the former and very little of the latter, but that isn’t a criticism, at all. I thought the movie was a delight. Bizarrely, I hadn’t caught the movie when it was first released all those years ago. Seriously, where has twenty four years gone? But watching it for the first time for this retrospective reminded me just how much I enjoy this kind of almost experimental, art-house filmmaking, and also really brings home how pumped I am now that the awesome Robert Eggers is also taking on the classic, Nosferatu.

You can see that Merhige may have been inspired by the legendary relationship between Werner Herzog and Klaus Kinski, who of course brought us the 1979 Nosferatu remake. The plot follows the making of the 1922 movie and focuses on the efforts John Malkovich’s flamboyantly selfish director goes to bring his vision to the world. It’s set in Berlin in 1921, and we meet the confused cast and crew of Murnau’s film who go about their roles in the production without any real clue as to what the film is about, and they have no idea a real vampire will be joining them on set.

This is where the film really comes to life, as we first meet Defoe’s wonderfully unhinged Count Orlok, facial tics, teeth and long menacing claws in all their macabre glory. At first the crew mock Count Orlok, thinking he’s little more than an actor with a massive method-sized chip on his hunched shoulders. He takes part in the movie with the pretense to the crew that he’ll stay in character every waking second, without breaking out of the role for any reason. Before long, however, he starts munching on crew members and begins to fuel the ire of his increasingly unhinged director, before getting his wish to feast on the blood of the movie’s leading lady.

Both Malkovich and Defoe are great in their roles and while the avant garde art-house stylings of the movie won’t be to the taste of anybody looking for Interview with the Vampire style big star action, the movie holds up as a curious look into the making of a vampire classic. Plus, the lead actors nail every moment they’re on screen. You really believe Defoe is an undead humanoid creature, such is his dedication to getting into character, and one scene where he goes full Ozzy Osbourne and chomps on a poor bat is a hoot. While this film may not appeal to anybody expecting more mainstream vampire madness, if you get a chance to sit down with Count Orlok and friends, and you understand the art-house sensibilities on display, I highly recommend revisiting this little gem of a movie.

Shadow of the Vampire had its world premiere at the 2000 Cannes Film Festival and It was also given a limited release in the United States on December 29, 2000. It had a wider release on January 26th, 2001 and grossed a total of $8.3 million domestically and $11.2 million worldwide. Its widest release saw it launch in 513 theaters and although it didn’t set the box-office alight, it at least brought in a small profit theatrically off of its estimated $8 million budget, not taking into account home entertainment sales.

Critically the movie was mostly met with a positive reaction, with a lot of the accolades thrown in the direction of the excellent Willem Defoe as Count Orlok. The film holds an 82% approval rating on the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes based on one hundred and forty reviews, with an average rating of 7.0/10. The site’s critical consensus states: “Shadow of the Vampire is frightening, compelling, and funny, and features an excellent performance by Willem Dafoe.” Roger Ebert also had kind words for the film, writing that, “director E. Elias Merhige and his writer, Steven Katz, do two things at the same time. They make a vampire movie of their own, and they tell a backstage story about the measures that a director will take to realize his vision”, and that Defoe “embodies the Schreck of Nosferatu so uncannily that when real scenes from the silent classic are slipped into the frame, we don’t notice a difference.” This is one of those instances where a modestly budgeted genre flick manages to achieve great acclaim from critics but probably missed the mark with more of a mainstream audience.

For this writer at least, Shadow of the Vampire is an intriguing, creative delight with exceptionally over the top performances and an aesthetic that harks back to the 1922 classic perfectly. While I’m not sure those looking for generic vampire thrills will buy into what director Merhige and the cast brought to the movie, it’s nonetheless a great throwback to the days where horror could be found in the most unsuspecting, and silent, places. However, the most important opinion we always love to hear is from YOU guys, so what’s your take on Shadow of the Vampire? Did you buy into the wonderfully over the top performances, especially Defoe as the very real Count Orlok? Or was it one chewed bat away from absurdity? Let me know in the comments and I’ll see you wonderful gore-hounds next time. Thanks for watching!

A couple of the previous episodes of What Happened to This Horror Movie? can be seen below. To see more, head over to our JoBlo Horror Originals YouTube channel – and subscribe while you’re there!