What director can blatantly copy a classic film shot-for-shot, invert the meaning in a clumsy and haphazard manner, and be hailed a true artist? Werner Herzog.
A "remake" is created when you re-shoot a story that's already been made into a film. An "homage" is created when you incorporate elements of an earlier work for the purpose of elevating it or praising it. A "fraudulent copy" is created when you mindlessly reproduce the work of someone else. If you review both the original Nosferatu and Herzog's version simultaneously, and compare the shots, you'll find Herzog's version fits into the last category, without question. I can find no other reason to justify this aesthetic decision besides sheer laziness on the part of the director.
But it's not enough for Herzog just to steal. He attacks the original version of Nosferatu by inverting the meaning of the story in his version. He transforms the monster into a victim (a misunderstood homosexual) and the hero into a persecutor. Put simply, Herzog's film is an anti-film, designed to negate the original Nosferatu. It's obnoxious that an amateur like Herzog can even pretend to usurp a "classic."
My opinion so far has actually been *generous* to Herzog; I've assumed up to this point that he was actually able to communicate his ideas in a coherent way. But this is not the case. Even with the parrot-like shot copying, the film, like many of his others, is for the most part blurry in meaning and jammed with unnecessary clutter.
All in all, the film is completely absent of value. When I first saw it, I assumed that it was made by an amateur, or a film student, who simply happened to have access to a limitless budget. It was only later that I found out who the director actually was (and that he actually *was* an amateur who had access to limitless funds: German government funds). Herzog, you should be ashamed of yourself. Film history will dismiss you as a tasteless joke.
A "remake" is created when you re-shoot a story that's already been made into a film. An "homage" is created when you incorporate elements of an earlier work for the purpose of elevating it or praising it. A "fraudulent copy" is created when you mindlessly reproduce the work of someone else. If you review both the original Nosferatu and Herzog's version simultaneously, and compare the shots, you'll find Herzog's version fits into the last category, without question. I can find no other reason to justify this aesthetic decision besides sheer laziness on the part of the director.
But it's not enough for Herzog just to steal. He attacks the original version of Nosferatu by inverting the meaning of the story in his version. He transforms the monster into a victim (a misunderstood homosexual) and the hero into a persecutor. Put simply, Herzog's film is an anti-film, designed to negate the original Nosferatu. It's obnoxious that an amateur like Herzog can even pretend to usurp a "classic."
My opinion so far has actually been *generous* to Herzog; I've assumed up to this point that he was actually able to communicate his ideas in a coherent way. But this is not the case. Even with the parrot-like shot copying, the film, like many of his others, is for the most part blurry in meaning and jammed with unnecessary clutter.
All in all, the film is completely absent of value. When I first saw it, I assumed that it was made by an amateur, or a film student, who simply happened to have access to a limitless budget. It was only later that I found out who the director actually was (and that he actually *was* an amateur who had access to limitless funds: German government funds). Herzog, you should be ashamed of yourself. Film history will dismiss you as a tasteless joke.
Tell Your Friends