When you hear the word " masterpiece " you often have to take cover to the hyperbolic superlatives aimed at that film . Has there ever been any film released that hasn't had someone screaming " MASTERPIECE " . I think someone have said WORLD WAR Z was a masterpiece of Zombie horror . Someone said TRANSFORMERS is a masterpiece of explosions and CGI whilst someone else said PACIFIC RIM was a masterpiece in toilet cleaners . Maybe and why not ? VAMPYR by Carl Thedor Dryer is another film considered a masterpiece in 2013 but a quick internet search will inform you that the film was booed by everyone who saw it 80 years ago and it's easy to see why when you stop to think about it
Picture the scene . It's 1932 and you're sat in the cinema a cigarette in one hand and a bag of pop corn in another . Sound is a recent invention and you're still reeling from James Whale's FRANKENSTEIN from the previous year and this film promises to match if not surpass the spine chilling shock of Whale's movie . The film starts and you notice something very strange - hardly anyone talks . Protagonist Allen Grey walks around and insert cards inform us he's an expert academic in the undead . Hold on wait a minute didn't we get caption inserts in silent movies ? Surely we've moved on ? As the story continues we get spooky images of ghost like figures . Slightly impressive but didn't we get that from that French bloke Georges Melies ? What's happening now ? More caption inserts where nobody says anything . Whoa you expect us to pay for a cinema ticket at 1932 prices and what you're doing is showing us a film that looks like it was made 20 years ago ! Surely there is a consumer protection act here somewhere that states if you spend money on a cinema ticket in 1932 then you're entitled to see a film that looks like it was made in 1932 . Pop corn is then thrown at the screen . All together now " BOOOOOOO "
When you watch this in 2013 you'll almost certainly be in two minds about it . One is you'll be impressed by the atmospheric mood of VAMPYR that is truly expressionistic . However that's perhaps the only impressive aspect to the film where everything else is lacking . The narrative has an implausible structure , things go unexplained and after the story reaches its natural climax there seems to be another ten minutes added that seem to have come from a different film . The lighting in the film is good but apart from that the camera-work is rather static . No doubt this is a film that is essential viewing in film classes but apart from that you can understand why some people had a very negative reaction to it in 1932
Picture the scene . It's 1932 and you're sat in the cinema a cigarette in one hand and a bag of pop corn in another . Sound is a recent invention and you're still reeling from James Whale's FRANKENSTEIN from the previous year and this film promises to match if not surpass the spine chilling shock of Whale's movie . The film starts and you notice something very strange - hardly anyone talks . Protagonist Allen Grey walks around and insert cards inform us he's an expert academic in the undead . Hold on wait a minute didn't we get caption inserts in silent movies ? Surely we've moved on ? As the story continues we get spooky images of ghost like figures . Slightly impressive but didn't we get that from that French bloke Georges Melies ? What's happening now ? More caption inserts where nobody says anything . Whoa you expect us to pay for a cinema ticket at 1932 prices and what you're doing is showing us a film that looks like it was made 20 years ago ! Surely there is a consumer protection act here somewhere that states if you spend money on a cinema ticket in 1932 then you're entitled to see a film that looks like it was made in 1932 . Pop corn is then thrown at the screen . All together now " BOOOOOOO "
When you watch this in 2013 you'll almost certainly be in two minds about it . One is you'll be impressed by the atmospheric mood of VAMPYR that is truly expressionistic . However that's perhaps the only impressive aspect to the film where everything else is lacking . The narrative has an implausible structure , things go unexplained and after the story reaches its natural climax there seems to be another ten minutes added that seem to have come from a different film . The lighting in the film is good but apart from that the camera-work is rather static . No doubt this is a film that is essential viewing in film classes but apart from that you can understand why some people had a very negative reaction to it in 1932