#lucy harker

[cinefiliz]

Isabelle Adjani as Lucy Harker in Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979).

[ladyalatariel]

NOSFERATU THE VAMPYRE (1979) | dir. Werner Herzog

[iinterlxne]

ellen lucy and ellen again

─── ⋆⋅ ♰ ⋅⋆ ───

[faustiandevil]

From ancient worlds I come To see what man has done What's fact and what is fiction To judge the contradiction

[misandriste]

nosferatu the vampyre (1979)

[thegothicalice]

Been a little while since my last sketchbook ballpoint drawing ✍🏻 Isabelle Adjani as Lucy Harker from “Nosferatu the Vampyre.”

[atomic-chronoscaph]

Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979)

[wiliecoyotegenius]

Yes I know I said the casting choices of the 1992 Dracula movie are perfect and that includes Wynona my beloved but I find Isabelle Adjani in Herzog's film an even better Mina Harker casting (ik her name is Lucy here).

She looks perfect for the role to me, especially in her moments of determination and torment. It's also probably influenced by the fact that the script of that movie (that has a sympathetic, tragic, obsessed Count Dracula actually DONE WELL) doesn't do her character insultingly dirty like the Coppola one, allowing her to be intelligent and to find the solution herself (which even the 2024 film didn't let her do).

[editfandom]

NOSFERATU, 1979 | Isabelle Adjani as Lucy Harker

[tearblossom]

✤ Nosferatu: Phantom der Nacht (1979)

There's a sexual element. She is gradually attracted towards Nosferatu. She feels a fascination — as we all would think. First, she hopes to save the people of the town by sacrificing herself. But then, there is a moment of transition. There is a scene when he is sucking her blood — sucking and sucking like an animal — and suddenly, her face takes on a new expression, a sexual one, and she will not let him go away anymore. There is a desire that has been born. A moment like this has never been seen in a vampire picture.

— Isabelle Adjani

[mieczyslawn]

⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ nosferatu✶icons

[folkdevilism]

[blythe-dollz]

to be hauntingly beautiful and doomed from the start

[cosmicluci]

One very interesting change Eggers made in Nosferatu is for Von Franz.

In the original one, from 1922, Van Helsing was replaced with Professor Bulwer. He has some knowledge of vampires, but not that much. He doesn’t know Orlok’s true nature. And he’s pretty much entirely useless.

I’ve not yet watched the 1979 Herzog version, but from what I understand that version of the doctor, now called Van Helsing once more, is, much like Bulwer, fairly useless. He thinks the plague is just a plague. He doesn’t believe Lucy (the film’s version of Ellen/Mina, with an interesting name switch), and only stakes Dracula after Lucy has done the work, sacrificed herself, and both her and Dracula are dead. He is very much like Bulwer in that uselessness.

But then there’s Von Frank in this new one. First, it’s interesting that Robert Eggers didn’t use the name for the character in the old 1922 one. He does that for all the other characters. But the doctor is Albin Von Frank, not Bulwer. He’s not full-on calling him Abraham Van Helsing, but it’s much closer to that. And more than that, the character is much more like Van Helsing than either Bulwer or Herzog’s Van Helsing. He understands Orlok, and he understands what is needed to destroy him. In this one, he doesn’t ignore Ellen, he’s the first one to listen to her at all. He in fact helps Ellen, and lets her take charge not because he doesn’t understand but because he does. He knows what she has to do, and helps her be able to do it by distracting the others.

His relationship with Ellen is the best adaptation of the original relationship between Mina and Van Helsing I’ve ever seen. They’re the only two competent people in the whole film, and the only ones who know what needs to be done.

In this Nosferatu, Ellen isn’t alone. She has an actual efficient ally in Von Frank.

But it keeps an idea similar to the Herzog one, where it’s her taking action because no one else listens, and doing what is necessary in spite of the ignorance of those in power. Because Von Frank, unlike Bulwer or Herzog’s Helsing, isn’t in a position of power. He’s an outcast. Sure, Sievers trusts him, and goes to him for help, but no one quite believes Von Frank until reality forces them to. The movie has the only two competent people be a woman who fails to live up to the expectations placed upon her, is far too outspoken, and suffers from both a repressive system and a mental condition that both cause others to judge her; and an outcast whose experience of reality have ostracized him from the pseudoscientific and fairly bigoted standards of “medicine” of the time.

[joyfullywizard]

I admit I struggle with sexual liberation reading in new Nosferatu, but not because of morals. I have no problem with that narrative in other vampire movies, books and TV shows. I just don't understand how it works in the remake?? But people are so sure it works in the remake.

Hi!

Well, yeah, I actually can understand the criticism about that bit, if you subscribe to this whole "liberation" take. As criticism not about intention, but about execution. Because if we approach it solely from execution pov and especially in comparison with other vampire media  since you brought that up, then some questions inevitably arise. Namely, about the inner building of respective universe of vampire media when it deals with any themes of liberation via vampires. Almost every media which deals with such themes establishes that this so-called liberation is not only limited to "sex with vampires goes brrr", but there are other dimensions vampires can offer to humans as part of this so-called liberation. In  Interview with Vampire TV series (2022-) it’s directly and clearly established the rules that vampire Lestat can turn people into vampires, he wants to turn and turns Lois and they can co-exist as vampire couple for centuries, can travel, can see different countries and cultures through the ages, that Lois as a simply mortal human would never be able to see otherwise. In Buffy the Vampire Slayer TV series (1997-2003), it is also directly and clearly established the rules that vampires can turn other people into vampires, we get to see vampire squad-couples of Angel/Darla, Spike/Drusilla hanging out all over the world through different time periods, while in relation to Buffy, who is superpowered human-slayer relationships with vampires are less about liberation, and more about  beneficial  equal relationships cause she gets someone on her physical level and abilities, understands her and her job, and she co-works with her vampires boyfriends during her slaying. In Dracula movies, which  deal with anything like this the rules are also clearly spelled out. In Dracula  (1979) and Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992), it’s directly and clearly established the rules that Dracula can turn people into vampires, he wants to turn and almost turns Lucy (who is simply renamed Mina character in 1979 movie) and Mina (in 1992 movie)  into vampires. Both Draculas  have clear dialogue about that and actions in the movies. If transformation of female heroine in each movie was completed they like Lois and Lestat would have co-existed as vampire couples for centuries, would travel, would see different countries and cultures through the ages, that Lucy and Mina as  simply mortal humans would never be able to see otherwise. Plus all that abovementioned media establishes vampire’s powers and limits and so what powers they can give to their human paramours when they turn them in one of their kind. Vampire media also dealt with some forms of liberation via vampires from other points, not necessary sexual ones. In Let the Right One In (2008)  the major theme is that vampire Eli teaches human boy Oskar to stand up for himself and gives him  some companionship, so their relationships are darkly liberating in whole another way, to certain degree, of course.  So long, so forth. Multiple other examples across different vampire media, where vampires did have something to offer to the humans.

While Nosferatu remake doesn’t have clearly in-built rules in its own universe to explore the whole "liberation angle", if you approach movie from it. There’s no direct plot framing of what exactly Orlok intended to do to Ellen, apart from feeding on her and some form of vampire sex. There’s no clear-cut plot point that he was going to make her into vampire. For example,  even in Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979) remake, Nosferatu was able to turn people into vampires and he wanted to turn Ellen (renamed into Lucy) into his vampire companion, that was clear. 2024 remake  also doesn’t establish what other possible options were on the table, if turning Ellen into vampire wasn’t really one of them. It seems that apart from consuming Ellen’s blood which inevitably would have led to Ellen’s regular death anyway, nothing else was going on. So that’s understandable why people may  scratch their heads and go “ok, ok, sexual liberation via vampire is cool and all, yes, but also, how and that's it?” Not in some morality pearl-clutching way, but "the plot really doesn't elaborate much" way.

[madeleineengland]

Isabelle Adjani as Lucy Harker in "Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979)"