#c: thomas hutter

[darklinaforever]

I can't help the feeling people nowadays tend to misunderstand the essece of gothic romances. I mean many of those fans of this genre just enjoy the aesthetics or cute love stories, in which the action takes place in a mysterious castle/the love interest is a hot, twentyish -looking vampire and so on. Which is totally fine! However, enjoyers of such fiction, often forget gothic romances often revolve around dark themes (for exaple, Heathcliff and Cathy are both pretty toxic people, the former character's alcoholism ruined several lives, including his own, in "Crimson Peak", we have this incestuous relationship and it seems like the big sis groomed her brother and so on). Also, the love interests doesn't have to look like pretty vampire lovers (like this malformed guy from "Phantom of the Opera". Long story short, I don't understand why so many people are so outraged at the twisted soulmatism between Ellen and Orlok? And no, I don't think he raped her. After all even in "Dracula" (the novel) the Count figuratively represents women's sexual awakening. Moreover, their desire is portrayed as some dark, unsettling power which, much to our good Victorian boys' surprise and horror, cannot be controlled by them

There is this very annoying tendency today to want to criticize gothic romance as something inherently bad, which is profoundly ridiculous. And knowing that it is a genre generally dominated by female authors, it doesn't really surprise me. And yes, Crimson Peak have true grooming in his writing, unlike Nosferatu and the Phantom of the Opera. Yet ironically I still see very few people talking about this fact, probably because the victim of grooming is a man in this film. A man that some viewers are trying to demonize in order to further victimize the character of Edith, Thomas' wife, who like him, is ultimately a victim of Lucille. But rushing to stick the word grooming to Nosferatu and the Phantom of the Opera for the relationships Ellen & Orlok and Erik & Christine, that they know to do. I am so tired of the talk about Nosferatu 2024 and the talk it provokes ironically again about The Phantom of the Opera. These people have no culture, no capacity for real reflection and analysis, hiding behind a false morality to appear superior.

[houltsworld]

Nick for Los Angeles Times 🧡

📸 Marcus Ubungen

[artielovesfilm]

Nosferatu Review

Nosferatu is a film that explores Victorian ideas concerning purity through one of its victims; a woman who suffered from manipulation from a monster from a young age, whose sexuality is irreparably linked to him, and who controls her own opinion of herself from a world away. The monster, the ‘Nosferatu’, is the villainy of man, one that would convince a child that her desire for closeness and affection warranted her abuse. Ellen is convinced that her sexual desire is the work of sin when, in actuality, it is normal and natural, yet due to the influence of the church’s values and a patriarchal society that seeks to keep women hidden and stagnant until a man decides he wants her. That is the real tragedy of Ellen’s character, beyond the circumstances of her death and a life lived in fear; a child was convinced that having desires made her wrong, and, therefore, warranted her suffering. Nosferatu is the vampiric nature of men, personified in a gothic monster.

Nosferatu’s murder of two young girls stuck out to me. Personally, I believe it completed Ellen’s characterisation by offering a hard truth; she would not be believed or sympathised with until she was killed. Those children spent the entire film lamenting their fear, just as Ellen did, but it wasn’t until Orlok had killed them that the audience thought twice about it. Ellen’s fear, her visions, her fits, were never taken seriously until a male character (Thomas) encountered Orlok. The scene in which we see Thomas’ blood being drunk was intentionally sexual, and his expression of fear as he was approached made it feel violating to even watch. Then, he experiences Ellen’s reality, for a short while; unable to convince others around him of what he encountered, such as Friedrich, though his experience differs due to the fact that he is able to act against the monster that violated him. Ellen never escapes it, and ends up dead and half undressed in the arms of the man that tortured her for her entire life. This serves as a message about sexual abuse, one with no happy conclusion.

This was the first film where I truly felt anything about Nicholas Hoult’s acting, and I thought he was phenomenal. He truly set the tone for this movie with his initial meeting with the count. As we don’t see Count Orlok clearly throughout the scene, we rely on Hoult’s expression, through which he delivers such visceral terror that it shook me. Thomas Hutter’s devotion to his wife and all he felt for her was clear throughout the film; he feared for her, sought to heal her, and would have given his life to free her of Nosferatu, no matter how fearful he was. I thought his performance stood out, and it was my personal favourite.

Lily-Rose Depp’s dedication to this role was phenomenal. Her fits were frightening to watch, and the melancholy nature of her character was visible in her every emotion. Her desperation to be understood was tragic beyond belief, and her fruitless search for a happy ending left such an impression upon me. Other performances I really enjoyed were Bill Skarsgård, who I didn’t even realise played Count Orlok until the credits due to how incredibly he embodied him, Willem Dafoe and Aaron Taylor-Johnson.

I love the sound design within this film. Even through the breaths of the characters, you could read the film’s message; sexual or pained or terrified, all utilised to give the scene the tension it required. The audio was what made this film a horror, beyond anything we saw. It was used to perfectly capture the feelings of the characters, and in a manner that left me breathless. Additionally, the use of black and white throughout added to the gothic vibe of the film, outside of the setting and costuming. I loved that Ellen’s nightmares and her scenes with Orlok were so often in black and white; it gave her melancholy, her trauma, a physicality, and in a way validated it.

Overall, I loved Nosferatu. It explored childhood trauma, sexual abuse and the villainy of purity culture through a fictional monster, and through his victim, who found no respite from his torture. Personally, one of my biggest pet peeves is the fact that this film is reduced to a ‘monsterfucker’ movie; there is intent in Orlok’s repulsiveness, and Ellen was not attracted to him. He dominated her desire for pleasure by linking it to her trauma, which she was then deemed blasphemous for, and ruined her self opinion and made her feel hopeless until she gave in. It undermines the film’s death for the audience’s own desire, which I can’t stand when its intent is for you to feel uncomfortable at every sexually charged scene. I wouldn’t have though it would be so impossible for people to understand that, but oh well.

Also, I’m a sucker for a gothic horror – no pun intended.

[b-skarsgard]

Exclusive Interview: Bill Skarsgård On Making Orlok His Own In NOSFERATU

Bill Skarsgård has been in the Nosferatu loop since writer/director Robert Eggers first began conceiving it almost 10 years ago. This was before Skarsgård had his horror-star-making turn as Pennywise in It, so initially, he auditioned for the part of Friedrich Harding, friend of central couple Thomas and Ellen Hutter. Then he read for and landed the part of Thomas before the project fell apart. Nosferatu, in fact, went through a few stops and starts before finally coming to fruition, with Skarsgård ultimately taking on the titular role of the hundreds-of-years-old vampire Count Orlok.

Eggers’ reimagining of the 1922 silent landmark gives Orlok a new look but the same goal: to possess Ellen (Lily-Rose Depp) and drain the life from those around her. The film, which also stars Nicholas Hoult as Thomas, Aaron Taylor-Johnson as Harding, and Willem Dafoe as occult expert Professor Albin Eberhart Von Franz, presents Orlok as a resuscitated, centuries-old nobleman driven by obsession as much as bloodlust. (You can read more of this interview in FANGORIA #26, on sale very soon.)

read at the link or under the cut

Do you happen to know what Eggers’ change in thinking was, from seeing you in one of the heroic roles to playing the villain?

I don’t know if there are any heroic roles in the movie [laughs], apart from Ellen, in a way. I don’t know what changed in him, but that’s just how it ended up. At one point I was devastated because when it did finally look like Nosferatu was coming around for the third time, he was looking into other actors for Thomas, and then I heard that Nick got the part, and I was like, OK, what about the Harding role?

I also once read for that one. And then Aaron got it, and I was like, OK, I have to divorce myself from the idea of being part of this movie now, even though I felt so, I don’t know, destined to be a part of it. So it was a surprise and shock to me when he approached me with Orlok. In a lot of ways, it was a much more daunting task to undertake as an actor. It was as terrifying as it was exciting.

This is obviously a very different Orlok than we saw in the previous versions of Nosferatu. How did you view the character when you first took the role, and how did you develop him with Eggers?

Robert had obviously done a lot of thinking about what his Orlok would be like. And when he reached out to me about the possibility of playing him, I think he was a lot more confident that I could do it than I was [laughs]. But I was so thrilled for the opportunity, and I told him, “OK, now we’ll have to convince everyone”; we had to submit to the studio and whatnot.

We had this kind of 10-day workshop where he shared with me a lot of the material he had used for inspiration—different performances in different movies, what Orlok would have been like when he was alive, all that kind of stuff. And also how he saw Orlok’s look, which was quite specific. Then I started working on it.

I began with voice memos, and then I would send little clips of myself doing certain things. This was all before the actual screen test; it was all during COVID. Those 10 days were a very deep dive into the process of developing this guy, and proof for myself that I could do it. It was a great sort of dating phase with Robert as well, to see how we would collaborate. Auditions are usually horrible, but with this particular way of doing it, it was quite creative.

Then the movie fell apart again, so when we actually got to shoot it, I believe it had been two and a half years since I did the tape. So I almost had to restudy what I did for the tape in order to start re-prepping for the movie because, at that point, I was at the same place of, how the hell did I do this, or can I do it? I had to go through all that again, you know?

What were some of Eggers’ specific inspirations for Orlok that he shared with you, and were there any you came up with yourself?

There were a lot of different things. There was a Bulgarian movie called Time of Violence—a great movie, over four hours long, set in Bulgaria in the 17th century. And there’s this guy, the antagonist of the movie, taking over a village and forcibly converting Christians, and it’s incredibly violent and horrible. That performance was something Robert talked a lot about in terms of who Orlok could have been when he was alive. We talked about that one a lot, and various different things—little snippets from here and there.

But that was during the very early stages. Once you start delving deeper into a character, hopefully, you start getting inspiration from whatever it is you’re actually working on, and that creates seeds that come out of it. Robert also wrote a backstory for Orlok, just a few pages, that he shared with me, which was also very helpful.

You said before that there aren’t many heroes in Nosferatu except for Ellen. Would you consider Orlok a villain, or do you see him more as a tragic character?

He’s the romantic lead, isn’t he [laughs]? Yeah, it’s tricky. Is he a villain? Yeah, of course; I mean, he’s Nosferatu, he’s Dracula, he’s one of the most, if not the most iconic horror villain there is. But I think the script has nuances that make it more complex, more layered, in the sense that the movie is sort of a love triangle with Ellen in the middle. She’s torn between a good, stable, benevolent, loving husband and something that is very powerful, very destructive, but also very alluring to her, and you watch her being torn between these two forces.

How was it working with the heavy prosthetics that transformed you into Orlok?

David White did the prosthetics and the design, and he’s incredibly talented. And Stuart Richards and his wife were the ones who applied it on me every day. You tend to become very close to those people, because they’re the ones you spend the most time with when you’re playing a character like this. Just immensely talented, and very, very sweet.

And then there’s the process of getting it on for the first time and you’re like, OK, what works and what doesn’t work? How do my face and my expressions translate onto this new face that they’ve glued on top of mine? It becomes a whole process where you need to familiarize yourself with how your performance is being translated through the prosthetics. But I never felt like Orlok without the makeup, so the prosthetics and the costume were all pieces that I needed to perform him.

Since you were attached to the role for a few years, did the concept of Orlok change at all from the beginning to what we see in the final film?

Actually, not too much. Robert shared with me, when I was being considered for the role, a digital drawing he had made of Orlok, and that was pretty close to what he ended up looking like in the actual movie. Obviously, there were little changes here and there, but the essence of it, the mustache and so forth, stayed pretty close.

A lot of the character’s look is, what did a Romanian or Hungarian nobleman look like in the 16th century? As you probably know, Robert does extensive research and tries to be as historically accurate as possible in anything he does. So, the look is a representation of that. It’s a historically accurate Romanian nobleman [laughs]. And the same with the costumes. It was pretty specific, and what Orlok looks like in the movie is pretty close to what Robert initially envisioned.

Can you talk about working with Lily-Rose Depp?

It was an absolute pleasure working with Lily. I haven’t seen many people with such raw talent as she possesses, and how much she gives to the movie. It’s not an easy role at all; it was so emotionally demanding, and the way she could just turn it on every single time, take after take, was awe-inspiring.

The first few scenes I did with her, I wasn’t even acting; I was just a shadow hand behind the camera. And I could just see how gifted she was, and the nuances she brought. Then once we started doing scenes together, I couldn’t appreciate it as much because I was also performing, and we were dancing together. But she’s incredible, and an undeniable force in the movie. •

[consistantly-changing]

The original Nosferatu premiered in 1922 in Germany but didn't get a theatrical release in the United States (where Jimmy C. lived) until June 1, 1929, so the tweet is correct on the stipulation that we're using specifically American premiers.

Sources:

https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/653-nosferatu-eine-symphonie-des-grauens/releases#US

[tinyshe]

https://bioinitiative.org/rf-color-charts/

I have cut and paste my download but pleas use the above link as it makes more sense in colour code.

Please be aware the they are experiencing extreme health issues with the G5 in UK. They are, as I type, in US rolling out the G5; please be informed.  There are people that are working to keep Big Corp running over US citizens health and giving them a voice. To be informed is to have power. Please see below tables of look at link above. Please note study dates! They have know about this (adverse health from EMF/wavelength health problems for years.

Reported Biological Effects from Radiofrequency Radiation at Low-Intensity Exposure (Cell Tower, Wi-Fi, Wireless Laptop and 'Smart' Meter RF Intensities) Reference: As low as (10-13) or 100 femtowatts/cm2 Super-low intensity RFR effects at MW reasonant frequencies resulted in changes in genes; problems with chromatin conformation (DNA) Belyaev, 1997

5 picowatts/cm2 (1012)Changed growth rates in yeast cellsGrundler, 1992 0.1 nanowatt/cm2 (10-10) or 100 picowatts/cm2 Super-low intensity RFR effects at MW reasonant frequencies resulted in changes in genes; problems with chromatin condensation (DNA) intensities comparable to base stations Belyaev, 1997

0.00034 uW/cm2Chronic exposure to mobile phone pulsed RF significantly reduced sperm count,Behari, 2006

0.0005 uW/cm2RFR decreased cell proliferation at 960 MHz GSM 217 Hz for 30-min exposureVelizarov, 1999

0.0006 - 0.0128 uW/cm2 Fatigue, depressive tendency, sleeping disorders, concentration difficulties, cardio- vascular problems reported with exposure to GSM 900/1800 MHz cell  phone signal at base station level exposures. Oberfeld, 2004

0.003 - 0.02 uW/cm2 In children and adolescents (8-17 yrs) short-term exposure caused headache, irritation, concentration difficulties in school. Heinrich, 2010

0.003 to 0.05 uW/cm2 In children and adolescents (8-17 yrs) short-term exposure caused conduct problems in school (behavioral problems) Thomas, 2010

0.005 uW/cm2 In adults (30-60 yrs) chronic exposure caused sleep disturbances, (but not significantly increased across the entire population) Mohler, 2010

0.005 - 0.04 uW/cm2 Adults exposed to short-term cell phone radiation reported headaches, concentration difficulties (differences not significant, but elevated) Thomas, 2008

0.006 - 0.01 uW/cm2 Chronic exposure to base station RF (whole-body) in humans showed increased stress hormones; dopamine levels substantially decreased; higher levels of adrenaline and nor-adrenaline; dose-response seen; produced chronic physiological stress in cells even after 1.5 years. Buchner, 2012

0.01 - 0.11 uW/cm2RFR from cell towers caused fatigue, headaches, sleeping problems Navarro, 2003

Reported Biological Effects from Radiofrequency Radiation at Low-Intensity Exposure (Cell Tower, Wi-Fi, Wireless Laptop and 'Smart' Meter RF Intensities) Reference: Power Density (Microwatts/centimeter2 - uW/cm2) 0.01 - 0.05 uW/cm2

Adults (18-91 yrs) with short-term exposure to GSM cell phone radiation reported headache, neurological problems, sleep and concentration problems. Hutter, 2006

0.005 - 0.04 uW/cm2 Adults exposed to short-term cell phone radiation reported headaches,  concentration difficulties (differences not significant, but elevated) Thomas, 2008

0.015 - 0.21 uW/cm2 Adults exposed to short-term GSM 900 radiation reported changes in mental state (e.g., calmness) but limitations of study on language descriptors prevented refined word choices (stupified, zoned-out) Augner, 2009

0.05 - 0.1 uW/cm2RFR linked to adverse neurological, cardio symptoms and cancer riskKhurana, 2010

0.05 - 0.1 uW/cm2RFR related to headache, concentration and sleeping problems, fatigueKundi, 2009

0.07 - 0.1 uW/cm2 Sperm head abnormalities in mice exposed for 6-months to base station level RF/MW. Sperm head abnormalities occurred in 39% to 46% exposed mice (only 2% in controls) abnormalities was also found to be dose dependent.  The implications of the pin-head and banana-shaped sperm head.  The occurrence of sperm head observed increase occurrence of sperm head abnormalities on the reproductive health of humans living in close proximity to GSM base stations were discussed." Otitoloju, 2010

0.38 uW/cm2RFR affected calcium metabolism in heart cells, Schwartz, 1990

0.8 - 10 uW/cm2RFR caused emotional behavior changes, free-radical damage by super-weak MWsAkoev, 2002

0.13 uW/cm2RFR from 3G cell towers decreased cognition, well-being, Zwamborn, 2003

0.16 uW/cm2Motor function, memory and attention of school children affected (Latvia) Kolodynski, 1996

0.168 - 1.053 uW/cm2 Irreversible infertility in mice after 5 generations of exposure to RFR from an 'antenna park' Magras & Zenos, 1997

0.2 - 8 uW/cm2RFR caused a two-fold increase in leukemia in children. Hocking, 1996

0.2 - 8 uW/cm2RFR decreased survival in children with leukemia.Hocking, 2000

0.21 - 1.28 uW/cm2 Adolescents and adults exposed only 45 min to UMTS cell phone radiation reported increases In headaches.Riddervold, 2008

Reported Biological Effects from Radiofrequency Radiation at Low-Intensity Exposure (Cell Tower, Wi-Fi, Wireless Laptop and 'Smart' Meter RF Intensities) Reference Power Density (Microwatts/centimeter2 - uW/cm2) 0.5 uW/cm2Significant degeneration of seminiferous epithelium in mice at 2.45 GHz, 30-40 min.Saunders, 1981

0.5 - 1.0 uW/cm2 Wi-FI level laptop exposure for 4-hr resulted in decrease in sperm viability, DNA fragmentation with sperm samples placed in petri dishes under a laptop connected via WI-FI to the internet. Avendano, 2012

1.0 uW/cm2RFR induced pathological leakage of the blood-brain barrier. Persson, 1997

1.0 uW/cm2RFR caused significant effect on immune function in mice. Fesenko, 1999

1.0 uW/cm2RFR affected function of the immune system.Novoselova, 1999

1.0 uW/cm2 Short-term (50 min) exposure in electrosensitive patients, caused loss of well-being after GSM and especially UMTS cell phone radiation exposure Eltiti, 2007

1.3 - 5.7 uW/cm2RFR associated with a doubling of leukemia in adults.Dolk, 1997

1.25 uW/cm2RFR exposure affected kidney development in rats (in-utero exposure). Pyrpasopoulou, 2004

1.5 uW/cm2RFR reduced memory function in rats. Nittby, 2007

2 uW/cm2RFR induced double-strand DNA damage in rat brain cells. Kesari, 2008

2.5 uW/cm2RFR affected calcium concentrations in heart muscle cells. Wolke, 1996

2 - 4 uW/cm2Altered cell membranes; acetycholine-induced ion channel disruption. D'Inzeo, 1988

4 uW/cm2RFR caused changes in hippocampus (brain memory and learning). Tattersall, 2001

4 - 15 uW/cm2Memory impairment, slowed motor skills and retarded learning in children. Chiang, 1989

5 uW/cm2RFR caused drop in NK lymphocytes (immune function decreased). Boscolo, 2001

5.25 uW/cm220 minutes of RFR at cell tower frequencies induced cell stress response. Kwee, 2001

5 - 10 uW/cm2RFR caused impaired nervous system activity. Dumansky, 1974

6 uW/cm2RFR induced DNA damage in cells. Phillips, 1998

Reported Biological Effects from Radiofrequency Radiation at Low-Intensity Exposure (Cell Tower, Wi-Fi, Wireless Laptop and 'Smart' Meter RF Intensities) Reference Power Density (Microwatts/centimeter2 - uW/cm2) 8.75 uW/cm2RFR at 900 MHz for 2-12 hours caused DNA breaks in leukemia cells. Marinelli, 2004 10 uW/cm2Changes in behavior (avoidance) after 0.5 hour exposure to pulsed RFR. Navakatikian, 1994

10 - 100 uW/cm2  Increased risk in radar operators of cancer; very short latency period; dose response to exposure level of RFR reported. Richter, 2000

12.5 uW/cm2RFR caused calcium efflux in cells - can affect many critical cell functions. Dutta, 1989

13.5 uW/cm2RFR affected human lymphocytes - induced stress response in cells. Sarimov, 2004

20 uW/cm2 Increase in serum cortisol (a stress hormone).Mann, 1998

28.2 uW/cm2RFR increased free radical production in rat cells. Yurekli, 2006

37.5 uW/cm2  Immune system effects - elevation of PFC count (antibody producing cells. Veyret, 1991

45 uW/cm2Pulsed RFR affected serum testosterone levels in mice. Forgacs, 2006

50 uW/cm2Cell phone RFR caused a pathological leakage of the blood-brain barrier in 1 hour. Salford, 2003

50 uW/cm2An 18% reduction in REM sleep (important to memory and learning functions). Mann, 1996

60 uW/cm2RFR caused structural changes in cells of mouse embryos. Somozy, 1991

60 uW/cm2Pulsed RFR affected immune function in white blood cells. Stankiewicz, 2006

60 uW/cm2  Cortex of the brain was activated by 15 minutes of 902 MHz cell phone. Lebedeva, 2000

65 uW/cm2RFR affected genes related to cancer.  Ivaschuk, 1999

92.5 uW/cm2RFR caused genetic changes in human white blood cells.  Belyaev, 2005

100 uW/cm2  Changes in immune function.  Elekes, 1996

100 uW/cm2A 24.3% drop in testosterone after 6 hours of CW RFR exposure. Navakatikian, 1994

120 uW/cm2A pathological leakage in the blood-brain barrier with 915 MHz cell RF.  Salford, 1994

Reported Biological Effects from Radiofrequency Radiation at Low-Intensity Exposure (Cell Tower, Wi-Fi, Wireless Laptop and 'Smart' Meter RF Intensities) Reference Power Density (Microwatts/centimeter2 - uW/cm2)

500 uW/cm2  Intestinal epithelial cells exposed to 2.45 GHz pulsed at 16 Hz showed changes in intercellular calcium. Somozy, 1993

500 uW/cm2  A 24.6% drop in testosterone and 23.2% drop in insulin after 12 hrs of pulsed RFR exposure.  Navakatikian, 1994

STANDARDS 530 - 600 uW/cm2  Limit for uncontrolled public exposure to 800-900 MHz ANSI/IEEE and FCC 1000 uW/cm2PCS STANDARD for public exposure (as of September 1,1997)FCC, 1996 5000 uW/cm2PCS STANDARD for occupational exposure (as of September 1, 1997)FCC, 1996 0.003 uW/cm2  Background RF levels in US cities and suburbs in the 1990s.  Mantiply, 1997

0.05 uW/cm2  Median ambient power density in cities in Sweden (30-2000 MHz)Hamnierius, 2000

0.1 - 10 uW/cm2  Ambient power density within 100-200' of cell site in US (data from 2000) Sage, 2000

BACKGROUND LEVELS Reported Biological Effects from Radio frequency Radiation at Low-Intensity Exposure (Cell Tower, Wi-Fi, Wireless Laptop and 'Smart' Meter RF Intensities) SAR (Watts/Kilogram) Reference 0.000064 - 0.000078 W/Kg Well-being and cognitive function affected in humans exposed to GSM-UMTS cell phone frequencies; RF levels similar near cell sites TNO Physics and 0.00015 - 0.003 W/Kg Calcium ion movement in isolated frog heart tissue is increased 18% (P<.01) and by 21% (P<.05) by weak RF field modulated at 16 Hz Schwartz, 1990

0.000021 - 0.0021 W/Kg Changes in cell cycle; cell proliferation (960 MHz GSM mobile phone). Kwee, 1997

0.0003 - 0.06 W/Kg Neurobehavioral disorders in offspring of pregnant mice exposed in utero to cell phones - dose-response impaired glutamatergic synaptic transmission  onto layer V pyramidal neurons of the prefrontal cortex.  Hyperactivity and impaired memory function in offspring.  Altered brain development. Aldad, 2012

0.0016 - 0.0044 W/Kg Very low power 700 MHz CW affects excitability of hippocampus tissue, consistent with reported behavioral changes.  Tattersall, 2001 0.0021 W/Kg Heat shock protein HSP 70 is activated by very low intensity microwave exposure in human epithelial amnion cells.  Kwee, 2001 0.0024 - 0.024 W/Kg Digital cell phone RFR at very low intensities causes DNA damage in human cells; both DNA damage and impairment of DNA is reported.  Phillips, 1998 0.0027 W/Kg Changes in active avoidance conditioned behavioral effect is seen after one-half hour of pulsed radiofrequency radiation.  Navakatikian, 1994 0.0035 W/Kg 900 MHz cell phone signal induces DNA breaks and early activation of p53 gene; short exposure of 2-12 hours leads cells to acquire greater survival chance - linked to tumor agressiveness.  Marinelli, 2004 0.0095 W/Kg MW modulated at 7 Hz produces more errors in short-term memory functioin on complex tasks (can affect cognitive processes such as attention and memory) Lass, 2002 0.001 W/Kg  750 MHz continuous wave (CW) RFR exposure caused increase in heat shock protein (stress proteins).  Equivalent to what would be induced by 3 degree C. heating of tissue (but no heating occurred).  De Pomerai, 2000 0.001 W/Kg  Statistically significant change in intracellular calcium concentration in heart muscle cells exposed to RFR (900 MHz/50 Hz modulation). Wolke, 1996

Reported Biological Effects from Radio frequency Radiation at Low-Intensity Exposure (Cell Tower, Wi-Fi, Wireless Laptop and 'Smart' Meter RF Intensities) SAR (Watts/Kilogram) Reference 0.0021 W/Kg A significant change in cell proliferation not attributable to thermal heating.  RFR induces non-thermal stress proteins (960 MHz GSM). Velizarov, 1999 0.004 - 0.008 W/Kg 915 MHz cell phone RFR caused pathological leakage of blood-brain barrier. Worst at lower SAR levels and worse with CW compared to Frequency of pathological changes was 35% in rats exposed to pulsed radiation at 50% to continuous wave RFR.  Effects observed at a specific absorption (SA) of > 1.5 joules/Kg in human tissues. Persson, 1997 0.0059 W/Kg  Cell phone RFR induces glioma (brain cancer) cells to significantly increase thymidine uptake, which may be indication of more cell division Stagg, 1997 0.014 W/Kg Sperm damage from oxidative stress and lowered melatonin levels resulted from 2-hr per day/45 days exposure to 10 GHz. Kumar, 2012 0.015 W/K gImmune system effects - elevation of PFC count (antibody-producing cells). Veyret, 1991 0.02 W/Kg A single, 2-hr exposure to GSM cell phone radiation results in serious neuron damage (brain cell damage) and death in cortex, hippocampus, and basal ganglia of brain- even 50+ days later blood-brain barrier is still leaking albumin (P<.002) following only one cell phone exposure. Salford, 2003. 0.026 W/Kg Activity of c-jun (oncogene or cancer gene) was altered in cells after 20 minutes exposure to cell phone digital TDMA signal. Ivaschuk, 1997 0.0317 W/Kg Decrease in eating and drinking behavior. Ray, 1990 0.037 W/Kg Hyperactivity caused by nitric oxide synthase inhibitor is countered by exposure to ultra-wide band pulses (600/sec) for 30 min. Seaman, 1999 0.037 - 0.040 W/Kg A 1-hr cell phone exposure causes chromatin condensation; impaired DNA repair mechanisms; last 3 days (longer than stress response) the effect reaches saturation in only one hour of exposure; electro- sensitive (ES) people have different response in formation of DNA repair foci, compared to healthy individuals; effects depend on carrier frequency (915 MHz = 0.037 W/Kg but 1947 MHz = 0.040 W/Kg). Belyaev, 2008 0.05 W/Kg Significant increase in firing rate of neurons (350%) with pulsed 900 MHz cell phone radiation exposure (but not with CW) in avian brain cells. Beason, 2002

Reported Biological Effects from Radiofrequency Radiation at Low-Intensity Exposure (Cell Tower, Wi-Fi, Wireless Laptop and 'Smart' Meter RF Intensities) SAR (Watts/Kilogram) Reference 0.09 W/Kg  900 MHz study of mice for 7 days, 12-hr per day (whole-body) resulted in significant effect on mitochondria and genome stability. Aitken, 2005 0.091 W/Kg Wireless internet 2400 MHz, 24-hrs per day/20 weeks  increased DNA damage and reduced DNA repair; levels below 802.11 g Authors say "findings raise questions about safety of radio frequency exposure from Wi-Fi internet access devices for growing organisms of reproductive age, with a potential effect on fertility and integrity of germ cells" (male germ cells are the reproductive cells=sperm). Atasoy, 2012 0.11 W/Kg Increased cell death (apoptosis) and DNA fragmentation at 2.45 GHz for 35 days exposure (chronic exposure study). Kesari, 2010 0.121 W/Kg Cardiovascular system shows significant decrease in arterial blood pressure (hypotension) after exposure to ultra-wide band pulses. Lu, 1999 0.13 - 1.4 W/Kg Lymphoma cancer rate doubled with two 1/2-hr exposures per day of cell phone radiation for 18 months (pulsed 900 MHz cell signal). Repacholi, 1997 0.14 W/Kg Elevation of immune response to RFR exposure. Elekes, 1996 0.141 W/Kg Structural changes in testes - smaller diameter of seminiferous. Dasdag, 1999 0.15 - 0.4 W/Kg Statistically significant increase in malignant tumors in rats chronically exposed to RFR. Chou, 1992 0.26 W/Kg Harmful effects to the eye/certain drugs sensitize the eye to RFR. Kues, 1992 0.28 - 1.33 W/Kg Significant increase in reported headaches with increasing use of hand-held cell phone use (maximum tested was 60 min per day). Chia, 2000 0.3 - 0.44 W/Kg Cell phone use results in changes in cognitive thinking/mental tasks related to memory retrieval. Krause, 2000 0.3 - 0.44 W/Kg Attention function of brain and brain responses are speeded up Preece, 1999 0.3 - 0.46 W/Kg Cell phone RFR doubles pathological leakage of blood-brain barrier permeability at two days (P=.002) and triples permeability at four days (P=.001) at 1800 MHz GSM cell phone radiation. Schirmacher, 2000 0.43 W/Kg Significant decrease in sperm mobility; drop in sperm concentration; and decrease in seminiferous tubules at 800 MHz, 8-hr/day, 12 weeks, with mobile phone radiation level on STANDBY ONLY (in rabbits). Salama, 2008

Reported Biological Effects from Radiofrequency Radiation at Low-Intensity Exposure (Cell Tower, Wi-Fi, Wireless Laptop and 'Smart' Meter RF Intensities) SAR (Watts/Kilogram) Reference 0.5 W/Kg900 MHz pulsed RF affects firing rate of neurons (Lymnea stagnalis) but continuous wave had no effect. Bolshakov, 1992 0.58 - 0.75 W/Kg Decrease in brain tumors after chronic exposure to RFR at 836 MHzAdey, 1999 0.6 - 0.9 W/Kg Mouse embryos develop fragile cranial bones from in utero 900 MHz The authors say "(O)ur results clearly show that even modest exposure (e.g., 6 min daily for 21 days" is sufficient to interfere with the normal mouse developmental process". Fragopoulou, 2009 0.6 and 1.2 W/Kg Increase in DNA single and double-strand DNA breaks in rat brain cells with exposure to 2450 MHz RFRLai & Singh, 1996 0.795 W/Kg GSM 900 MHz, 217 Hz significantly decreases ovarian development and size of ovaries, due to DNA damage and premature cell death of nurse cells and follicles in ovaries (that nourish egg cells). Panagopoulous, 2012 0.87 W/Kg Altered human mental performance after exposure to GSM cell phone radiation (900 MHz TDMA digital cell phone signal). Hamblin, 2004 0.87 W/Kg Change in human brainwaves; decrease in EEG potential and statistically significant change in alpha (8-13 Hz) and beta (13-22 Hz) brainwave activity in humans at 900 MHz; exposures 6/min per day for 21 days (chronic exposure). D'Costa, 2003 0.9 W/Kg Decreased sperm count and more sperm cell death (apoptosis) after 35 days exposure, 2-hr per day.Kesari, 2012 < 1.0 W/Kg Rats exposed to mobile phone radiation on STANDBY ONLY for 11-hr 45-min plus 15-min TRANSMIT mode; 2 times per day for 21 days showed decreased number of ovarian follicles in pups born to these pregnant rats.  The authors conclude "the decreased number of follicles in pups exposed to mobile phone microwaves suggest that intrauterine exposure has toxic effects on ovaries.". Gul, 2009 0.4 - 1.0 W/Kg One 6-hr exposure to 1800 MHz cell phone radiation in human sperm cells caused a significant dose response and reduced sperm motility and viability; reactive oxygen species levels were significantly increased after exposure to 1.0 W/Kg; study confirms detrimental effects of RF/MW to human sperm.  The authors conclude "(T)hese findings have clear implicatiions for the safety of extensive mobile phone use by males of reproductive age, potentially affecting both their fertility and the health and wellbeing of their offspring." De Iuliis, 2009 1.0 W/Kg Human semen degraded by exposure to cell phone frequency RF increased free-radical damage. De Iuliis, 2009

Reported Biological Effects from Radio frequency Radiation at Low-Intensity Exposure (Cell Tower, Wi-Fi, Wireless Laptop and 'Smart' Meter RF Intensities) SAR (Watts/Kilogram) Reference 1.0 W/Kg Motility, sperm count, sperm morphology, and viability reduced in active cell phone users (human males) in dose-dependent manner. Agarwal, 2008 1.0 W/Kg GSM cell phone use modulates brain wave oscillations and sleep EEG. Huber, 2002 1.0 W/Kg Cell phone RFR during waking hours affects brain wave activity. (EEG patterns) during subsequent sleep. Achermann, 2000 1.0 W/Kg Cell phone use causes nitric oxide (NO) nasal vasodilation (swelling inside nasal passage) on side of head phone use. Paredi, 2001 1.0 W/Kg Increase in headache, fatigue and heating behind ear in cell phone users. Sandstrom, 2001 1.0 W/Kg Significant increase in concentration difficulties using 1800 MHz cell phone compared to 900 MHz cell phone. Santini, 2001 1.0 W/Kg Sleep patterns and brain wave activity are changed with 900 MHz cell phone radiation exposure during sleep. Borbely, 1999 1.4 W/Kg GSM cell phone exposure induced heat shock protein HSP 70 by 360% (stress response) and phosphorylation of ELK-1 by 390%. Weisbrot, 2003 1.46 W/Kg  850 MHz cell phone radiation decreases sperm motility, viability is significantly decreased; increased oxidative damage (free-radicals) significantly decreased; increased oxidative damage (free-radicals) Agarwal, 2009 1.48 W/Kg  A significant decrease in protein kinase C activity at 112 MHz with 2-hr per day for 35 days; hippocampus is site, consistent with reports that RFR negatively affects learning and memory functions. Paulraj, 2004 1.0 - 2.0 W/Kg Significant elevation in micronuclei in peripheral blood cells at 2450 MHz (8 treatments of 2-hr each)Trosic, 2002 1.5 W/Kg  GSM cell phone exposure affected gene expression levels in tumor suppressor p53-deficient embryonic stem cells; and significantly increased HSP 70 heat shock protein production. Czyz, 2004 1.8 W/Kg  Whole-body exposure to RF cell phone radiation of 900-1800 MHz 1 cm from head of rats caused high incidence of sperm cell death; deformation of sperm cells; prominent clumping together of sperm cells into "grass bundle shapes" that are unable to separate/swim.  Sperm cells unable to swim and fertilize in normal manner.  Yan, 2007

Reported Biological Effects from Radiofrequency Radiation at Low-Intensity Exposure (Cell Tower, Wi-Fi, Wireless Laptop and 'Smart' Meter RF Intensities) SAR (Watts/Kilogram) Reference 2.0 W/Kg  GSM cell phone exposure of 1-hr activated heat shock protein HSP 27 (stress response) and P38 MAPK (mutagen-activated protein kinase) that authors say facilitates brain cancer and increased blood-brain barrier permeability, allowing toxins to cross BBB into brain. Leszczynski, 2002 2 W/Kg  900 MHz cell phone exposure caused brain cell oxidative damage by increasing levels of NO, MDA, XO and ADA in brain cells; caused statistically significant increase in 'dark neurons' or damaged brain cells in cortex, hippocampus and basal ganglia with a 1-hr exposure for 7 consecutive days. Ilhan, 2004 2.6 W/Kg  900 MHz cell phone exposure for 1-hr significantly altered protein expression levels in 38 proteins following irradiation; activates  P38 MAP kinase stress signalling pathway and leads to changes in cell size and shape (shrinking and rounding up) and to activation of HSP 27, a stress protein (heat shock protein). Leszczynski, 2004 2.0 - 3.0 W/Kg RFR accelerated development of both skin and breast tumors. Szmigielski, 1982 2 W/Kg Pulse-modulated RFR and MF affect brain physiology (sleep study)Schmidt, 2012

STANDARDS 0.08 W/Kg IEEE Standard uncontrolled public environment (whole body)IEEE 0.4 W/Kg IEEE Standard controlled occupational environment (whole body)IEEE 1.6 W/Kg FCC (IEEE) SAR limit for 1 gram of tissue in a partial body exposure FCC, 1996 2 W/Kg ICNIRP SAR limit for 10 grams of tissue ICNIRP, 1996

[see-arcane]

Eggers is really getting on my nerves - he now goes around saying how Ellen is actually a victim of XIX century and doesn’t belong, how her husband doesn’t understand her and how there’s a love triangle happening between Ellen, Orlok and Thomas. 🤦‍♀️ Just….why?! Why?

Playing very halfhearted devil's advocate, I can see how Bobby Egg would glean this from the original Nosferatu even without the Coppola influence.

Ellen is a victim of her time period!

Ellen Hutter is from a film made in 1922, with its story taking place in 1838. Neither period was a stellar one for taking women seriously or seeing them treated well/as equals (and fuck, just look around right now). A lot of directors and writers fall into this track of thinking when doing period pieces, because, yeah: Women Always Got the Short Stick. Especially women who behaved outside The Norm (c).

The problem here is that Ellen's weirdness is not a turn-off to Thomas, nor does it make her a pariah to her friends who host her while Thomas is gone. At most, Thomas can be pointed out as foolishly (but, fine, rationally) not taking Ellen's spontaneous Foretelling of Doom over a business trip seriously. Thomas' main character flaws amount to 1) Not believing Ellen until it's too late and 2) Insisting the supernatural reality is just him going mad/dreaming. But Ellen faces no other trial than the one she takes upon herself--the martyr sacrifice.

Herzog played with it pretty well, showing his Ellen/Mina-figure 'Lucy Harker' coming up against the walls of 1) Skepticism from the Learned Man, 'Van Helsing' bluntly refusing to listen to her about Nosferatu and 2) Everyone around her, men, women, and children, cracking under the fear and despair of the plague and just waltzing around in Danse Macabre happy-hopelessness, deaf to any warning from her. Again, not because 'Girl One Weird! Girl One is Girl! Let us jeer and torture her about it, as is right.'

Eggers is doing for his Ellen what he did to Thomasin in The Witch. Leaning heavy on extremely grim hyper-realism as it might have been for a young woman being Odd in the 19th century. A factor that did not exist at all in the 1922 or 1979 versions. But it adds to the 'All the time period's humans around her are trash and backwards! no wonder she would rather die with Orlok!' of it all. So yeah.

2. Her husband doesn't understand her!

Is Thomas himself weird? Creepy? Into dark and eerie things? Nope. Dude's a human golden retriever.

But he loves Ellen and all that she is. The entire first scenes with them are them hugging and loving on each other. The first thing he does upon returning from his escape (other than mentally grafting a belief that it Was All in His Head) is crushing her in an embrace. He is proof that you don't have to be Grim and Gothique and Misunderstood to love yourself a Morticia. At most, we could say that he fails to clock when Ellen is lying to him--because she is shown lying to him exactly once.

When she says she is sick and tells him he must run to Prof. Bulwer for help. He does so immediately, leaving the house for Ellen to call in Orlok for the sunrise trap. At a stretch we could paint this as Thomas, the 'lighter' half of the couple, failing to understand the 'darker' half's acceptance of a deadly price for Doing What Must Be Done. Thomas Hutter is, if not childish, very clearly meant to be in a different story. He is more the flighty loving and beloved maiden than Ellen, the self-sacrificing gothic hero, is. If Thomas is ignorant, he is ignorant in the way of someone who was meant to be in a sweeter fairy tale where he and his love were destined to live safe and happy together who realizes too late they are in a horror story.

But to throw that tragedy out and just graft in, 'Well he's too dry and proper to really get her, I guess," feels lazy. Usable, but lazy.

3. It's a love triangle!

I mean. Yeah, it is. A love triangle just has to involve three people with attraction floating around between the three points.

In the original and in Herzog's, the triangle is 'Human Couple is in Love. Nosferatu gets a Crush. The Crush is used to Bait Nosferatu into the Sunrise Trap.'

But Bobby Egg is pulling a Coppola by deciding aaaactuallyyy, Ellen is super goth-horny for Orlok, not her unsatisfying unmanly cuck husband Thomas. The sacrifice is still technically there--the whole "We belong dead" of Ellen giving her life to make sure Orlok dies by sunrise--but it feels so damn pointless from that angle.

I have said it before, this premise is peak gothic. It is a very tasty notion to consider: A misfit who, being too weird and unhappy to live, but still bound by Morals enough to destroy herself and her would-be Ideal*** mate rather than inflict their horror upon an ungrateful humanity, is some very meaty stuff! Excellent even!

If. It. Had. Been. AN ORIGINAL STORY.

Ellen of the original was terrified. She was repulsed. She did not want to do what she knew had to be done...but it had to be done. And so she abandoned joy. Abandoned life. Abandoned Thomas, who she loved. All to lay herself out as bait in a trap and ensure that her beloved and the dying townspeople, including her friends, would be saved. That is the tragedy. Ellen was happy. Ellen was loved and in love. Ellen was singled out by Orlok's craving and so left as the martyr under the spotlight: Well, Ellen? What will you do, knowing what you know? Will you sit by and live and be left free of violation as the deaths pile around you? Hmm?

And, as Mina Harker was prepared to do before her, she put herself on the chopping block. It is brave. It is painful. It is unfair.

As I'm sure Eggers' Ellen's end will feel to some degree. The audience will be honed by then into grieving her loss, this misunderstood and monstrous beauty dying by bleeding and writhing to death under her would-be undead beau. But it will be an end less than the sum of its original.

[darklinaforever]

https://www.tumblr.com/inkmage13/772602250532175872/did-we-not-all-see-the-same-movie-i-was-looking

Ellen, Orlok and Thomas are a love triangle (but other than some eroticism, there is nothing romantic between Orlok & Thomas), cry about it.

Oh, and here's what the movie is really about :

@apoloadonisandnarcissus has obviously made other excellent posts on the subject, and not being able to put more here I invite you to go and look at the rest for yourself.