Compare

4 Pages 937 Words

Sound vs. Silence
Written by: Unregistered

The most apparent difference between Dracula and Nosferatu is that one was made while film was still without sound-at least dialogue-and the other was not. This difference, though not a revelation in itself, leads to a great number of much more in-depth contrasts that deserve discussion.

In making a silent film, a director must rely on sight-and a certain amount of text-to portray to the audience his intended emotional, and intellectual reaction. As a result of this, the director is not able to go into in-depth character development with the same kind of resources as a director of film that is not silent. In the case of Nosferatu, this leads to a very limited number of characters have any kind of depth whatsoever. This is not to say that every character does not have about him or herself a certain image, or that every character does not extract a certain emotion from the audience. It is simply to say that a great number of characters in Nosferatu use only image to achieve their desired effect. For example, in Dracula, if one were to see Dracula walking down the street, an adverse reaction would be somewhat illfounded. Outside of his clothes, Dracula is a normal looking person. In Nosferatu, however, Dracula is more or less a freak. The end result of this is the audience having the same image of Dracula in both movies, one achieved this through extensive dialogue, and one simply through the appearance of a character. Another example, in Dracula, the first character that is given any kind of development whatsoever is Renfield, and throughout the movie, Renfield is transformed first to a blood sucking savage, and then slowly returned to a character with a heart, and a little bit of compassion. However, in Nosferatu, Renfield is already the blood sucking savage, cooped up in the loony bin, eating bugs when the movie starts, and the extent of his role seems to be nothing more than to provide...