Note: apparently the character names have been changed in different localizations of this film, with at least three different names being listed for each character on the Wikipedia page. I'll be using the names from the Amazon localization I watched, which seem to have been written to replicate the original book.
A uniquely unsettling scene in Nosferatu, in my view, was the cut to the imprisoned Renfield after Drakul kills the people on the ship. Renfield is downright giddy about the the arrival of the one he calls "master", going as far as to strangle his guard and break out in order to try and find him. It made me realize that Renfield was more than a disposable character who was thrown in to advance the plot, but rather a persistent character whose role within the story extended beyond the initial incident. Alexander Granach's performance as Renfield also sticks out to me due to the sheer energy he exudes in many of the scenes, moving with a frantic excitement even when he's just sitting at his desk or in a cell. We know little about how Renfield entered this state, but we can figure out a few things about him.
1. Renfield's stability decreases over the course of the film. In the beginning, he's working as a clerk and his behavior isn't anything out of the ordinary for Jonathan. When next we see Renfield, he's incarcerated in a cell scrawling designs on the walls, indicating that whatever condition he's in is getting progressively worse.
2. Renfield obsesses over Drakul, heavily implying that Drakul has or has had some sort of control over the man's mind. The effect seems to stick around even after Drakul sees no more use for Renfield. It is not clarified whether this effect is magical in nature or if Renfield is just fanboying over the mysterious lord (the first option is much more likely in my opinion, but I won't rule out the second for reasons I'll get into later).
3. Renfield is very protective of a piece of paper covered in occult symbols, even going as far as to replicate the symbols on the wall of his cell. We see Drakul carrying the same symbols on a piece of paper when he eats with Jonathan, which could mean that the paper/symbols are either a means of long-distance communication or a mechanism for Drakul to control people's minds. Renfield may be afraid of having other people seeing the paper for a variety of reasons, the most obvious being the risk that somebody might be able to decipher the encoded spell and figure out what it actually does (the alternatives could be that the magic of the paper is finite and could be drained by another user, or that a pseudo-stable Renfield wanted to protect Jonathan from its effects).
From the information we are given, we can be interpret the actions of Renfield to take several different directions, each of which possesses a unique space for commentary and thematic value.
In the first conceptualization, Drakul was able to reach out to Renfield at some point in the past and magically brainwash him, using the paper to keep in touch while Renfield returned home. In this case, Drakul's mind control represents how easily people can be seduced into servitude by propaganda, promises of wealth, or other forces. Renfield's personality has been overwritten by whatever Drakul put in his head, his goals having been magically replaced by Drakul's own. Once those goals are completed, Renfield is just cast to the side, the clerk still enslaved to Drakul's intenions.
The second idea is similar to the first, except that Renfield's brainwashing is neither magical nor symbolic. The clerk was promised money, prestige, camaraderie, or other resources by Drakul and these promises blinded him to his own humanity while slowly stripping away his stable facade. In the age of stochastic terrorism, it is quite easy to believe that people could be swayed to absurd acts just through promises, and this approach makes a great deal of sense within the context of postwar Germany (which was fueled by false promises of glory from the elite).
The third idea is that Drakul stopped communicating with Renfield after their initial meeting, but gave the clerk the paper as a reward for his service. The symbols encoded on the paper could function as some sort of magical drug, inducing immense pleasure in somebody who knows how to work them (this would explain why Renfield wrote them on his wall). In this case, the story of Drakul and Renfield is that of a promise fulfilled, mirroring the empty accolades which were given to soldiers after the war (or perhaps the inflated-to-uselessness currency of the Wiemar Republic). This reading could serve as an effective commentary on the pursuit of prestige and aristocratic respect, displaying the grotesque lengths that someone will go to in order to acquire what is little more than a piece of paper.
Other combinations of these factors could exist, but these are the three that I think are most sensible and thought-provoking. I would love to hear the thoughts of others regarding these dynamics.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Opening Up (I spit on your grave)
"He went for his gun, but he didn’t get that far. She closed her eyes for a moment, listened for the music that came from his mind and...
-
“I’m a good guy,” I said. Stepping closer to me, he tilted his head, “You don’t look like one.” -Worm, Chapter 1.6 Over the last week, ...
-
“Check the surroundings,” Jouster said. “Tools? The group’s practices involve using tools, ritual, rites, chants, and all that crap to try...
-
Hello everyone! Good to hear from you all again! Introduction time! My name is Matt Daley, I am a senior at Lawrence University (Econ majo...
I'd be interested to know how each of your three readings might have been taken if the film had been produced post the Hollywood code. Further, I'd like to suggest that Reinfeld's reaction, in accordance with our reading on homosexuals as monsters, could be less due to magical brainwashing or desire for the paper and rather a result of an intense queer relationship with Drakul. Since homosexuals are portrayed as monsters, and Drakul is a clear queer figure in this film, I dont think it would be too far to suggest that Drakul could have a powerful sexual appeal to men who have queer tendencies.Therefore his absence causes turmoil for Reinfield as he is madly in love with him. Do you have thoughts on this?
ReplyDelete-Chelsea Halloin
The romantic angle never occurred to me, and I think that would be a neat concept to pursue. The idea of Renfield being literally seduced is a distinct possibility and adds another layer to the construction of control inherent to their relationship. The occult letter as a mirror to Jonathan's letter to his beloved adds some credence to this.
DeleteWhoa Matt this was incredibly thought provoking. Thanks for taking the time to outline all of that. Piggybacking off of Chelsea, I wonder how these ideas of brainwashing and occult significance connect to our queer reading of the film. If Renfield is indeed queer and desires Drakul, how would that contribute to an argument of Nosferatu as a queer text? Also, since magic plays a role in your reading, is there queerness in this film's conception of magic? Very good stuff.
ReplyDeleteThere's a lot of crossover between stereotypes of homosexuals in this era and stereotypes of occultists. Both a recluses devoid of a moral compass, lurking in the shadows and fulfilling their desires through profane, ungodly acts. As Amy pointed out, both conceptions are built upon structures of forbidden knowledge.
DeleteIf this film actually does use the dark arts as an analogue for homosexuality, this wouldn't be the first text to explore that connection. Neil Gaiman's Sandman also goes into this in some of the later volumes.
This is a really interesting take on an often overlooked character. I especially like your observations around the overlap between stereotypes of Occultists and stereotypes of homosexuals in this era. I wonder how Chelsea and Sam's suggestions for queer readings of the character might be enhanced by looking at more recent iterations of this character is in, for example, Let The Right One In (Tomas Alfredson, 2008) where the character is not only written as very queer but also a pedophile or in the lack of a Renfield character and the lack of queer seduction in the Twilight series.
ReplyDelete