I was thinking about “submerging the I” a while back and I thought a good way of practicing it would perhaps be to write about a more interesting non-narrator character from the POV of narrator — an apostolic narrative more or less. The camera being pointed at a more interesting and charismatic character (Tyler Durden, Jay Gatsby, Randal McMurphy, etc) draws the attention away from the narrator (submerging the I) while simultaneously allowing the narrator to become more fleshed out as the reader perceives the more charismatic character through their subjective lens.
“A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that.”
The way you describe writing apostolic fiction makes it seem like it evokes euphoria and/or revelation. Fitting given the religious connotations of the term “Apostle”.
The charm of hypnosis is that it urges you to identify the specifics of your goal. For example, "What does 'good health' look like?" Once you begin to unpack the specifics of a vague goal, you begin to manifest that ideal.
As you unpack the specifics of a hero or of love (any vague ideal) you generate that and begin to recognize it in your life. Suddenly your world is filled with heroes and love -- because that's what you're looking for. You see the world through that lens.
Does The New Journalism exist today in a meaningful way? Wolfe and Thomas took down the cool kids revealing truths both about their subjects and the readers. Now it's about lauding the cool kids.
Sadly, the gonzo style got run into the ground. Too many journalists began short pieces with long, long scenes in which they agonized over the choice of what necktie to wear to do the interview. But for freshness and spin, please take a look at Ephron, Wolfe and Co. If you can blend their snark with the gravity of Didion, you'll be a god.
I really have a hard time going to the movies and I haven't watched a movie in a theater since "Black Swan." So many re-makes and sequels. I did like "Shadow of a Vampire" with Malkovich. It use "Nosferatu" as a nice take off point and celebrated Nosferatu without copying it. And who doesn't love Malkovich!?
Hard (but respectful) disagree re Nosferatu being "just another Dracula movie". The monster in this one isn't charming. He isn't sexy. He doesn't even have the pathos of the monster in Herzog's version, who is hideous to look at but is also sad that he can't have love and tortured that he can't die. This guy is just evil, just darkness. And Ellen has to face the guilt and the shame and the agony of feeling a pull to that darkness that she didn't ask for and can't control. I can't think at the moment of what specific cultural issue of our time the movie is addressing, but I would argue that in addition to being visually spectacular, it does hit some notes that I, at least, haven't seen in previous Dracula/Nosferatu movies.
Good point on the monster not being charming or sexy; that’s a classic vampire trope that is (intentionally) missing here. Though prior versions of Nosferatu skipped that angle as well. He’s always been a bit of an outcast.
I think the remake is poorly door. Depp has some laugh out loud funny lines that are aupposed to be serrious. Every scene is shot the same way and it makes the movie boring to watch (long takes and one-shots). Menance is never properly showcased in the visual medium. The fact a silent movie was so effective but yet in a modern movie the count has to say something like " you will stay asleep" to the father before he kills the daughters is laughable. Like the audience is too stupid to infer the gesture or some dark magic is in play. The movie is filled with so much telling us what is happening that the menance never really gets to build.
This is a sprawling, expansive post that triggers so many thoughts - new ways to submerge the I! the media is manipulating us by what they chose to discuss (or not discuss)! alanis morissette wrote that song about dave coulier, uncle joey from Full House! did I miss something deeper in Nosferatu?
I’d love to engage in deep discussion about what the latest Dracula movie MEANS and what it’s trying to SAY, but alas…I walked away thinking little more than it was enjoyable enough and Ellen took one for the team at the end. And also - Bill Skarsgard got to play Count Orlok and Pennywise? In the same lifetime? Dear lord.
More thoughts - as a massive history nerd, I’d argue “history is written by the victors” is essentially the same concept as charming and manipulating the reader. You’re getting the heavily curated, carefully selected moments, events, and justifications the writer of that history wants you to know so specific conclusions are drawn. Think of the chest-thumping, America as the white knight protecting freedoms across the globe narrative most of us received in elementary, middle, and high school…and then you get older and start to understand wellllll…we’re not always the good guy, and the bad guy isn’t always bad. So submerge the “I” and dupe your reader into some wild sh*t.
I think the social issue Nosferatu tells us about is less about the content of the film and more about the way it was marketed. I felt like Nosferatu was marketed as a horror film, rather than the classic monster remake it was. What I took away from the movie was Hollywood is insecure in its ability to draw in audiences. I think we also saw this with Wicked, Mean Girls, and Wonka - none of which were marketed as musicals. Not that this was Eggers' goal, but in context with the studio's positions during the strike and the post-Endgame collapse of the Marvel cash cow, I think we're seeing a multi-billion industry unsure of where the next multi-billion dollars are coming from. What the fuck is up with that?
Interesting. As television forced films to get gritty (what can't TV show us... sex!), what will the internet force films to do?
Seeing Nosferatu in a big crowd (my first theater since 'The Witch') was a thrill. I've always thought of myself as the William Castle of book events: What can I throw at them? How can films lure people back into one shared space?
I didnt like the remake. I thought it was poorly done. Where was the scary? I thought the terrible 5 nights at Freddy's animatronics had more menace at times than the vampire.
Your comment perfectly illustrates Ben's point about the marketing problem. The "scary" is the whole damn thing. Gothic horror doesn't rely on jump scares or knife-wielding maniacs. As a genre, it's all about letting yourself be submerged in the slow, creeping sense of dread. Like you, lots of people went in expecting/wanting conventional horror...and that just isn't what this movie is.
You obviously didnt understand my comment. You equate when i said these two adjectives "scary" and "menace" to equal jump scares and slasher stuff. Yes 5 nights at Freddy's is a traditional horror film but the silly animatronics had built up more menace in their film or your adjective "dread" than the vampire in its film.
I understood your comment perfectly. I just don’t agree with it. I think you’re putting expectations on a Gothic horror movie that don’t fit the genre.
This is ultimately a stupid argument anyway, though, because obviously what’s scary is completely subjective. For instance, I can watch a horror movie or read The Exorcist or whatever and go right to bed and sleep like a baby. But I have a good friend who, if she’s exposed to even mildly creepy imagery, will have nightmares for weeks. The fact that you didn’t personally find a movie as scary as you wanted it to be doesn’t mean it was poorly done. It just means it wasn’t for you.
It was poorly done. It was a bad representation of gothic Horror. The director might have made a name for themselves with other horror films but they seemed out of depth with this remake because it requires more subtlety. This film was anything but subtle and creeping doom. How many times did characters have to give us expostion on the events unfolding before our very eyes. Oh no this is who I am yet let me explain it all in dialogue. Back ground characters and even the villian have to tell us eveything. Oh no what of we miss something or are unable to determine the meaning of the scene for myself. They even tell you how the movie is going to end before it. Prophetic? No more like pathetic.
Nailed it with the marketing. My girlfriend didn’t go because she doesn’t like horror, only to later learn that it definitely was not that. A dark and twisted love story perhaps? But not horror. Hollywood does seem to be searching for the next big thing that will draw viewers away from the original content being churned out by Netflix, Apple, etc. “Here’s a live action Cruella…and Mulan…and Aladdin…and Mustafa…and how about Happy Gilmore 2?”. I enjoy the occasional movie laying in bed, but adore the spectacle of seeing something on the big screen.
“Nosferatu” (2024) has given us the line ‘I cannot be sated without you’ which I think is a really wonderful and versatile statement. For instance: you can say it in response to someone saying ‘I love you’ or as a reply to someone asking ‘would you like fries with that?’ The possibilities of its application are endless.
Soooo, I had a unique experience with this film as I was able to see it via smell-a-vision. The parfum company, Heretic, was asked to create a fragrance that would premier alongside the film. I was given some samples. Heretic’s creator, Douglas Little, gave a great interview about its formula. I wore my sample and it gave the film that extra layer. I wonder if anyone else did the same? I’m obsessed with scents and smells— it’s a thing. (They have one called “Poltergeist” that’s reaaaally good. I pretty much have everything from them).
The best part of seeing “Nosferatu” and films like “Long Legs” at the theater on jumbo screens is that you’re stuck there with the film. You have to face it and not distract yourself like you would at home (your phone, pet, chatting with someone). There are rules at the theater— no phone, no talking, immersive screen, popcorn— a drink— other people around you experiencing it at the same time. It’s intoxicating! Going to the movies is my drug of choice. I love the first time seeing it and feeing nothing but emotion. Then, analyzing it the second time.
This retelling was strong and extremely emotional based. Cinematography was on point. I can say that folks under Gen X that I talked to just thought it was funny and boobs. They described it to me as “there’s a lot of sex in it.” I see it differently. It’s an art house film and I loved it. My older European friends have told me, “Americans don’t understand the feeling of longing for love, unrequited love, or pining for someone. You know, the kind they sing of in Irish songs.” I agree. There’s an age gap for sure with what people took away from it. The rats— now that was good!! Anyone get the metal sarcophagus popcorn tin they offered?
I’m telling yah though, watch it wearing the Parfum, “Nosferatu.” Next level and necessary.
I saw “Babygirl.” Disliked it immensely. Rather watch “Secretary” with James Spader and Maggie Gyllenhaal. Loooove that one. A red sharpie will never be seen the same again.
Heretic created a Parfum for Dita Von Tease called, “Scandalwood.” It’s divine. Might have to do, rather than milk— I’ve seen Dita do a burlesque number in some cream, though!
I was concentrating so hard on your writerly advice. Then I click on the first link and here’s Freda Payne in a leotard and fringe singing “Band of Gold.” Great example but also thanks for the jolt of surprise and joy.
The new aspects, such as the female lead summoning the vampire out of loneliness, are wonderful. It reminded me of the extreme loneliness expressed in the Netflix Dahmer series. Beyond that so much of the Nosferatu plot had to cover the standard Stations of the Cross -- trek to sign the contract, vampire to Germany, etc.. I wondered if something new regarding the lead's dead mother or absent father could've juiced the story.
The bold vampire-killing gypsy from the first section seemed like a "gun" and I kept hoping he'd turn up instead of the Willem Dafoe character. I.e., using a tried-and-true vampire hunter instead of a stock character introduced so late in the story.
Every minute leading up to and into Orlock's castle was golden. The nuns seemed like such a blip, that sequence confused me. What if Ellen had insisted on making the journey with her husband?
I was thinking about “submerging the I” a while back and I thought a good way of practicing it would perhaps be to write about a more interesting non-narrator character from the POV of narrator — an apostolic narrative more or less. The camera being pointed at a more interesting and charismatic character (Tyler Durden, Jay Gatsby, Randal McMurphy, etc) draws the attention away from the narrator (submerging the I) while simultaneously allowing the narrator to become more fleshed out as the reader perceives the more charismatic character through their subjective lens.
"Shane! Shane, come back!"
A hero can't tell his/her own story. Apostolic fiction feels glorious to write. Your whole body thrums.
“A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that.”
The way you describe writing apostolic fiction makes it seem like it evokes euphoria and/or revelation. Fitting given the religious connotations of the term “Apostle”.
The charm of hypnosis is that it urges you to identify the specifics of your goal. For example, "What does 'good health' look like?" Once you begin to unpack the specifics of a vague goal, you begin to manifest that ideal.
As you unpack the specifics of a hero or of love (any vague ideal) you generate that and begin to recognize it in your life. Suddenly your world is filled with heroes and love -- because that's what you're looking for. You see the world through that lens.
So, is the Bible the most famous piece of apostolic fiction? A label my grandmother would have a problem with…
Does The New Journalism exist today in a meaningful way? Wolfe and Thomas took down the cool kids revealing truths both about their subjects and the readers. Now it's about lauding the cool kids.
Sadly, the gonzo style got run into the ground. Too many journalists began short pieces with long, long scenes in which they agonized over the choice of what necktie to wear to do the interview. But for freshness and spin, please take a look at Ephron, Wolfe and Co. If you can blend their snark with the gravity of Didion, you'll be a god.
Sorry, meant Hunter Thompson. Hell's Angels really threw me for a loop. I will revisit those you mentioned.
I really have a hard time going to the movies and I haven't watched a movie in a theater since "Black Swan." So many re-makes and sequels. I did like "Shadow of a Vampire" with Malkovich. It use "Nosferatu" as a nice take off point and celebrated Nosferatu without copying it. And who doesn't love Malkovich!?
Thank you for the wonderful picture of Egg. It will find a place of honor. Promise.
Glad you got it! Yeah!
Hard (but respectful) disagree re Nosferatu being "just another Dracula movie". The monster in this one isn't charming. He isn't sexy. He doesn't even have the pathos of the monster in Herzog's version, who is hideous to look at but is also sad that he can't have love and tortured that he can't die. This guy is just evil, just darkness. And Ellen has to face the guilt and the shame and the agony of feeling a pull to that darkness that she didn't ask for and can't control. I can't think at the moment of what specific cultural issue of our time the movie is addressing, but I would argue that in addition to being visually spectacular, it does hit some notes that I, at least, haven't seen in previous Dracula/Nosferatu movies.
Good point on the monster not being charming or sexy; that’s a classic vampire trope that is (intentionally) missing here. Though prior versions of Nosferatu skipped that angle as well. He’s always been a bit of an outcast.
I dunno about the monster not being sexy, man. That Ned Flanders moustache roused up all kinds of feelings.
I think the remake is poorly door. Depp has some laugh out loud funny lines that are aupposed to be serrious. Every scene is shot the same way and it makes the movie boring to watch (long takes and one-shots). Menance is never properly showcased in the visual medium. The fact a silent movie was so effective but yet in a modern movie the count has to say something like " you will stay asleep" to the father before he kills the daughters is laughable. Like the audience is too stupid to infer the gesture or some dark magic is in play. The movie is filled with so much telling us what is happening that the menance never really gets to build.
This is a sprawling, expansive post that triggers so many thoughts - new ways to submerge the I! the media is manipulating us by what they chose to discuss (or not discuss)! alanis morissette wrote that song about dave coulier, uncle joey from Full House! did I miss something deeper in Nosferatu?
I’d love to engage in deep discussion about what the latest Dracula movie MEANS and what it’s trying to SAY, but alas…I walked away thinking little more than it was enjoyable enough and Ellen took one for the team at the end. And also - Bill Skarsgard got to play Count Orlok and Pennywise? In the same lifetime? Dear lord.
And while is everyone's thwarted love named "Bill"????
More thoughts - as a massive history nerd, I’d argue “history is written by the victors” is essentially the same concept as charming and manipulating the reader. You’re getting the heavily curated, carefully selected moments, events, and justifications the writer of that history wants you to know so specific conclusions are drawn. Think of the chest-thumping, America as the white knight protecting freedoms across the globe narrative most of us received in elementary, middle, and high school…and then you get older and start to understand wellllll…we’re not always the good guy, and the bad guy isn’t always bad. So submerge the “I” and dupe your reader into some wild sh*t.
I think the social issue Nosferatu tells us about is less about the content of the film and more about the way it was marketed. I felt like Nosferatu was marketed as a horror film, rather than the classic monster remake it was. What I took away from the movie was Hollywood is insecure in its ability to draw in audiences. I think we also saw this with Wicked, Mean Girls, and Wonka - none of which were marketed as musicals. Not that this was Eggers' goal, but in context with the studio's positions during the strike and the post-Endgame collapse of the Marvel cash cow, I think we're seeing a multi-billion industry unsure of where the next multi-billion dollars are coming from. What the fuck is up with that?
Interesting. As television forced films to get gritty (what can't TV show us... sex!), what will the internet force films to do?
Seeing Nosferatu in a big crowd (my first theater since 'The Witch') was a thrill. I've always thought of myself as the William Castle of book events: What can I throw at them? How can films lure people back into one shared space?
https://movieweb.com/william-castle-gimmicks-movies/
I didnt like the remake. I thought it was poorly done. Where was the scary? I thought the terrible 5 nights at Freddy's animatronics had more menace at times than the vampire.
Your comment perfectly illustrates Ben's point about the marketing problem. The "scary" is the whole damn thing. Gothic horror doesn't rely on jump scares or knife-wielding maniacs. As a genre, it's all about letting yourself be submerged in the slow, creeping sense of dread. Like you, lots of people went in expecting/wanting conventional horror...and that just isn't what this movie is.
You obviously didnt understand my comment. You equate when i said these two adjectives "scary" and "menace" to equal jump scares and slasher stuff. Yes 5 nights at Freddy's is a traditional horror film but the silly animatronics had built up more menace in their film or your adjective "dread" than the vampire in its film.
I understood your comment perfectly. I just don’t agree with it. I think you’re putting expectations on a Gothic horror movie that don’t fit the genre.
This is ultimately a stupid argument anyway, though, because obviously what’s scary is completely subjective. For instance, I can watch a horror movie or read The Exorcist or whatever and go right to bed and sleep like a baby. But I have a good friend who, if she’s exposed to even mildly creepy imagery, will have nightmares for weeks. The fact that you didn’t personally find a movie as scary as you wanted it to be doesn’t mean it was poorly done. It just means it wasn’t for you.
It was poorly done. It was a bad representation of gothic Horror. The director might have made a name for themselves with other horror films but they seemed out of depth with this remake because it requires more subtlety. This film was anything but subtle and creeping doom. How many times did characters have to give us expostion on the events unfolding before our very eyes. Oh no this is who I am yet let me explain it all in dialogue. Back ground characters and even the villian have to tell us eveything. Oh no what of we miss something or are unable to determine the meaning of the scene for myself. They even tell you how the movie is going to end before it. Prophetic? No more like pathetic.
Nailed it with the marketing. My girlfriend didn’t go because she doesn’t like horror, only to later learn that it definitely was not that. A dark and twisted love story perhaps? But not horror. Hollywood does seem to be searching for the next big thing that will draw viewers away from the original content being churned out by Netflix, Apple, etc. “Here’s a live action Cruella…and Mulan…and Aladdin…and Mustafa…and how about Happy Gilmore 2?”. I enjoy the occasional movie laying in bed, but adore the spectacle of seeing something on the big screen.
“Nosferatu” (2024) has given us the line ‘I cannot be sated without you’ which I think is a really wonderful and versatile statement. For instance: you can say it in response to someone saying ‘I love you’ or as a reply to someone asking ‘would you like fries with that?’ The possibilities of its application are endless.
Thanks for the leason Chuck. Im still working on submerging the "I" in my own ficition. The more I write the more improvements that I make.
^^^^ Me too.
I like the Didion text - I felt like I was on my way to Banyon right there along for the journey. Great example.
Soooo, I had a unique experience with this film as I was able to see it via smell-a-vision. The parfum company, Heretic, was asked to create a fragrance that would premier alongside the film. I was given some samples. Heretic’s creator, Douglas Little, gave a great interview about its formula. I wore my sample and it gave the film that extra layer. I wonder if anyone else did the same? I’m obsessed with scents and smells— it’s a thing. (They have one called “Poltergeist” that’s reaaaally good. I pretty much have everything from them).
The best part of seeing “Nosferatu” and films like “Long Legs” at the theater on jumbo screens is that you’re stuck there with the film. You have to face it and not distract yourself like you would at home (your phone, pet, chatting with someone). There are rules at the theater— no phone, no talking, immersive screen, popcorn— a drink— other people around you experiencing it at the same time. It’s intoxicating! Going to the movies is my drug of choice. I love the first time seeing it and feeing nothing but emotion. Then, analyzing it the second time.
This retelling was strong and extremely emotional based. Cinematography was on point. I can say that folks under Gen X that I talked to just thought it was funny and boobs. They described it to me as “there’s a lot of sex in it.” I see it differently. It’s an art house film and I loved it. My older European friends have told me, “Americans don’t understand the feeling of longing for love, unrequited love, or pining for someone. You know, the kind they sing of in Irish songs.” I agree. There’s an age gap for sure with what people took away from it. The rats— now that was good!! Anyone get the metal sarcophagus popcorn tin they offered?
I’m telling yah though, watch it wearing the Parfum, “Nosferatu.” Next level and necessary.
Love this! I’m going to Babygirl this weekend. Did they make a milk perfume? 🤣
I saw “Babygirl.” Disliked it immensely. Rather watch “Secretary” with James Spader and Maggie Gyllenhaal. Loooove that one. A red sharpie will never be seen the same again.
Heretic created a Parfum for Dita Von Tease called, “Scandalwood.” It’s divine. Might have to do, rather than milk— I’ve seen Dita do a burlesque number in some cream, though!
This makes me believe that going on the body should be used very sparingly.
Hunter's first foray into new journalism aka Gonzo journalism was The Kentucky Derby is Decadent and Depraved. I believe that Hunter inserted a lot more fiction into his stories. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hulSdpLW0OQxxBXGpjNh-B3JTYO3AQJ3/view?pli=1
I was concentrating so hard on your writerly advice. Then I click on the first link and here’s Freda Payne in a leotard and fringe singing “Band of Gold.” Great example but also thanks for the jolt of surprise and joy.
Upbeat torch songs are my weakness.
Saw Nosferatu tonight and it left me wanting … something more. Like Babygirl, it felt a bit flat or tepid.
The new aspects, such as the female lead summoning the vampire out of loneliness, are wonderful. It reminded me of the extreme loneliness expressed in the Netflix Dahmer series. Beyond that so much of the Nosferatu plot had to cover the standard Stations of the Cross -- trek to sign the contract, vampire to Germany, etc.. I wondered if something new regarding the lead's dead mother or absent father could've juiced the story.
The bold vampire-killing gypsy from the first section seemed like a "gun" and I kept hoping he'd turn up instead of the Willem Dafoe character. I.e., using a tried-and-true vampire hunter instead of a stock character introduced so late in the story.
Every minute leading up to and into Orlock's castle was golden. The nuns seemed like such a blip, that sequence confused me. What if Ellen had insisted on making the journey with her husband?
A tried and true vampire hunter would have succeeded in killing the vampire, making it no longer Ellen's story.
Is Nosferatu any good?