Vampyr (1932)

In this article, we will be looking at 2019’s book “1001 Movies to See Before You Die” and going through each film in a random order that I have chosen. We will be looking at what constitutes this film to be on the list and whether I think this film deserves to be here at all. I want to make perfectly clear that I won’t be revealing details from this book such as analyses by film reporters who have written about the film in question, so if you want the book itself you’ll have to buy it. But I will be covering the book’s suggestions on which films should be your top priority. I wouldn’t doubt for a second that everyone reading this article has probably watched many of these movies anyway. But we are just here to have a bit of fun. We’re going to not just look at whether it should be on this list but we’re also going to look at why the film has such a legacy at all. Remember, this is the 2019 version of the book and so, films like “Joker” will not be featured in this book and any film that came out in 2020 (and if we get there, in 2021). So strap in and if you have your own suggestions then don’t hesitate to email me using the address in my bio. Let’s get on with it then.

Vampyr (1932) dir. by Carl Theodor Dreyer

The movie was said to be based on different elements and ideas gathered from J. Sheridan Le Fanu’s stories in the book “In A Glass Darkly” and stars Julian West - which is not his real name - as a man named Allan Gray - a student of the occult who stumbles across the curse of a vampire.

At the time of its release, the movie gained mostly negative reviews and the German press, the country in which the film was made, did not appreciate the film at all. At the premiere in Berlin, A critics from the New York Times was there and commented on the ‘difference’ in the film before giving it a scathing review:

"Whatever you think of the director Charles [sic] Theodor Dreyer, there is no denying that he is 'different'. He does things that make people talk about him. You may find his films ridiculous—but you won't forget them...Although in many ways [Vampyr] was one of the worst films I have ever attended, there were some scenes in it that gripped with brutal directness…”

However, in the more modern context, “Vampyr” has become a classic of world cinema and is renowned as one of the strangest vampire films to date. With a one hundred percent positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes, the critical consensus gives it a favourable response that states:

"Full of disorienting visual effects, Carl Theodor Dreyer's Vampyr is as theoretically unsettling as it is conceptually disturbing…”

This was followed by a database entitled AllMovie giving the film an amazing review with light on the differences and strangeness the critic was faced with. It admits it is not the best or easiest watch, but retains the sense of ‘striking’ images that the film has to offer is one of its many positive points. AllMovie stated:

“Vampyr isn't the easiest classic film to enjoy, even if you are a fan of 1930s horror movies...If you're patient with the slow pacing and ambiguous story line of Vampyr, you'll find that this film offers many striking images" and that although the film is "not exciting in terms of pacing, it's a good choice if you want to see a film that establishes a compelling mood…”

The Chicago Reader stated the following about the film’s ‘dreamy look’ and atmosphere for something strange and radical in its story:

"The greatness of Carl Dreyer's [Vampyr] derives partly from its handling of the vampire theme in terms of sexuality and eroticism and partly from its highly distinctive, dreamy look, but it also has something to do with Dreyer's radical recasting of narrative form...”

So, all in all, the film is an amazing one and yes, I think so too. I think the one thing I liked most about the movie is the way it played with shadow. It was clever, very clever.

But, do you think it deserves to be on this list of one thousand and one films you must see before you die? That is a whole different question.