Nosferatu and its environment, through setting and lighting, cultivates a certain feeling which only serves to enhance the disgusting nature of the vampire, its power, and its overwhelming presence. While the uncomfortable themes and certain explicit scenes might turn people off to the movie, strictly speaking, it is a very well executed visual work of art. 

Robert Eggers has a strict philosophy in directing and producing movies. That is, make sure the sets are as historically accurate as possible. For example, on “The Witch,” he used 17th century tools to faithfully recreate the feel of a Puritan-esque environment. His devotion also extends in recent films like “The Northman,” where he consulted with Viking historians, records, and references. An extension of this philosophy is seen in his use of lighting in his movies, with wax candles, fire, and sun/moonlight being the only source of light in most scenes.

All in all, these choices inspire hints of popular media like “Bridgerton” or “Pride and Prejudice.” This certain feeling or association exists solely because the environment has that sense of fine china, expensive plastered wallpaper, and velvet cushions associated with 19th century high society. So it becomes more disconcerting when Count Orlok (Bill Skarsgard), the titular Nosferatu, appears on screen, as he clashes with this realistic background given his status as a bloated un-living corpse.

Every time he does so, he essentially becomes the environment. The sound is dominated by his heavy, rasping breath that echoes throughout the theater. His presence, even when not directly shown, is still uniquely felt by the audience and the characters, being spoken about in fearful or reverent tones and haunting the dreams of the characters we become familiar with. When he does appear, he towers above everything, an unnatural distortion on the human figure, emphasized by his existence as the physical embodiment of the plague and the effects it has on him. 

In fact, our first introduction to Count Orlok is his nature as a shadow. He’s consistently mentioned as a looming shadow consuming the humans in the movie or portrayed as nothing but a shadow without physical form. Most of this is heightened by the use and symbolism of light. Obviously, since he’s a vampire, he’s never portrayed in the sun until a scene at the end of the movie. But the use of fire and moonlight to give him an ethereal image really elevates his status above the other characters. The fire creates a hazy effect on the camera, distorting the film almost as if it were a mirage, while the moonlight and its harsh white glow make Orlok and his snow-white skin that much more beautiful and grotesque.

Overall, light plays a specific thematic role. Sunlight is very sparse, only appearing right before the doomed excursion of Thomas to Orlok’s castle, perhaps a last glimpse of normalcy or hope before diving into the belly of the beast. From then, the city is either enshrouded by clouds or rain during the day. It isn’t until the final scene that we see a reemergence of this light, and this hope.

My final thoughts about the movie are complicated. I do think it’s clearly not for everyone, especially with its use of the love triangle with the monster of the movie. Its handling of themes that carry across from previous iterations of Nosferatu feel tired without a hint of Eggers’ own touch, while the repeated motif of women’s bodily autonomy, that is present throughout his movies, isn’t quite fully explored. Objectively speaking though, I appreciate the visual decision making that went into this. The choices of the historically accurate background and the framing of the light all combine to present Orlok as this supernaturally wrong being that shouldn’t exist in this world, but yet he does. It serves to heighten the tension that is present throughout the scenes, driving home the themes of innate darkness, isolation, and ultimately redemption.