The 10 biggest differences between Count Dracula and Count Orlok from Nosferatu

Warning: Major spoilers ahead for NosferatuGothic horror film by Robert Eggers Nosferatus revived one of cinema's oldest and most iconic monsters, which is itself an interpretation of the classic vampire Dracula, and in doing so invited comparisons between the two horror icons. As the titular vampire, Bill Skarsgård brought a completely new look and personality to the well-established character, reigniting the terror that permeates vampire lore. The scream king's portrayal is very different from other actors who have played Count Orlok and calls into question how far removed he is from the basic character of Dracula.

While Nosferatu: a symphony of horror and, by extension, Count Orlok, are based on the novel Draculathe original iteration of the bat-like Transylvanian nobleman had several notable differences from the literary vampire in both appearance and ability. Robert Eggers' Count Orlok retains many of the characteristics of FW Murnau's original Orlok, but the newer version displays some entirely new characteristics and powers that neither the original Orlok nor Dracula had. There are 10 main differences to point out between typical depictions of Dracula and Robert Eggers' Count Orlok.

10

Facial features

Dracula's canines are pointed, while Orlok has a mouth full of dagger-like teeth.

Many of the stereotypical vampire tropes were born from Bela Lugosi's iconic portrayal of Count Dracula in the original 1931 Universal Studios film. Draculawhich was a critical and commercial success and was extremely popular. As a result, most cinematic depictions of Dracula, and pop culture's image of vampires in general, feature sharp, extended canine teeth, along with a pale complexion and pointed ears. Lugosi's cinematic portrayal of Dracula didn't actually include any fangs, but the notion of a vampire's bite forced the trope into existence in later portrayals.

Ironically, Eggers' Count Orlok shares some characteristics with the literary representation of Dracula which most film adaptations do not. For example, Bram Stoker's original character sported a white mustache, which most closely matches the robust dark mustache that Orlok sports. Orlok has pointy ears, but they are hidden under the large fur hat he wears. Her skin is certainly pale, but this is due to her body composition rather than a design choice.

9

Body Composition

Orlok is a reanimated corpse, while Dracula is an undead creature

Vampires are traditionally called “undead,” and this is certainly part of the original Dracula story. Count Dracula is a centenarian nobleman from Transylvania who is essentially infected with a vampiric diseasewhich is why he can transmit the condition to others. Orlok, on the other hand, follows the more traditional definition of vampires in Eastern European folklore, which is that they are corpse-like, closer to zombies than Bela Lugosi's clean-cut aristocrat.

In NosferatusIt is briefly explained that Orlok was an evil sorcerer whose soul was sent back to his body by the Devil himself.making him a literal walking corpse. This explains why his entire body is skeletal and rotting; the back of his head still has his skull bone uncovered and what appears to be exposed brain tissue. In this way, Orlok is unique among mainstream film representations of vampires, and Dracula/Orlok specifically.

8

Human Appearance

Dracula easily passes for a human, while Orlok is a distinctly inhuman creature

One of the most important differences between Dracula and Count Orlok is that Dracula easily passes for a human being. Some of its features, such as its traditionally pointed ears, are unusual, but do nothing to raise suspicions about its true nature. This allows him to get close to his victims and even gain their trust with his charm and good manners. Orlok, on the other hand, is so outwardly evil and clearly inhuman that it is impossible for him to pass himself off as such. He had to hide his stooped, skeletal figure under cloaks, heavy clothing and a large hat.

7

Location of the bite

Orlok bites his chest to feed, while Dracula bites his neck

Dracula, and most cinematic vampires, is famous for feeding on victims by biting their necks. There are large blood vessels there, and the marks are easy to hide with a collar or something similar, so it makes perfect sense. Count Orlok of Eggers notably feeds on victims, biting their breast and drinking from the wound. It's another change Eggers made to preserve the vampire's origin in real-world lore; Belief in vampires was born from conditions such as sleep paralysis, which involves pressure on the chest, so it was thought that vampires sought to feed on the heart.

6

Bite effects

Dracula's bites create other vampires, while Orlok's bites do not.

Part of what makes Dracula a threat in both the novel and film adaptations is his ability to create other vampires with his bite. When biting victims, he is transmitting the vampiric disease that turns a normal person into a creature of the nightnot unlike how werewolves operate. It's a central tenet of modern vampire tropes, but it's another element that isn't a core tenet of real-world lore.

Count Orlok bites for food and often kills his victimsas he does with Anna Harding (presumably), her children, and finally Ellen Hutter. He also uses this as a means of establishing control over people, which is what he does with Thomas Hutter. This is an ability he shares with some interpretations of Dracula, but Orlok does not have the ability to create other creatures like him with his bite.

5

Personality

Dracula is charming and personable, Orlok is intimidating and frightening

In addition to being able to physically pass as human, Dracula is truly charming. In the novel, Jonathan Harker makes particular note of how courteous and inviting his host is when he arrives at Dracula's castle, and it is a defining feature of Bela Lugosi, Christopher Lee, and Gary Oldman's portrayals of him. Orlok is the opposite; he literally haunts every room he's inand brings Thomas Hutter to tears just because of the fear he feels from the conversation. He is frightening, disturbing, and notably curt and abrasive in conversation.

4

Ability to change shape

Dracula can take many forms, while Orlok is restricted to his body

In fact, Dracula has a formidable set of powers and abilities, the most fantastic of which is his ability to shapeshift. Dracula is famous for being able to transform into a bat, but more detailed descriptions and depictions of the character note that he can also become a large dog or wolf, and even transform into a fine mist, or a dust that travels in moonbeams.. Orlok has no such transformative abilities; as a walking corpse, he is restricted to the body in which his soul is still trapped. He has some clear psychic abilities, but nothing as extravagant as shapeshifting.

3

Weaknesses

Dracula is actively repelled by garlic and religious objects, although there is no evidence that Orlok is

Dracula is famous for being repelled by garlic or religious itemsand different iterations of the character were driven away with crosses, communion wafers, and holy water. As a wholly evil and unholy creature, anything that carries a blessing will repel Dracula, and garlic was believed to interfere with his sense of smell. While none of these items are enough to kill the Hell Count, they have been shown to burn him if they touch his skin.

There is no evidence that Count Orlok suffers from the same level of intolerance as Dracula when it comes to sacred items and garlic. Robert Eggers makes a point of representing the belief in Nosferatushowever. At the inn where Thomas Hutter stays, located at the foot of the Carpathian Mountains, residents can be seen using garlic to ward off evil. The bridge he crosses to approach Count Orlok's castle also has a hut at the base filled with crosses, implying that the locals placed them there to keep Orlok away.

2

Reaction to sunlight

Sunlight kills Orlok, only steals Dracula's strength

One of the most visually stunning and memorable scenes in Nosferatus is the final meeting between Ellen and Orlok, in which Orlok meets his end. She manages to trap him with her own body, and keeps him in place until the sun rises at dawn, leading to a spectacular sequence where Orlok's face melts in the sunlight. This is a callback to the original Nosferatuswhich sees a similar sequence of events play out, ending with Nosferatu simply disappearing when the sun hits it. The idea that the sun kills vampires was born Nosferatusin truth.

Early iterations of Dracula can't be killed by sunlightbut they are still weakened when exposed to it. The novel notes that he loses most of his extraordinary abilities during the day, and Mina Harker specifically notes that he loses his power to change shape during the day (except at dawn, noon, or dusk). Many non-Dracula vampire films have exaggerated the effect of the sun on vampires and typically make exposure to it completely lethal, as is the case with Orlok.

1

Romantic Nature

Dracula is elegant and seductive, while Orlok is repulsive and terrifying

Perhaps the most significant character difference between Dracula and Orlok is the inherent romance, or lack thereof, of the two characters. The reason vampires have become so heavily sexualized is that many iterations of Dracula highlight that, Between his charm, beauty and pure evil, Dracula is intoxicating to the point of seduction. Dracula's mysterious, camouflaged nature appears youthful and tempting, and is a key aspect of his big-screen character.

Orlok represents the other side of vampirism: he is the animalistic embodiment of the bloodlust and cruel evil that marks vampires as vessels of death. There is no romance involved in his story, despite the kiss he shares with Ellen Hutter and his pseudo-marriage. For Orlok, his relationship with Ellen involves physical and spiritual obsession, lust and control. There is nothing as pure as love in any part of the equation. Nosferatus makes it clear that Orlok is totally evil, just like Dracula, but he's much more direct about it.