The Anatomy of Shadows: A Century of Resurrection in the Gothic Trinity of Frankenstein, Dracula, and Nosferatu

Introduction: The Monstrous Mirror of Modernity

The history of the horror genre is not merely a catalogue of scares, but a genealogy of cultural anxiety. At the heart of this lineage stand three towering figures: the Promethean wretch of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, the aristocratic invader of Bram Stoker’s Dracula, and his pestilential shadow, Count Orlok of Nosferatu. These archetypes—the Abandoned Son, the Invasive Other, and the Walking Plague—have proven to be the most resilient myths of the modern age. They are not static icons but fluid vessels, constantly reshaped to hold the specific fears of their time. From the galvanic twitching of the Industrial Revolution to the viral anxieties of the AIDS crisis, and finally to the trauma-informed deconstruction of the 2020s, these monsters have evolved from external threats into internal reflections of our own societal failures.

This report provides an exhaustive analysis of the historical trajectory of these figures, moving beyond surface-level plot summaries to dissect the "anatomical" changes in their narrative DNA. It culminates in a detailed examination of two seminal modern retellings: Robert Eggers’ Nosferatu (2024) and Guillermo del Toro’s Frankenstein (2025). These contemporary works represent a paradigm shift in the genre—what is often termed "elevated horror"—where the monster is no longer a beast to be slain, but a complex embodiment of systemic trauma, patriarchal repression, and existential longing. By synthesizing production history, literary criticism, and film theory, we will demonstrate how the 21st-century Gothic has reclaimed the "monster" not as a warning against the unknown, but as a tragic inevitability of the human condition.

Part I: The Modern Prometheus and the Agony of Creation

1.1 The Galvanic Spark: Mary Shelley’s Scientific Context

To understand the radical departure of Guillermo del Toro’s 2025 adaptation, one must first excavate the intellectual bedrock of the original 1818 text. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus was not simply a ghost story; it was a philosophical engagement with the cutting-edge science of her day, specifically the debate between vitalism and materialism.¹ The novel was born in an era obsessed with the definition of "life."

In the early 19th century, Luigi Galvani’s experiments with "animal electricity"—making dead frog legs twitch with electrical current—suggested that the "spark of life" might be a physical force, manipulate, and potentially masterable by man. Shelley’s Victor Frankenstein is the ultimate Enlightenment figure, a natural philosopher who seeks to banish death through the application of this new knowledge. However, unlike later cinematic adaptations that reduced this process to a spectacular lightning storm, Shelley’s description of the creation is surprisingly biological and alchemical. Victor collects "bones from charnel-houses" and disturbs, with profane fingers, "the tremendous secrets of the human frame." The horror is rooted in the "monstrosity of knowledge"—the realization that scientific capability does not equate to moral wisdom.²

The creature of the novel is not the grunting brute of pop culture. He is articulate, sensitive, and deeply philosophical, educating himself by reading Milton’s Paradise Lost and Plutarch’s Lives. His tragedy is not that he is a monster, but that he is a "new man" abandoned by his creator solely on the basis of aesthetic imperfection. This theme of "paternal abandonment" and the "lineage of pain" is the central nervous system of the narrative—a theme that lay dormant in cinema for decades until its resurrection in 2025.³

1.2 The Industrial Deviation: Universal’s 1931 Paradigm Shift

For nearly a century, the public’s understanding of Frankenstein was colonized by James Whale’s 1931 adaptation for Universal Pictures. Produced during the depths of the Great Depression, this film fundamentally altered the creature’s ontology. In the novel, the creature is a tabula rasa, born benevolent and made wicked by misery. In the 1931 film, the introduction of the "criminal brain"—a plot device where the assistant Fritz accidentally steals a dysgenic brain—shifts the blame from society to biology.⁴ The monster is bad because his "parts" are bad.

This shift served a specific cultural function in the 1930s. The Depression was a crisis of systems—economic, industrial, and political. The image of the lumbering, mechanical monster (enhanced by Jack Pierce’s iconic flat-top makeup, resembling a machined block) resonated with a public wary of the industrial machinery that had mechanized slaughter in World War I and economic collapse in 1929.⁵ The "neck bolts" were not just electrodes; they were symbols of a humanity turned into a product. By stripping the creature of speech and intellect, the film transformed him into a mute victim/menace, distancing the audience from his internal existential crisis. This "silencing" of the monster is precisely what modern adaptations seek to reverse.

1.3 Guillermo del Toro’s Frankenstein (2025): A Symphony of Imperfection

Guillermo del Toro’s 2025 adaptation represents a monumental pivot in the cinematic history of the creature. It is a work that rejects the "industrial accident" trope of the 1930s in favor of a "biological sublime," returning to the Romantic ideals of Shelley while filtering them through a distinctly modern, existentialist lens.

1.3.1 The "He Said, She Said" Narrative Architecture

Del Toro’s most significant structural innovation is the implementation of a dual perspective, which he describes as a "he said, she said" narrative.⁶ The film does not privilege Victor’s view of the creature as a catastrophe, nor does it solely focus on the creature’s view of Victor as a tyrant. Instead, it presents two parallel tragedies. The narrative fulcrum—the "point of inflection"—is the moment the father attempts to kill the son.⁶

This structure destabilizes the traditional "Mad Scientist vs. Monster" dichotomy. By giving the creature a voice and a perspective, the film explores the "lineage of pain" that flows between fathers and sons.⁷ Oscar Isaac, who plays Victor, notes that the film explores how paternal trauma is passed down; Victor, driven by the loss of his own mother, creates a son he cannot love, perpetuating a cycle of abandonment.⁷ The film suggests that the true horror is not the creation of life, but the rejection of it.

1.3.2 The Aesthetics of the "Newly Minted"

Visually, the film marks a radical departure from the "stitched-together zombie" aesthetic. Del Toro and his creature designer, Mike Hill, approached the design not as a patchwork of corpses, but as a "newly minted" human.⁷ Jacob Elordi, who portrays the creature, describes the design as "beautiful" and "sleek," lacking the heavy scarring and clumsiness of the Karloff iteration.⁷

The creation sequence is described not as a sudden jolt of electricity, but as an "erotic sorting of a nervous system".⁸ Production designer Tamara Deverell created a laboratory that functions less like a factory and more like a "Cabinet of Curiosities"—a museum of biological obsession where the creature begins as a torso nailed to a board with exposed ligaments.⁸ This body horror is intimate and anatomical. It emphasizes that the creature was crafted, decision by decision. He is not a mistake; he is a masterpiece of biological engineering that is rejected only because he mirrors the creator’s own imperfections.

1.3.3 The Color of Trauma: Visual Semiotics

The film employs a rigorous visual language to underscore its themes. Del Toro utilizes a specific color palette where Red is reserved exclusively for elements related to the mother, the creation of life, and the blood that binds the characters.⁷ This visual coding links Victor’s grief (the loss of the mother) directly to his monstrous act (the creation of the son). The absence of the mother becomes a presence in itself, haunting the frame through color.

Furthermore, the film uses a wide 24mm lens to integrate the characters into their environments, treating the architecture—the "dank, foggy laboratory-castle"—as a character in its own right.⁷ The sets are not mere backdrops but externalizations of Victor’s convoluted internal state.

1.3.4 Existentialism and the "Hopeful" Circularity

Perhaps the most profound update is the film’s philosophical conclusion. Shelley’s novel ends in ice and darkness, a bleak testament to mutual destruction. Del Toro, however, aims for a "hopeful" existentialism. He posits that "imperfection is the condition of life".⁶ The film utilizes a circular structure, ending with the sun rising on the creature.¹⁰

This ending suggests a move away from the "cautionary tale" (don't play God) toward a "survival narrative" (how to live when you are unwanted). The creature, despite his immortality and isolation, is depicted as someone who can still "welcome the experience of being alive".⁶ In the context of the 2020s, where systemic collapse and climate anxiety are prevalent, this resilience resonates deeply. It transforms the monster from a warning into a role model for endurance in a hostile world.

Part II: The Shadow of the Vampire – Nosferatu and the Plague of Repression

2.1 The Primal Infection: Nosferatu (1922) as Unauthorized Trauma

If Frankenstein is the story of faulty creation, Nosferatu is the story of invasive destruction. F.W. Murnau’s 1922 Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror stands as a monument to both cinematic innovation and copyright infringement. Because the production company, Prana Film, could not secure the rights to Bram Stoker’s Dracula, they attempted to mask the adaptation by changing names (Count Orlok, Thomas Hutter, Ellen) and shifting the setting from London to the fictional German town of Wisborg.¹¹

2.1.1 The Weimar Context: War, Rats, and Scapegoats

Murnau’s film cannot be separated from the trauma of World War I and the Spanish Flu pandemic. Unlike the suave, aristocratic Dracula of later Hollywood films, Max Schreck’s Count Orlok is a walking pestilence. He is rat-like, with rodent incisors rather than canine fangs, driven by a biological imperative to spread disease rather than a romantic desire for blood.¹³

The film reflects the specific anxieties of the Weimar Republic. The "plague" that Orlok brings to Wisborg serves as a metaphor for the mass death of the Great War and the influenza that followed. Furthermore, cultural historians have long analyzed the anti-Semitic coding of Orlok—his hooked nose, his association with rats and money (through the character of Knock), and his invasion from the "East".¹⁴ In this reading, Orlok represents the "foreign other" who infiltrates and corrupts the German social body—a terrifying premonition of the xenophobic rhetoric that would later consume the nation.

Visually, Murnau established the language of horror through shadow. The iconic scene of Orlok’s shadow creeping up the stairs, independent of his physical body, suggests a threat that is spiritual as well as physical. The shadow touches the victim’s heart—a "heart squeeze"—visually representing the constriction of life force.¹⁵

2.2 Werner Herzog’s Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979): The Burden of Time

In 1979, Werner Herzog revisited the myth, viewing the original film as a vital link to a "legitimate" German culture that had been severed by the Nazi era.¹⁷ Herzog’s Nosferatu the Vampyre acts as a bridge between the silent era and the New German Cinema.

Herzog’s innovation was to humanize the monster without beautifying him. Klaus Kinski’s Dracula (Herzog restored the original names) is a creature of immense pathos. "Time is an abyss," he laments, "deep as a thousand nights." This vampire is tired. He is not a predator by choice but by curse. The "plague" in Herzog’s film shifts from a biological infection to an existential ennui. The rats that flood the town of Wismar are white (laboratory rats), creating a surreal, dreamlike atmosphere of decay.¹⁸

Herzog’s ending is famously cynical. The "hero," Jonathan Harker, does not defeat the evil but is consumed by it, riding off to spread the curse further. This reflects the post-war German cynicism regarding the "banality of evil"—the idea that monstrosity is not an interruption of the social order, but a persistent undercurrent of history.¹⁴

2.3 Robert Eggers’ Nosferatu (2024): The Reclamation of the Doomed Heroine

Robert Eggers’ 2024 adaptation functions as a "deep-dive" restoration of the Gothic, stripping away the camp of later vampire films to return to the primal terror of the 1922 original, but with a thoroughly modern deconstruction of gender dynamics.

2.3.1 Ellen Hutter: From Psychic Receptor to Instigator

The most radical shift in Eggers’ version is the centering of Ellen Hutter (Lily-Rose Depp). In Murnau’s film, Ellen is a passive psychic receptor who faints and suffers until she decides to sacrifice herself. In Eggers’ film, Ellen is the active force who "instigates Nosferatu's curse but also ends it".¹⁹

The film posits a "telepathic bond" between Ellen and Orlok that is framed through the lens of "sexual chemistry" and "repressed desire".²⁰ Ellen is depicted as "unclean" and suffocated by the patriarchal and capitalist structures of her society—represented by her husband, Thomas, who unknowingly trades her safety for a real estate commission.²⁰ Reviewers note that Ellen encompasses a "Hellenic charm," an archaic allure that rivals the vampire’s own power. She is not merely a victim; she is a conduit for the "darkness" that the repressed Victorian society tries to deny.

2.3.2 The Ethics of Sacrifice: A Revisionist Ending

The conclusion of Eggers’ Nosferatu offers a controversial but thematically potent twist on the 1922 original. In Murnau’s version, Ellen’s sacrifice is tragic and solitary; she detains the vampire until the sun rises, and he vanishes in a puff of smoke. In Eggers’ film, Ellen "willingly invites Orlok" and uses her own blood and sexuality as a weapon.²⁰

The film depicts her distraction of the vampire not merely as endurance, but as "unbridled pleasure" and "defiance".²¹ Crucially, the framing of the final scene shifts. Whereas previous films focused on the vampire fading, Eggers focuses on the witness—Professor von Franz (Willem Dafoe)—observing the carnage.²¹ This shift emphasizes the complicity of the "rational men" who failed to protect Ellen or understand the supernatural threat. Ellen’s death is framed as a "reclamation of agency"—she chooses the manner of her death to destroy the oppression that binds her.²² She burns the infection out of the world by burning herself.

2.3.3 The Visual Language of "Rotting"

Eggers is known for his obsessive historical fidelity, and Nosferatu is no exception. The film avoids the "Byronic hero" trope of the sexy vampire (like Frank Langella or Gary Oldman) in favor of a monster that is "an appetite, nothing more".²⁰ Orlok is a "rotting corpse," a figure of filth and decay. The film’s atmosphere is drenched in "innuendos and shameless suggestiveness" rather than modern profanity, using the repressed language of the 19th century to heighten the horror of the physical body.¹⁹

The "heart squeeze" scene from Murnau is reinterpreted not just as a shadow on a wall, but as a psychic intrusion that creates a palpable physical reaction in Ellen, blurring the line between spiritual possession and physical violation.

Part III: The Blood is the Life – Dracula and the Anxiety of the "Other"

3.1 Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1897): The Text of Invasion

To fully appreciate the cinematic evolution, one must return to the source. Bram Stoker’s Dracula was a product of late-Victorian anxiety. As the British Empire reached its zenith, fears of "reverse colonization"—the idea that the "primitive" forces of the colonies would invade and contaminate the civilized center—became rampant.²³

Count Dracula is the ultimate embodiment of this xenophobia. He is an Eastern European aristocrat who buys property in London, speaks excellent English, and infiltrates British society to feed on its women. He represents the fear that the "Other" can assimilate and destroy from within. Furthermore, the novel is drenched in sexual repression. The vampire’s bite is a penetration that operates outside the bounds of Victorian morality, turning chaste women like Lucy Westenra into "polyandrous" sexual predators who must be violently "staked" to restore patriarchal order.²⁵

3.2 Francis Ford Coppola’s Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992): Love and Disease

Francis Ford Coppola’s 1992 film serves as the pivot point between the "External Monster" of the early 20th century and the "Internal Monster" of the 21st.

3.2.1 The AIDS Allegory

Released at the height of the AIDS crisis, Coppola’s film cannot be separated from the context of "blood-borne disease." The film’s obsessive focus on blood—zooming into blood cells, the fluid exchange, the "sickness" of vampirism—served as a metaphor for the terrifying, invisible killer of the 1990s.²⁶ Dracula’s line, "The blood is the life," took on a grim medical reality. The fear in 1992 was not of a foreign invader, but of an intimate infection.

3.2.2 Media Archaeology and the "Technological Sublime"

Coppola’s aesthetic approach was revolutionary. Rather than using the emerging CGI of the time (as seen in Terminator 2), Coppola opted for "in-camera effects" dating back to the dawn of cinema: shadow puppetry, reverse motion, multiple exposures, and forced perspective.²⁸

This approach, which scholars term "media archaeology," suggested that Dracula is not just a story about the past, but a story of the past—a nightmare preserved in the amber of early cinema. By using the techniques that would have been available to the characters (had they been filmmakers), Coppola grounded the supernatural in a tactile, theatrical reality. This contrasts sharply with the sterile CGI of later blockbusters, giving the film a dreamlike, feverish quality that feels "out of time."

3.2.3 The Romantic Revision

Coppola was also the first major director to explicitly frame the story as a romance, introducing the reincarnation subplot (Mina as the reborn Elisabeta).²⁹ This choice humanized the monster, turning him from a xenophobic caricature into a tragic figure driven by lost love. This "sympathetic vampire" paved the way for the Twilight era, but Coppola retained the horror—the blood, the beasts, the violence—ensuring that the romance remained dangerous.

Part IV: Thematic Synthesis – The "Trauma Plot" and Elevated Horror

4.1 From Xenophobia to Introspection

The most profound shift across these three centuries of storytelling is the location of the "monster." We can trace a clear trajectory:

• 19th/Early 20th Century (Stoker/Murnau/Whale): The monster is External. He is the foreigner, the Jew (in anti-Semitic readings), the plague carrier, the invader. The horror comes from outside the house or nation. The goal is to fortify the borders and destroy the intruder.

• Late 20th Century (Coppola/Herzog): The monster is Sympathetic/Romantic. He is the victim of time, a tragic lover, or a mirror of our own desires. The horror is seductive. We are invited to pity the monster, even as we fear him.

• 21st Century (Eggers/del Toro): The monster is Systemic/Internal.

• In Nosferatu (2024), the monster represents the repressed shame and desires of the protagonist (Ellen) and the failure of the patriarchal society around her.

• In Frankenstein (2025), the monster is the literal embodiment of "paternal pain" and generational trauma. The horror is not what the monster does, but what was done to him—the abandonment by the father.

4.2 The "Trauma Plot" and Elevated Horror

Both Eggers and del Toro operate within the modern framework of "elevated horror," a sub-genre that prioritizes atmosphere, psychological depth, and metaphor over jump scares.³⁰

• Trauma as Catalyst: In modern adaptations, the supernatural events are often manifestations of trauma. Ellen Hutter’s interaction with Orlok is framed through her "shame" and "repressed desire".²⁰ Victor Frankenstein’s creation is driven by the grief of losing his mother.⁷

• The "Monster as Us": This trend aligns with the "Monster as Marginalized Subject" theory.³¹ We no longer banish the monster to restore order; we embrace the monster to understand our own brokenness. Del Toro’s "hopeful" ending, where the creature lives on in the sunlight, signifies an acceptance of the "other" that Stoker and Murnau would have found unthinkable.

4.3 Visualizing the Unspeakable: Practicality as Authenticity

The evolution of visual effects mirrors the thematic shifts.

• Universal (1930s): Heavy makeup (Jack Pierce) created iconic, rigid monsters suitable for black-and-white expressionism.

• Hammer (1950s-70s): Technicolor blood emphasized the visceral, bodily reality of violence and sex.

• Modern (2020s): A return to "Practical Plus." Both Eggers and del Toro champion practical effects enhanced by digital tools. Del Toro’s creature uses prosthetics to allow for "micro-expressions" (the importance of the eyes) ⁶, while Eggers uses practical shadows and real rats to evoke the tactile filth of the 19th century. This rejection of pure CGI reflects a desire for "authenticity" in an increasingly artificial digital world.

Conclusion: The Eternal Return of the Repressed

Why do Dracula, Nosferatu, and Frankenstein refuse to die? Because they address the two fundamental questions of human existence: How are we made? (Frankenstein) and How do we die? (Dracula/Nosferatu).

Mary Shelley’s question—what responsibility does the creator have to the created?—has only become more relevant in the age of Artificial Intelligence and genetic engineering. Guillermo del Toro’s 2025 adaptation updates this by asking: How do we forgive our fathers for making us imperfect? It shifts the focus from the hubris of the scientist to the resilience of the creation.

Bram Stoker’s question—what happens when the past bleeds into the present?—resonates in a world grappling with the resurgence of historical grievances and pandemics. Robert Eggers’ Nosferatu updates this by asking: How does the repressed self reclaim agency in the face of overwhelming darkness? It shifts the focus from the invader to the internal struggle of the victim.

These modern retellings demonstrate that the "historical significance" of these monsters is not static. They are not museum pieces; they are living, breathing cultural pathogens that mutate to infect us with the specific fears we need to confront today. As we move further into the 21st century, the Count and the Creature walk with us, casting shadows that look increasingly like our own.

Appendix: Comparative Data

Table 1: The Evolution of the Monster in Key Adaptations

Narrative Element	Nosferatu (1922)	Nosferatu (2024)	Frankenstein (1931)	Frankenstein (2025)
Director	F.W. Murnau	Robert Eggers	James Whale	Guillermo del Toro
Primary Theme	Invasion / Plague / War Trauma	Female Agency / Sexual Repression	Science Gone Wrong / Hubris	Paternal Pain / Forgiveness
The Monster	Rat-like, repulsive, external threat	Decaying corpse, manifestation of shame	Mute, lumbering, "criminal brain"	"Newly minted," articulate, tragic
Protagonist	Thomas Hutter (Passive)	Ellen Hutter (Active Agent)	Henry Frankenstein	Dual: Victor & Creature
Visual Style	German Expressionism (Shadows)	Gothic Realism / "Rotting" Aesthetic	Gothic Melodrama (Laboratory)	Neo-Gothic / Color-Coded (Red)
Ending	Ellen sacrifices herself; Orlok fades.	Ellen sacrifices herself to destroy; Von Franz witnesses.	Monster burned in windmill (mob justice).	Circular / Existential acceptance of life.
Context	Weimar Republic / Spanish Flu	Post-MeToo / Elevated Horror	Great Depression / Industrial Fear	Modern Identity / Existentialism

Works cited

1. REVELATIONS OF MARY SHELLEY: DEATH, IMMORTALITY, AND THE CREATOR-CREATURE RELATIONSHIP IN FRANKENSTEIN - SURFACE at Syracuse University, accessed January 7, 2026, https://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1876&context=thesis

2. (PDF) The Monstrosity of Knowledge: Mary Shelley's Symbolic Encounter with The Enlightenment and Industrialisation in Frankenstein - ResearchGate, accessed January 7, 2026, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383118273_The_Monstrosity_of_Knowledge_Mary_Shelley's_Symbolic_Encounter_with_The_Enlightenment_and_Industrialisation_in_Frankenstein

3. Production Designer Tamara Deverell on Building the Gothic Grandeur of Guillermo del Toro's "Frankenstein" - Motion Picture Association, accessed January 7, 2026, https://www.motionpictures.org/2025/10/production-designer-tamara-deverell-on-building-the-gothic-grandeur-of-guillermo-del-toros-frankenstein/

4. How the Classic Monsters Saved Universal Studios, accessed January 7, 2026, https://www.antoniacarlotta.com/home/how-the-monsters-saved-universal

5. The History of American Fear. An Interview with Horror Historian… | by American Experience | PBS | AmericanExperiencePBS | Medium, accessed January 7, 2026, https://medium.com/americanexperiencepbs/the-history-of-american-fear-8e4acf404c41

6. INTERVIEW: Guillermo Del Toro On Creating Frankenstein (2025), accessed January 7, 2026, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmlQmBor9Lw

7. Oscar Isaac, Jacob Elordi & Guillermo del Toro Break Down Frankenstein and The Creature | BAFTA, accessed January 7, 2026, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYV3a3VMC3E

8. The design of monstrosity in del Toro's Frankenstein - The Oakland Post, accessed January 7, 2026, https://oaklandpostonline.com/55411/arts/the-design-of-monstrosity-in-del-toros-frankenstein/

9. Guillermo del Toro's New Frankenstein Adaptation is Life-Giving - Literary Hub, accessed January 7, 2026, https://lithub.com/guillermo-del-toros-new-frankenstein-adaptation-is-life-giving/

10. Making Of FRANKENSTEIN (2025) - Best Of Behind The Scenes & Monster Transformation With Jacob Elordi, accessed January 7, 2026, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1zX34F5jvs

11. Nosferatu: the copyright-infringing masterpiece that ruined a film studio - IP Helpdesk, accessed January 7, 2026, https://intellectual-property-helpdesk.ec.europa.eu/news-events/news/nosferatu-copyright-infringing-masterpiece-ruined-film-studio-2025-03-31_en

12. Nosferatu - Wikipedia, accessed January 7, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosferatu

13. The Untold Truth Of Nosferatu - Grunge, accessed January 7, 2026, https://www.grunge.com/452303/the-untold-truth-of-nosferatu/

14. Nosferatu (2024): Review - Counterfire, accessed January 7, 2026, https://www.counterfire.org/article/nosferatu-2024-review/

15. You Are Misinterpreting the Ending of “Nosferatu” : r/roberteggers - Reddit, accessed January 7, 2026, https://www.reddit.com/r/roberteggers/comments/1i0gn0v/you_are_misinterpreting_the_ending_of_nosferatu/

16. Nosferatu (1922) - The Movie Screen Scene - WordPress.com, accessed January 7, 2026, https://themoviescreenscene.wordpress.com/2018/03/06/nosferatu-1922/

17. WERNER HERZOG'S NOSFERATU – BY HARLAN KENNEDY - AMERICAN CINEMA PAPERS, accessed January 7, 2026, https://www.americancinemapapers.com/files/NOSFERATU.htm

18. Observations on Werner Herzog's Nosferatu the Vampyre : r/TrueFilm - Reddit, accessed January 7, 2026, https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueFilm/comments/c9yqfa/observations_on_werner_herzogs_nosferatu_the/

19. Nosferatu (2024) Review and Analysis: Robert Eggers Redefines the Archetypal Heroine Within and Beyond Horror and Melodrama (Contains Spoilers) | by Anica Xie | Medium, accessed January 7, 2026, https://medium.com/@anicaxie/nosferatu-2024-robert-eggers-redefines-the-archetypal-heroine-within-and-beyond-horror-and-2f57484eb792

20. Reimagining Gothic Literature: Sex, Shame, and Society in ..., accessed January 7, 2026, https://berkeleyfictionreview.org/2025/03/17/reimagining-gothic-literature-sex-shame-and-society-in-nosferatu-2024/

21. Nosferatu and the Aching Beauty of That Ending Shot | Den of Geek, accessed January 7, 2026, https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/nosferatu-beauty-ending-shot/

22. 'Nosferatu' Ending Explained - Does Robert Eggers' Remake Change the Horror Classic's Finale? - Collider, accessed January 7, 2026, https://collider.com/nosferatu-2024-ending-explained/

23. Enemies or Allies? Fear, Terror and Xenophobia in Dracula - Kutztown University Research Commons, accessed January 7, 2026, https://research.library.kutztown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1095&context=dracula-studies

24. Reverse Colonization as a Function of Criminal Atavism in Bram Stoker's Dracula - Emergence, accessed January 7, 2026, https://emergencejournal.english.ucsb.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Reverse-Colonization.pdf

25. [WE ARE HORROR] SEXUALITY, PATRIARCHY, AND THE WOMEN OF HAMMER'S DRACULA FILMS - Daily Grindhouse, accessed January 7, 2026, http://dailygrindhouse.com/thewire/we-are-horror-sexuality-patriarchy-and-the-women-of-hammers-dracula-films/

26. Immortal Beloved: BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA At 25 | Birth.Movies.Death., accessed January 7, 2026, https://birthmoviesdeath.com/2017/11/17/immortal-beloved-bram-stokers-dracula-at-25.html

27. Draining Dracula: What's Missing from Coppola's Version? - Bright Lights Film Journal, accessed January 7, 2026, https://brightlightsfilm.com/draining-dracula-whats-missing-from-coppolas-version/

28. American Zoetrope Gothic: Roman Coppola on the Practical Effects of Bram Stoker's Dracula | Screen Slate, accessed January 7, 2026, https://www.screenslate.com/articles/american-zoetrope-gothic-roman-coppola-practical-effects-bram-stokers-dracula

29. Bram Stoker's Dracula Analysis - EduBirdie.com, accessed January 7, 2026, https://hub.edubirdie.com/examples/dracula-by-bram-stoker-versus-coppolas-version-comparative-analysis/

30. MoGUU Version 2.0 - GUU Libraries, accessed January 7, 2026, https://carnation-star-ags6.squarespace.com/s/MoGUU-Version-20-compressed.pdf

31. The Monster as Marginalized Subject: Intergenerational Trauma, Xenophobia, and the Violence of Exclusion in Grendel's Perspective - ResearchGate, accessed January 7, 2026, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/399255508_The_Monster_as_Marginalized_Subject_Intergenerational_Trauma_Xenophobia_and_the_Violence_of_Exclusion_in_Grendel's_Perspective