What’s the Difference Between Dracula and Nosferatu?

When German film producer Albin Grau decided to adapt Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1897), he either failed to get the copyright or didn’t even bother trying. But a legal technicality wasn’t going to stop him from bringing his villainous vampire to the silver screen in the 1922 silent film Nosferatu (the name of which was also pulled directly from Stoker’s novel). Grau hired director F.W. Murnau and screenwriter Henrik Galeen and the team simply changed a few of the story’s details in their unofficial adaptation. The filmmakers didn’t just switch Dracula’s name to Orlok/Nosferatu; they put their own—admittedly minor—spin on the fiendish character. (None of that kept Stoker’s widow, Florence, from suing the studio and having almost every copy of the film destroyed, though.) Ahead of Robert Eggers’s adaptation of Nosferatu, here’s a breakdown of the differences and similarities between the two iconic bloodsuckers.

1. Appearance and Personality
2. Strengths and Weaknesses

Appearance and Personality

In Stoker’s novel, when Jonathan Harker first meets Count Dracula at his Transylvanian castle, he’s taken in by his “courteous welcome” and “charming smile.” The nobleman has a suave and sophisticated air about him and is initially a chatty and considerate host. Jonathan notes that Dracula has “peculiarly sharp white teeth” and ears to match, plus nails which are “long and fine, and cut to a sharp point.” Despite these oddities and his pallid complexion, the Count looks like a regular human.

Nosferatu’s Count Orlok (Max Schreck), on the other hand, is more creature-esque: He has abnormally long claw-like fingers, large bat-like ears, and protruding rat-like teeth. He also comes off as strange and awkward. Whereas Dracula uses his charming nature to conceal his scheming intent, Orlok lacks social skills and is ruled by his animalistic bloodthirst. When Thomas Hutter (Jonathan Harker’s substitute, played by Gustav von Wangenheim) accidentally cuts himself during dinner—throughout which Orlok has been ignoring him—the vampire can’t hold himself back from sucking the blood from his thumb.

While the debonair Dracula far more easily passes for human compared to the monstrous Nosferatu, they do share an affinity for black clothing: Orlok sports a long black overcoat and cravat, while Dracula is described as being “clad in black from head to foot.

And though most people picture Dracula in a tuxedo and long cape, that outfit didn’t originate in the book, where the vampire is only once described as wearing a cloak. Dracula’s iconic getup actually comes the 1924 stage play, which saw actor Raymond Huntley don the tuxedo-cape combo. The look was then popularized by Bela Lugosi in Universal’s 1931 film Dracula.  

Strengths and Weaknesses

In Dracula, vampire hunter Abraham Van Helsing helpfully details Dracula’s supernatural powers. The vampire has incredible physical strength (equal to that of 20 men), can increase and decrease his size as he pleases, and he can vanish completely. Dracula can control thunder and fog, as well as a variety of animals—including rats, owls, bats, moths, foxes, and wolves. He can also shapeshift into mist and various animals—his wolf and bat forms are seen in the novel—and even travel “on moonlight rays as elemental dust.” To make matters worse, Dracula has telepathic control over anyone he’s bitten and turned into a vampire—plus, as Jonathan discovers, he casts no reflection.

Although Dracula has an alarming number of abilities, he does also have a fair few weaknesses. Van Helsing explains that the vampire can’t enter a place without being invited in and he’s unable to use his powers in daylight. While abroad, he also needs soil from his homeland to regain his strength. Running water is also a problem for him, as are garlic and crucifixes (and really anything sacred). Although Dracula is basically immortal—drinking blood serves to de-age him and replenish his power—there are three known ways to kill him: Cut off his head, run a stake through his heart, or shoot him with a sacred bullet.

In Nosferatu, Orlok’s strengths and weaknesses aren’t laid out with quite the same clarity (the barely-there Van Helsing character, Professor Bulwer, merely likens the vampire to a Venus flytrap). There’s no mention of garlic or crucifixes having any power against Orlok, but he does still need to bring soil with him when he travels. It’s also implied that he needs to be invited in; he doesn’t attack Ellen (Mina’s counterpart, played by Greta Schröder) until she opens her window for him—although he then takes the stairs anyway. During this final scene it’s also shown that, unlike Dracula, he casts a reflection. Another difference to Dracula is that drinking blood doesn’t seem to revitalize the decrepit Orlok, and his bite doesn’t turn people into vampires. He also lacks Dracula’s shapeshifting abilities—although he can phase through objects—and while he travels with plague-carrying rats, it’s unclear whether he’s directing them to spread the disease or not.

In addition to Dracula having far more abilities than Nosferatu, the other major divergence between the two vampires is how they can be killed. While sunlight merely saps Dracula of his powers—he needs to be beheaded, staked, or shot—it’s lethal to Orlok (Nosferatu was actually the first vampire story to use this trope). When Ellen learns that “Nobody can save you unless a sinless maiden makes the Vampire forget the first crow of the cock—If she was to give him her blood willingly,” she uses herself as bait and the film ends with Orlok vanishing in the morning sun.

Discover the Answers to More Big Questions: