Counter-Currents
1,205 words 
While their films couldn’t possibly be more different, David Lynch and Robert Eggers seem to have one thing in common: making movies by, for, and about whites without being explicit white advocates themselves. From Eraserhead (1977) to Inland Empire (2006), Lynch’s movies abound with whiteness, from the casting choices to the detailed examination of life in the suburbs to not even having the occasional nod towards black “culture” or worship like you will see with many mainstream directors today. When blacks do show up in Lynch’s movies, they tend to be either irrelevant to the plot or downright antagonistic. Take, for example, the opening scene in Wild At Heart (1990), when Sailor Ripley kills a black man (hired by his girlfriend Lula’s mother, who disapproved of Sailor for various reasons) viciously with his bare hands by bashing his head. I doubt pro-white bias is conscious on Lynch’s part, but it’s a common enough theme in his work to where I can’t help but notice it.
Eggers is much the same way, although given his age (he is 41 at the time of this writing), I’m assuming he’s a loyal follower of the globohomo narrative. But take a look at his brief filmography (The Witch, The Lighthouse, The Northman, and Nosferatu) and you will struggle to find a black face. Not only are his films overwhelmingly white, the subject matter he tends to explore is almost exclusively oriented towards white and/or European mythology. Both The Witch (2015) and The Northman (2022) dealt with themes that are pretty much the sole province of European peoples; the first dealt with New England Puritanism in the 17th Century and the latter was a rather nihilistic examination of Nordic vengeance and brutality during the Viking age. The Lighthouse (2019) was more experimental, but still involved the very Anglo-oriented tale of two 19th century sailors charged with the upkeep of a remote lighthouse in New England.
Nosferatu (2024), the most recent film in Eggers’ catalog, continues his infatuation with Northern European mythologies and people. As most of you probably know, Eggers’ film is a remake of the silent movie Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror (1922), made by German director F.W. Murnau. It’s an ambitious project on Eggers’ part, as the original film is not only frequently praised as an example of the greatness of the silent era of filmmaking, but is also surrounded by its own mythologies, among them being that Max Schreck, the actor who played the lead role of vampire Count Orlock, was in fact an actual creature of the night himself. Additionally, the process of making the original movie was itself affected by controversy. For those of you unfamiliar with the story, Nosferatu basically tells the story told in Bram Stoker’s Dracula, albeit with the names and locations mostly changed. The changes were the result of Murnau’s failure to obtain permission from Stoker’s estate to film the Dracula story. In an effort to avoid any legal entanglements, Murnau changed the location of much of the action from England to Germany, and Count Dracula became Count Orlock (spoiler alert: Stoker’s widow sued Murnau anyway). For a great fictionalized account of the making of the original Nosferatu, you cinephiles should check out Shadow of the Vampire (2000), starring John Malkovich and Willem Defoe.
Eggers’ movie has been the subject of a ton of pre-release hype, as well as post-release praise, some of which is deserved but much of which is dramatically overstated. Count Orlock is played by Bill Skarsgard, who seems to be making a career out of receiving critical accolades for playing villains where he is unrecognizable (he also played the role of Pennywise the clown in the most recent adaptation of Stephen King’s It). Lily Rose-Depp (daughter of Johnny) plays Ellen Hutter, which is basically the role of “Mina” from the Dracula story. Both performances are adequate, although they both have a clinical detachment to them that really has no place in this story. You can almost hear their respective acting coaches off-screen giving them instructions. Willem Defoe gives the best performance in the film in the “Van Helsing” role as the scientist who dabbles in mysticism and who appears to buy into the vampire myth. The whole thing is passable and not a bad film. It’s hardly the second coming of vampire movies (my favorite is still John Badham’s 1979 version of Dracula) that 98% of reviewers have proclaimed it to be. It’s certainly stylish, the cinematography is outstanding, the imagery is dark and compelling, and the performances are above average. The film is also refreshingly free of all the postmodern, ironic winks and nods we’re normally subject to in current films, particularly in the horror genre. The story, however, borders on incoherent at times and apparently Eggers was sick the day they taught pacing in film school. There are a lot of emotive histrionics by Rose-Depp that are simply shown with little to no context, the back story between her and the vampire is hinted at but never really explained, and the ending is laughably abrupt. It’s worth a watch if you’re a fan of either horror or vampire movies, but I doubt it’s anything that will “stay with you” long after you’ve seen it.
Regarding the “whiteness” of this film: I didn’t take notes so I can’t swear to it, but I don’t think I saw a single black face in the entire cast. Those of you who keep up with this kind of thing know how incredibly rare that is in a movie made anytime in the 2020s. We live in an era where the spectacle of blacks playing obviously white roles is so ubiquitous on streaming services that it’s even become a subject of mainstream mockery. It won’t be long before Morgan Freeman plays the lead role in a George Washington biopic. For Eggers to consistently make his films this white-friendly is, for lack of a better term, highly curious. As I stated earlier, I’ve never researched his political beliefs (because really, they are irrelevant to this discussion), but I do wonder if the overwhelming positive response his films have received has something to do with a subconscious desire on the part of both audiences and critics to just enjoy watching white folks do white things in the movies again. It’s not stated, of course, because hey, some things you just don’t say, but there’s no way it’s just us folks on the dissident right who are exhausted with seeing sacred POC in roles where they very clearly don’t belong. I saw this film on opening day and I don’t think I saw a single black person in the theater I was in. There’s a reason for that.
What Eggers is unknowingly doing is fulfilling a desperate (and very natural) need audiences have to see people that look like them represented in the art and entertainment they consume. I doubt it will last forever, as sooner or later some Critical Race Theory queef will write on article on “The Unbearable Whiteness of Robert Eggers” or some such garbage and Eggers will bend over backwards to prove how much he hates racism in every interview he gives and, more sadly, in the casting decisions he makes. Until then, enjoy the lack of melanin in your celluloid.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
27 comments
Reading this at 6 am and listening to the rain is pretty much a perfect end to 2024. I now have three movie suggestions I am excited about.
The writing here at CC is inspiring. That’s what I have figured out is missing almost everywhere now; actual inspiration, big ideas, bold thought that connects me to the world and the future.
Yes, it’s a movie review. But like every piece on CC and most of the comments, it is much more. Cheers to the New Year to all of you and a special thank you to Greg for curating something so special.
Thanks so much for your readership, participation, and support. Happy New Year.
Without question Counter Currents has the best writing of any other website on the internet. It’s our duty to spread the word and keep donations coming in.
BTW I bet Morgan Freeman would have the decency to turn down the role of George Washington. Thousands of other blacks would cheerfully accept.
I saw it yesterday and it doesn’t come close to the witch or even Northman. Some parts were good like the original meeting is the vampire but the vampire got tiring. The towns people were a little swarthy from what I remember but besides that it was all white.
what was Jewish about it was obsession with sex. There nothing shocking about sex anymore thanks to Jews; it’s the reason I didn’t like lighthouse.
Thanks, will watch. I saw The Witch and thought it was good. It gets the puritan colonial period language and feel really well is what I liked about it(would you like to taste butter? Lol), although in general I’m not much on horror. The Witch was part of a series of kabbalistic films in which a young man is sacrificed by some coven or something, maybe the best of those. Get Out, Dark Skies, the coven, et al.
I thought the 1990 Bram stokers Dracula, with keenu reeves, was a really accurate representation of the book, which made me want to read the book, which I’m in the process of. I haven’t seen the Defoe one, it may be better. As for the book—most excellent. It’s very literary. So much of twentieth century horror derives from it; nightmare on elm street, vampires, etc.
My thesis(of course): Dracula is a Jew! Lol. Think about it—he comes from Transylvania, Eastern Europe, he hoards money, etc. Were vampires associated with Eastern Europe in particular before Dracula, does anyone know? it’s a nuanced meditation on the JQ, which weighs their progressive and primitivistic contradictions.
If I remember correctly, Ernst Robert Almgren put forth the thesis on the Decameron Film Festival that Dracula was the ultimate white guy – going from being viewed as the greatest of heroes to being considered the worst of villains. 🙂
In a hand waving sort of way I suppose one could say that, but as for the cultural context of the book, 1890s England, that doesn’t really fit, so that could not have been the author’s actual intention. But the whole context of the book is European. There are no nonwhites in the book. Dracula is a foreign element invading English society. That is the point. But great literature is open and it can be used in multiple contexts like that.
Which is funny, because Dracula has often been regarded as having a Jewish subtext…
I thought the 1990 Bram stokers Dracula, with keenu reeves, was a really accurate representation of the book
That’s Coppola’s version, which I definitely liked better than this one. If you’re a fan of the Dracula story generally, you should check out John Badham’s 1979 version. It stars Frank Langella as the Count and has one of the most terrifying scenes of any movie I’ve seen–gave me nightmares as a kid. If I recall correctly, the film didn’t perform so well at the box office, but it remains my favorite of these.
Yeah, the Coppola version. I think it shows his stature as an artist that he saw the subtext of the book and included those points in the movie. That the story goes back to Vlad and the Ottomans—an eastern invasion and attempted control of Europe—that’s the theme of the book! I’ll write an essay when I finish the book, maybe.
It’s been decades since I read the book so I can’t say I remember too many details other than the broad ones. I do remember reading Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein right around the same time and liking it more.
The Coppola Dracula made big changes of the novel, the most important thing was creating a romantic back story for Drac and Mina, going back to his days as a mortal being.
Oh, the romantic subplot is not part of the novel? I’m only a little over a third through the novel, so I didn’t know. That’s part of why I am reading it, but the initial part with Dracula was very true to the book.
Another part I want to know if is in the book is when they corner him as the giant bat in the chapel and then he says something like “Fools, you cannot destroy me!” and turns into a giant swarm of rats. This might show he is a group, not an individual, a spirit among a group of people. (Rats, hehe)
Yes. Dracula was a Jew. Stoker saw the invasion and inversion and subversion of Europe. This was blatant via the rule of England by the insect Disraeli, who operated under the voluminous skirts of the moronic cow Victoria. No one pays too much attention to the real politics of the Victorian era. And everyone seems to have forgotten about Disraeli.To see “how it’s done”. I think it would be wise to study his life and career. Disraeli was very open about his Jewishness, as well as his promotion of Jewishness. He wrote several novels, 2 of which are “fiction” revolving identity and the contradictions and problems created by an alien in a larger society. “Contarini Fleming”, the subtitle of which is “a psychological autobiography” (!) and revolves around the conflicts of “Northern” (White) and “Mediterranean” (ostensibly Italian but really Jewish) ancestry. The resolution of the story is that Europe must go from “Feudalism” (European mores) to “Federal Principles” (Jewish rootless cosmopolitan). “The Wondrous Tale of Alroy” is even more blatant. This is the tale of a medieval Jew in deciding between a small Jewish state and a large empire blanketing the globe. And now there’s Israel! Ta da!
Jews were deeply imbedded in Europe, as we all know, for eons. They really sunk their fangs in the English neck when my rotten ancestor, Cromwell, let ’em back in. Jews generally operated in cities, of course, and were regarded as rather odd, but intelligent and hardworking and of course, “prosperous”. Just as Whites in Dixie regarded Jews. Very few Whites looked too closely at the sources of Jewish “prosperity” There were prominent Whites that did notice the behavior and general weirdness of Jews, but rarely ever tried to do anything about them. Even then one had to tread very carefully in criticizing Jews in any way. Stoker obviously noticed all of this
Thanks. Yes, there’s a very subtle yet strong tension in Victorian literature about Jews, which seems to spring from an angst about Jews intermarrying with the upper caste in Britain. sometimes it’s more or less explicit like in Vanity Fair. Sometimes it’s sort of subtle and symbolic as in I believe, Wuthering Heights. These people make themselves the central issue wherever.
Always been fascinated by the vampire genre and I have plans to go see Nosferatu later today. It is a bonus that the film lacks the vibrant diversity which infects almost everything we see on our screens these days. Turds in the milkpail everywhere. That’s why I have skipped the new Lestat series. And a great great many other productions of the last years.
I think you may be underestimating Eggers. I can guarantee you that he’s making his casting decisions against immense pressure to incorporate blacks. When Lynch was making films, you could easily subconsciously leave non-whites out. Today, it has to be a conscious decision. And those articles on his “unbearable whiteness” have already been written. There were many about The Northman since the establishment has identified Vikings as “problematic” and particularly in need of subversion.
I think Eggers is leaving out blacks because he’s a lover of history and strives for authenticity. However, doing that requires him to stand against Hollywood historical consultants who insist that Europe has always been heavily black. It requires him to forgo awards consideration, since many selection criteria have included a minimum black threshold in loving memory of George Floyd. I’m not saying Eggers is a white nationalist, but these things could not be happening in modern Hollywood without him taking deliberate stances on this issue.
It’s also curious to me that you would assume simply because he’s younger that he’s into globohomo. I find young white men far more likely to understand these issues than their older counterparts, and there’s data to support that. And I have to laugh that an obvious fan of Lynch’s work would complain about unconventional pacing and a lack of explanation.
It’s also curious to me that you would assume simply because he’s younger that he’s into globohomo
The mere fact that he’s young? No. The fact that he’s young combined with the fact that he’s achieved a fair amount of success in a notoriously left-wing industry? Yes, I absolutely do make that assumption. It’s a pretty safe one statistically. If he were a plumber or a construction worker, I wouldn’t make that assumption at all. But hey, I’d love to be wrong about that.
I have to laugh that an obvious fan of Lynch’s work would complain about unconventional pacing and a lack of explanation.
On the contrary, Lynch’s films are beautifully paced. Any shifts in tone or mood are intentional and are handled with deftness and creativity. But Lynch is an unconventional director and not every film-maker can pull off what he does. Eggers makes more traditional movies and any abrupt changes just come off as sloppy and out of place, including this most recent one.
My wife and I are going to see it tomorrow. I am cautiously optimistic because I really liked The Northman and The Witch but I am not getting my hopes up too high.
Shadow Of The Vampire is an incredible film that I recommend to all of my friends. Other favorite vampire films(with all white casts) would be Near Dark, Let The Right One In and just about all of the Hammer Dracula films. For those who haven’t seen Paul Morrissey’s Blood For Dracula(and it’s companion Flesh For Frankenstein) seek them out and bask in their cheesy, sleazy awesomeness. Udo Kier is amazing in both.
Vamp! from 1986 is a good lite but forgotten vampire flick, similar to Lost Boys, which I also liked.
Near Dark was a great. fun watch. Plus, wasn’t one of the vamps a former confederate soldier? Good times.
Isn’t there really nothing more to say about the film other than that it’s well done and all-white? I demand a second review.
Eggers has explicitly denied any white nationalist interpretation of Northman. I believe this, though he couldn’t possibly give any other answer in modern times.
White males were central to Christopher Nolan’s Dunkirk, as has been customary of major bloody battles in Amero-European history. It was released in 2017 just as wokeness was getting ready to peak for George Floyd in a couple of years. Notable complaints were that this major films didn’t cater to female or minority representation, and that historical films were a tactic to duck ‘representation’ as demanded by would be censors. So step aside Saving Private Ryan and old school D-Day narratives. We were told audiences wanted to see that women were the real heroes of D-day, or stories of black women battalions as in Netflix’s The Six Triple Eight. I admit, I hadn’t heard of them before and wondered what sort of casualties they suffered. It seems their role was in sorting the mail.
On the Dracula front, faithful quality adaptations of the source novel are in short supply, but playing fast and loose can have good results. I thought Stephen King’s Doctor Sleep had creepy and original touches, but sank itself with unneeded references to the Shining and wholeheartedly embracing the “magical negro” trope in not one, but two different characters! The first adaptation of Salem’s Lot is kitschy fun and James Mason steals every scene like the legend he is. The two uber lefties behind What We Do In The Shadows did a great sendup of recycled vampire movie cliches. Their franchise TV show followup has probably gone on too long and deserves a good dose of sunlight. Ken Russell’s Lair of the White Worm is an adaptation of one of Bram Stoker’s lesser known novels, done for hysterical Freudian kicks.
Great comment and great recommendations! After listening to a splendid audiobook edition of the Brahm Stoker original, “Dracula”, I discovered “Lair of the White Worm”, and thoroughly enjoyed it — it has all the elements I enjoy in what I consider adventure-thrillers. Highly recommend most of the literature of that era, and all of it is at one’s fingertips at Archive.org. The movie, “Things We Do in the Dark” was great fun — loved it! I didn’t realize it had been made into a series. I’ll skip that; the movie had just the right touch. I’m looking forward to exploring all the recommendations of fellow Dracula fans.
p.s. I only recently read the original “Frankenstein” novel, and was amazed at its thoughtfulness and depth, having only ever before been exposed to modern cartoonish caricatures of The Monster.
Articles like this keep me coming back. Well done and thanks for the review. One issue I took was the conflicted messaging of the ending of the film. Dollar Store Van Helsing tells Dollar Store Mina that she has to confront the evil inside of her and crucify it. But then he says the only way to get rid of the evil is by giving in entirely. Which she does. I took her “sacrifice” as not noble but as a way of caving to the evil she’d been dabbling in for most of her life. She overcame the evil initially by getting married and (presumably) wanting to start a family, but then threw that away by giving in to Orlok.
I will probably see the film, because Nicholas Hoult is the husband. He’s so gorgeous I’d watch him do anything. Re: Dollar Store Mina – if she throws over Stunning Manchild Flawless Face Yummy Yummy with Lots of Whipped and Cherries Everywhere Nicholas Hoult for…anything……there’s something wrong with her. No loss. He can do better.
Give him my number……..
DenisetheCelt: January 4, 2025 I will probably see the film, because Nicholas Hoult is the husband. He’s so gorgeous I’d watch him do anything. He can do better.
—
Hoult is a rising Hollywood star and I suppose eye candy for you ladies. As for myself, I have no interest in watching any Hollywood movies since that industry is controlled by my enemies for their interests, not ours.
Watch The Order, Denise. That’s Hoult’s latest movie, released last month. He plays Robert J. Mathews, who could be the protagonist in the movie since one cannot name a more dedicated, real-life pro-White person than Mathews in the past 40 years. But Hoult plays Bob as evil, because that is how he was told to play him in New Order‘s script.
Listen to Bob’s passionate speech in real time, here: https://nationalvanguard.org/2024/12/william-pierce-on-robert-mathews/ followed by Dr. Pierce’s comments and compare that to how Bob is portrayed as evil by Jews and their allies in Hollywood and their controlled media. The Order is anti-White fiction passed off to movie-goers as “based on a true story.”
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.