Question / "Shadow of a Vampire"

[troymello]

* SPOILER *

I enjoyed "Shadow of a Vampire" (2000) very much... mostly because I have always liked 1922's "Nosferatu." I rememeber reading that Max Schreck was a little odd! I even read that he thought he was a vampire (I can understand that). But what I don't understand is the ending... when Max's shadow is not seen in the mirror and then the sunlight kills him. Isn't this movie suppose to be a TRUE story?? I mean, I was following along just fine until the end. I think the movie lost its authenticity at the end... it had the "Amityville Horror"-effect... a little TOO Hollywood... don't you think? Fiction is one thing, but are we suppose to believe Max really did not see his shadow? What's the deal?

[AmarylandPsycho]

I think he was delusional. That in the movie when they dont see his shadow it shows us his conviction and dedication to the part. Too me its one of the excellent parts of any movie....When you dont know if what your seeing is "real" or just the products of the characters stressfull minds.

[StaggerLee]

I really enjoyd the film and actually quite liked the ending too. I never even thougth about is it supposed to be a true story or not. I just wonder what Max him self would have said about it...

[troymello]

Delusional... I can see that.

The fact remains... Max Schreck was a strange fellow. Having read about him long before "Shadow..." came out, I may have been setting myself up to expect a completely non-fiction, almost-documentary-style flim. When he didn't see his shadow at the end, perhaps it was one of those "wait a minute... did I just see what I think I saw?!!" sort of things.

In any event, I really did enjoy the film.

Originally posted by AmarylandPsycho
I think he was delusional. That in the movie when they dont see his shadow it shows us his conviction and dedication to the part. Too me its one of the excellent parts of any movie....When you dont know if what your seeing is "real" or just the products of the characters stressfull minds.