Variety (Variete). 1925. Directed by E. A. Dupont.

(3/19/00)

This is a very powerful film which held my attention thoroughly throughout a first viewing. It is a dramatic story of infidelity and jealousy with superb camerawork by Karl Freund and a great performance by Emil Jannings.

Jannings is a trapeze artist who loves his wife very much. They are recruited into the act of another artist who has lost his partner, an affair oocurs, Jannings kills his rival and is sent to prison.

There are fascinating moments, such as when Jannings, playing cards, boasts that he is lucky at both cards and love and the film cuts to a shot of his wife kissing his rival. The rival, hoping to intercept the wife in the hallway, plants his shoes outside the door. As she approaches there is a closeup of his ear. I was also impressed by shots of the aerialists reflected in multiple mirrors and other images inspired by the avant-garde.

Jannings is lovable as the doting husband. When he comes in and his wife is not in her bed and he later wakes and sees her sleeping we see a savagery come into his face. Later, when he sees the drawing on the tablecloth which proclaims him to be a cuckold he changes again into a truly frightening figure. When he later murders his rival he appears like a somnambulist.

The murder scene is another fascinating moment. Jannings tells his rival that he is going to meet an old friend and to make sure his wife gets home. Of course, the lovers seize this chance to go out together. Artello, the rival, comes into his room drunk to face a solemn, unmoving Jannings (who sort of resembles the Golem in this scene). He tries at rfirst to be nonchalant and eventually becomes terrified at his rival's demeanor. He either attacks Jannings or falls (I forget) and his death occurs out of frame. All we see is a hand clutching a knife, which falls. Later as Jannings washes the blood off of his hands he seems to be waking, as if from a trance.

The film is told in flashback from prison. In the opening scene we only see Jannings frm the back, but at the end we see his weet, vulnerable face after ten years in prison. It is genuinely affecting.

Not quite convincing is what happens in that prison. At first the warden asks Jannings to tell his story, noting that he has refused for ten years to make a statement. Jannings refuses. He then shows Jannings a letter or telegram saying that parole has been recommended for Jannings, but the authorities want to hear the warden's recommendation. Then Jannings talks. Why this turnabout? I don't find it convincing.

Then, at the end, Jannings is presumably given his freedom. Just what accounts for this eary release, this show of mercy? He has, after all, killed a man. I found this unconvincing as well. I also didn't like the suggestion that Jannings was in a trance and didn't know what he was doing when he killed. That seems to trivialize the story for me although I would be happy to accept that he couldn't help himself.

These are, however, minor quibbles with what otherwise holds up as a thoroughly absorbing film.