(2/26/00-2/28/00)
This was a very difficult film to concentrate on. I can admire the sheer exuberance of the editing and the camerawork, but that still didn't involve me in it. However, I was better able to follow it than I was 20 years ago.
Masao Inoue actually began to bother me as the odd-job man. He just seems to be morose, but there were scenes when his mood changed and he seemed more interesting.
The film was interesting to watch at the time, but very little of it stayed with me. It had an added soundtrack which I liked at the beginning, but less so as the film progressed. The music at the scene of a parade was too much and such sound effects as that of a dog barking really began to grate on me.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Backstairs (Hintertreppe). 1921. Directed by Leopold Jessner.
(2/22/00)
This is a German expressionist film which was interesting to watch. It was notable for the sets, designed by Paul Leni, and the stylized acting. But I found it hard to follow.
A young woman, played by Henny Porten, is a maid. She has a lover that she goes to meet in the evening. He stops appearing. She is very depressed and keeps hoping for a word from him. The postman acts strange each day, which suggests that he might have sone something to the lover, but this is not made clear. We have seen this postman watching the woman, so we know he has an interest in her.
One day he brings her a letter which appears to be from her lover. But he has written it himself. She comes to his room to offer him a drink and discover this. He then leaves a letter for her, ringing the bell and then leaving. She then comes to see him again in his room and they become lovers.
They are very happy for a time, but then another man appears. It would seem that he is the woman's original lover, but he doesn't seem like him to me. He goes to see the postman. The woman brings some neighbors to break open the door and the postman has killed him. The woman is then dismissed by her employers and goes to the top of an expressionist building and jumps with the whole neighborhood watching.
There is a lot of footage of Fritz Korner just looking intense. The drama is played out through gestures. It was interesting for periods, but I found it hard to really sustain my concentration through the whole film. I wonder what to make of the three strange-looking characters who are Henny Porten's employers, but whom we only see at the end. As I said, the settings are interesting. There is a rough, cave-like quality to some of the rooms and the staircase and a bizarre-looking hallway. Even so, it still was not as interesting as The Golem and The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari.
This is a German expressionist film which was interesting to watch. It was notable for the sets, designed by Paul Leni, and the stylized acting. But I found it hard to follow.
A young woman, played by Henny Porten, is a maid. She has a lover that she goes to meet in the evening. He stops appearing. She is very depressed and keeps hoping for a word from him. The postman acts strange each day, which suggests that he might have sone something to the lover, but this is not made clear. We have seen this postman watching the woman, so we know he has an interest in her.
One day he brings her a letter which appears to be from her lover. But he has written it himself. She comes to his room to offer him a drink and discover this. He then leaves a letter for her, ringing the bell and then leaving. She then comes to see him again in his room and they become lovers.
They are very happy for a time, but then another man appears. It would seem that he is the woman's original lover, but he doesn't seem like him to me. He goes to see the postman. The woman brings some neighbors to break open the door and the postman has killed him. The woman is then dismissed by her employers and goes to the top of an expressionist building and jumps with the whole neighborhood watching.
There is a lot of footage of Fritz Korner just looking intense. The drama is played out through gestures. It was interesting for periods, but I found it hard to really sustain my concentration through the whole film. I wonder what to make of the three strange-looking characters who are Henny Porten's employers, but whom we only see at the end. As I said, the settings are interesting. There is a rough, cave-like quality to some of the rooms and the staircase and a bizarre-looking hallway. Even so, it still was not as interesting as The Golem and The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
The Freshman. 1925. Directed by Sam Taylor and Fred Newmeyer.
(2/22/00)
This is an innocent and thoroughly delightful comedy. Harold Lloyd is a starry-eyed young fellow who goes off to college, dreaming of popularity. He suffers humiliation but prevails in the end. It is interesting that we never see or hear anything about classes, papers, tests, anything to do with education or studying. College is for playing football and making friends and living it up.
Lloyd has such innocence and enthusiasm that it is impossible not to like him. He gets some of his ideas from movies and practices a little dance that precedes a handshake and borrows a line about being a regular fellow and to call him Speedy.
He gets to college and is not accepted. In fact, he is taken advantage of and humiliated. But he rebounds and turns into a football hero and actually earns the respect and popularity that he wanted. And at the end everybody else is practicing the little dance that goes before the handshake.
It's interesting how pathos is handled in this film. The practical jokers put Lloyd upon a stage where the dean (or president) is expected to appear. After being embarrassed they tell him that he is expected to make a speech or nobody will like him. I did not feel any sadness watching this scene--it was just funny. But later when, after rescuing his girl from another guy who is getting aggressive with her, he is shown what everybody thinks of him. He falls on his knees and sobs. That scene made me feel pain. And it was all carefully controlled.
Lloyd grows up and takes charge of his destiny during the football game. He had been made the water-boy and led to believe that he was a substute because coach who admired his spirit didn't want to hurt his feelings. When he keeps trying to get into the game the coach finally has to tell him that they were just kidding about him being on the team. Lloyd really comes to life here. He tells the coach that he (Lloyd) wasn't kidding--he had worked and practiced for the chance to play and he wanted it. He demands the right to be in the game and it is a really wonderful moment.
But the coach only lets him in the game when he has no other alternative. Lloyd's fighting spirit comes into play and he really wins the game--not through some silly fluke but through sheer force of will. And that's really what should happen.
One could question whether winning the approval of these classmates is really worth it, but that isn't what this film is about. It is about growing up and not accepting defeat. And on those levels it works.
The comedy is wonderful. The best sequence is when Lloyd attends the party he hosts with a suit that isn't quite ready to be worn and which falls apart. The tailor is hiding in the wings, ready to fix it. But then he has a dizzy spell and needs a drink and Lloyd has to go and attempt to pick a flask from someone's pocket. What's so remarkable is how long Lloyd is able to sustain this scene.
Harold Lloyd and The Freshman are both a joy from start to finish.
This is an innocent and thoroughly delightful comedy. Harold Lloyd is a starry-eyed young fellow who goes off to college, dreaming of popularity. He suffers humiliation but prevails in the end. It is interesting that we never see or hear anything about classes, papers, tests, anything to do with education or studying. College is for playing football and making friends and living it up.
Lloyd has such innocence and enthusiasm that it is impossible not to like him. He gets some of his ideas from movies and practices a little dance that precedes a handshake and borrows a line about being a regular fellow and to call him Speedy.
He gets to college and is not accepted. In fact, he is taken advantage of and humiliated. But he rebounds and turns into a football hero and actually earns the respect and popularity that he wanted. And at the end everybody else is practicing the little dance that goes before the handshake.
It's interesting how pathos is handled in this film. The practical jokers put Lloyd upon a stage where the dean (or president) is expected to appear. After being embarrassed they tell him that he is expected to make a speech or nobody will like him. I did not feel any sadness watching this scene--it was just funny. But later when, after rescuing his girl from another guy who is getting aggressive with her, he is shown what everybody thinks of him. He falls on his knees and sobs. That scene made me feel pain. And it was all carefully controlled.
Lloyd grows up and takes charge of his destiny during the football game. He had been made the water-boy and led to believe that he was a substute because coach who admired his spirit didn't want to hurt his feelings. When he keeps trying to get into the game the coach finally has to tell him that they were just kidding about him being on the team. Lloyd really comes to life here. He tells the coach that he (Lloyd) wasn't kidding--he had worked and practiced for the chance to play and he wanted it. He demands the right to be in the game and it is a really wonderful moment.
But the coach only lets him in the game when he has no other alternative. Lloyd's fighting spirit comes into play and he really wins the game--not through some silly fluke but through sheer force of will. And that's really what should happen.
One could question whether winning the approval of these classmates is really worth it, but that isn't what this film is about. It is about growing up and not accepting defeat. And on those levels it works.
The comedy is wonderful. The best sequence is when Lloyd attends the party he hosts with a suit that isn't quite ready to be worn and which falls apart. The tailor is hiding in the wings, ready to fix it. But then he has a dizzy spell and needs a drink and Lloyd has to go and attempt to pick a flask from someone's pocket. What's so remarkable is how long Lloyd is able to sustain this scene.
Harold Lloyd and The Freshman are both a joy from start to finish.
Our Hospitality. 1923. Directed by Buster Keaton and John G. Blystone.
(2/19/00-2/22/00)
I suppose I'm a little disappointed in this film, but that's probably because I have wanted to see it for so long. Also, I really don't feel so good today.
I suppose that I just expected the idea of the feud and of Keaton having to be treated civilly indoors while they are waiting to get him outdoors so they can shoot him to be more developed. I thought that we were in for one really rich satire. But it is unfair to expect so much from a picture.
It is certainly a beautiful film to look at. The views of New York in 1830 are delightful, as is the wonderful train ride to the hills. The train ride was exploited for all it was worth, but I couldn't help but feel sorry for the little dog who follows all the way. That was a beautiful touch.
Also memorable is when they blow up th edam for irrigation purposes and the water begins to fall on Keaton who thinks it is raining and opens his umbrella. And then the water really pours over him, concealing him from the men who are looking for him. That is the kind of thing Keaton does which is really visually clever.
Another visual touch that I liked was this: When Keaton thinks about the property he has inherited we see a picture of a stately mansion, which is what he imagines it to be like. When he actually sees the ramshackle little house that is his we see the picture again--and it explodes as his fantasy is exploded. I really liked that.
The film did seem to drag later on. I suppose I wanted or expected him to do even more to ridicule feuding and a hypocritical code of manners. I expected that the feud would be resolved through Keaton marrying the heroine and wasn't disappointed. But even though the ending was predictable it was thoroughly appropriate.
I suppose I'm a little disappointed in this film, but that's probably because I have wanted to see it for so long. Also, I really don't feel so good today.
I suppose that I just expected the idea of the feud and of Keaton having to be treated civilly indoors while they are waiting to get him outdoors so they can shoot him to be more developed. I thought that we were in for one really rich satire. But it is unfair to expect so much from a picture.
It is certainly a beautiful film to look at. The views of New York in 1830 are delightful, as is the wonderful train ride to the hills. The train ride was exploited for all it was worth, but I couldn't help but feel sorry for the little dog who follows all the way. That was a beautiful touch.
Also memorable is when they blow up th edam for irrigation purposes and the water begins to fall on Keaton who thinks it is raining and opens his umbrella. And then the water really pours over him, concealing him from the men who are looking for him. That is the kind of thing Keaton does which is really visually clever.
Another visual touch that I liked was this: When Keaton thinks about the property he has inherited we see a picture of a stately mansion, which is what he imagines it to be like. When he actually sees the ramshackle little house that is his we see the picture again--and it explodes as his fantasy is exploded. I really liked that.
The film did seem to drag later on. I suppose I wanted or expected him to do even more to ridicule feuding and a hypocritical code of manners. I expected that the feud would be resolved through Keaton marrying the heroine and wasn't disappointed. But even though the ending was predictable it was thoroughly appropriate.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Sky High. 1922. Directed by Lynn Reynolds.
(2/19/00)
This film has spectacular photography of the Grand Canyon and must have been dazzling in 1922. Unfortunately, I saw it in a crappy 16mm print.
Tom Mix is attractive and personable, but I don't think he had much presence or charisma. I suspect that a lot of his fame was really due to the kind of picture he was associated with. It was a good product--a very good product.
In Sky High the great moment is when Mix descends out of a plane and jumps into the river in the Grand Canyon. That's the memorable image, but it's supported by a tale of laborer-smuggling and a damsel in distress. It's a completely different film from The Covered Wagon (which was to come a year later), D. W. Griffith's westerns and those of William S. Hart. It's a much more modern world, one not filled with the pioneer spirit or the struggle to survive against the elements.
At the end of the film, Mix is willing to conceal the villain's villany from his ward. The two men shake hands and the villain asks Mix to look after her. This scene leaves me with the feeling that crime has been trivialized and treated as sport. It's a gentlemen's game--not to be taken seriously. And I rather think that that is the attitude one should take with Sky High in general.
This film has spectacular photography of the Grand Canyon and must have been dazzling in 1922. Unfortunately, I saw it in a crappy 16mm print.
Tom Mix is attractive and personable, but I don't think he had much presence or charisma. I suspect that a lot of his fame was really due to the kind of picture he was associated with. It was a good product--a very good product.
In Sky High the great moment is when Mix descends out of a plane and jumps into the river in the Grand Canyon. That's the memorable image, but it's supported by a tale of laborer-smuggling and a damsel in distress. It's a completely different film from The Covered Wagon (which was to come a year later), D. W. Griffith's westerns and those of William S. Hart. It's a much more modern world, one not filled with the pioneer spirit or the struggle to survive against the elements.
At the end of the film, Mix is willing to conceal the villain's villany from his ward. The two men shake hands and the villain asks Mix to look after her. This scene leaves me with the feeling that crime has been trivialized and treated as sport. It's a gentlemen's game--not to be taken seriously. And I rather think that that is the attitude one should take with Sky High in general.
Street Angel. 1928. Directed by Frank Borzage.
(2/19/00)
I just didn't care for this film. Maybe you just have to be in the right mood for it. I didn't like the opening section, set in Naples, because it all looked like it was on a giant stage set with the camera roving around. I started to like it much better when Janet Gaynor goes away with the circus. Somehow, the first part seemed stifling.
Janet Gaynor really didn't appeal to me very much, although I admit that she was able to act a wide range of moods. She changes throughout the film and carries that off rather well. Charles Farrell seemed likable enough, but his character just seemed such a simp that he got to be irritating. I kept thinking that Gaynor ought to find herself a real adult to hang out with. Of course, his innocence was part of his charm--for her, anyway.
The whole scene in which Gaynor spends an hour with Farrell, not telling him that she was going to go back to prison was annoying. If he couldn't handle the truth she could have told him something. It didn't ring true. However, it was effective when the lovers are enjoying their happiness and the knock at the door comes. That worked. And all the tension when Gaynor was trying to say goodbye while the policeman waited outside worked. But as a whole the sequence didn't come off.
I liked the scene at the wharf (or wharves). That had a nice atmosphere and I was getting interested. But then Farrell chases Gaynor into the church and we see the painting he had made of her altered into an image of the Blessed Virgin Mary and placed above the altar. Yes, this had been prepared for, but nonetheless it was just to much for even me to swallow--and I'm willing to swallow just about anything. It jarred me and took me right out of the film. From that moment on I was not involved with it at all.
But as I said, maybe I would feel differently about it if I were in the right mood.
(2/22/00)
I also wanted to mention that I found the soundtrack very distracting. Street Angel is one of those films that are basically silent, but which have a soundtrack with music and sound effects. Here we have whistling and bits of singing. I found that very distracting and didn't like it at all.
I just didn't care for this film. Maybe you just have to be in the right mood for it. I didn't like the opening section, set in Naples, because it all looked like it was on a giant stage set with the camera roving around. I started to like it much better when Janet Gaynor goes away with the circus. Somehow, the first part seemed stifling.
Janet Gaynor really didn't appeal to me very much, although I admit that she was able to act a wide range of moods. She changes throughout the film and carries that off rather well. Charles Farrell seemed likable enough, but his character just seemed such a simp that he got to be irritating. I kept thinking that Gaynor ought to find herself a real adult to hang out with. Of course, his innocence was part of his charm--for her, anyway.
The whole scene in which Gaynor spends an hour with Farrell, not telling him that she was going to go back to prison was annoying. If he couldn't handle the truth she could have told him something. It didn't ring true. However, it was effective when the lovers are enjoying their happiness and the knock at the door comes. That worked. And all the tension when Gaynor was trying to say goodbye while the policeman waited outside worked. But as a whole the sequence didn't come off.
I liked the scene at the wharf (or wharves). That had a nice atmosphere and I was getting interested. But then Farrell chases Gaynor into the church and we see the painting he had made of her altered into an image of the Blessed Virgin Mary and placed above the altar. Yes, this had been prepared for, but nonetheless it was just to much for even me to swallow--and I'm willing to swallow just about anything. It jarred me and took me right out of the film. From that moment on I was not involved with it at all.
But as I said, maybe I would feel differently about it if I were in the right mood.
(2/22/00)
I also wanted to mention that I found the soundtrack very distracting. Street Angel is one of those films that are basically silent, but which have a soundtrack with music and sound effects. Here we have whistling and bits of singing. I found that very distracting and didn't like it at all.
The Penalty. 1920. Directed by Wallace Worsley.
(2/17/00)
This was a fascinating film, but an unsatisfying one. The main titles were very nice and the film openedwith a shocking sequence about a boy whose legs were amputated unnecessarily. Another doctor agrees to lie to cover up for the surgeon who made the error. The boy overhears this but nobody believes him. This is pretty strong stuff.
Lon Chaney plays the role of that boy as an adult. It is a fabulous performance not only because of the painful job of concealing his legs, but because of the character he created in which bitternesss and love struggle.
Chaney's character is a master criminal and he is an attractive character because of his energy. He is known as "Blizzard" and he is a sort of titan. He reminds me of the master criminal in some of Fritz Lang's films.
It is fascinating that as part of his plan of revenge he poses for a sculpture of "Satan After the Fall." This is a fascinating motif in the film, as he is a Satanic figure. It is like he wants to be able to study this part of himself in a sculpture.
He models for the daughter of the doctor who had amputated his legs. He says something about wanting to corrupt her, but it is never clear just what he intends to do, what his plan is. So there doesn't seem to be that much of a point to his modeling for her.
At the end he tries to force the girl's father to graft the woman's fiance's legs onto him. But the doctor operates on his head instead, explaining that he was insane and not responsible for his actions. For me, that explanation robs the film of its significance. Chaney's character was far more interesting as a man consumed by bitterness and a desire for revenge than as a man not responsible for his actions and who just needed an operation.
I will say that Chaney did seem insane when he was describing his plan for looting San Francisco. So the ending was prepared for.
I liked the San Francisco locale very much at the beginning of the picture, but there wasn't enough of it to sustain my interest for too long. It was an interesting picture about a master criminal and Chaney was always interesting to watch. He played the piano with a woman doing the pedaling for him. One great moment was when he lost control and told Ferris's daughter that he loved her and she laughed at him. The vulnerability and the menace was incredible. And his relationship with Rose was touching, how he wouldn't do anything to her even after he discovered she was a police agent.
The film was full of passion, an exciting story and Chaney's wonderful acting. But it wasn't as great as it could have been.
This was a fascinating film, but an unsatisfying one. The main titles were very nice and the film openedwith a shocking sequence about a boy whose legs were amputated unnecessarily. Another doctor agrees to lie to cover up for the surgeon who made the error. The boy overhears this but nobody believes him. This is pretty strong stuff.
Lon Chaney plays the role of that boy as an adult. It is a fabulous performance not only because of the painful job of concealing his legs, but because of the character he created in which bitternesss and love struggle.
Chaney's character is a master criminal and he is an attractive character because of his energy. He is known as "Blizzard" and he is a sort of titan. He reminds me of the master criminal in some of Fritz Lang's films.
It is fascinating that as part of his plan of revenge he poses for a sculpture of "Satan After the Fall." This is a fascinating motif in the film, as he is a Satanic figure. It is like he wants to be able to study this part of himself in a sculpture.
He models for the daughter of the doctor who had amputated his legs. He says something about wanting to corrupt her, but it is never clear just what he intends to do, what his plan is. So there doesn't seem to be that much of a point to his modeling for her.
At the end he tries to force the girl's father to graft the woman's fiance's legs onto him. But the doctor operates on his head instead, explaining that he was insane and not responsible for his actions. For me, that explanation robs the film of its significance. Chaney's character was far more interesting as a man consumed by bitterness and a desire for revenge than as a man not responsible for his actions and who just needed an operation.
I will say that Chaney did seem insane when he was describing his plan for looting San Francisco. So the ending was prepared for.
I liked the San Francisco locale very much at the beginning of the picture, but there wasn't enough of it to sustain my interest for too long. It was an interesting picture about a master criminal and Chaney was always interesting to watch. He played the piano with a woman doing the pedaling for him. One great moment was when he lost control and told Ferris's daughter that he loved her and she laughed at him. The vulnerability and the menace was incredible. And his relationship with Rose was touching, how he wouldn't do anything to her even after he discovered she was a police agent.
The film was full of passion, an exciting story and Chaney's wonderful acting. But it wasn't as great as it could have been.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)