|
Post by idioticbunny on Mar 27, 2017 4:13:30 GMT
Slowly but surely making my way through it. 1924 was certainly a lot better year than the previous two, but still not quite reaching the peaks of early Sjostrom, Chaplin, and Griffith, though there are still some great works in the mix. Here are my full line-ups:
Best Picture: 01. Greed. 02. Sherlock, Jr. 03. The Hands of Orlac. 04. The Last Laugh. 05. The Thief of Bagdad. 06. Girl Shy. 07. He Who Gets Slapped. 08. The Marriage Circle. 09. The Iron Horse. 10. Manhandled.
Best Director: 01. Buster Keaton - Sherlock, Jr. 02. Erich von Stroheim - Greed. 03. F.W. Murnau - The Last Laugh. 04. Robert Wiene - The Hands of Orlac. 05. Raoul Walsh - The Thief of Bagdad.
Best Actor: 01. Gibson Gowland - Greed. 02. Emil Jannings - The Last Laugh. 03. Buster Keaton - Sherlock, Jr. 04. Lon Chaney - He Who Gets Slapped. 05. Conrad Veidt - The Hands of Orlac.
Best Actress: 01. Zasu Pitts - Greed. 02. Marie Prevost - The Marriage Circle. 03. Gloria Swanson - Mandhandled.
Best Supporting Actor: 01. Marc McDermott - He Who Gets Slapped. 02. Adolphe Menjou - The Marriage Circle. 03. Jean Hersholt - Greed. 04. Tully Marshall - He Who Gets Slapped. 05. J. Farrell MacDonald - The Iron Horse.
Best Supporting Actress: 01. Florence Vidor - The Marriage Circle. 02. Norma Shearer - He Who Gets Slapped. 03. Jobyna Ralston - Girl Shy. 04. Ruth King - He Who Gets Slapped. 05. Mathilde Comont - The Thief of Bagdad.
Best Original Screenplay: 01. Sherlock, Jr. 02. The Last Laugh. 03. Girl Shy. 04. The Iron Horse. 05. Manhandled.
Best Adapted Screenplay: 01. Greed. 02. The Marriage Circle. 03. The Hands of Orlac. 04. He Who Gets Slapped. 05. The Thief of Bagdad.
Best Ensemble: 01. Greed. 02. The Marriage Circle. 03. He Who Gets Slapped. 04. The Hands of Orlac. 05. The Iron Horse.
Best Editing: Sherlock, Jr.
Best Cinematography: The Last Laugh.
Best Art Direction: The Thief of Bagdad.
Best Costume Design: The Thief of Bagdad.
Best Makeup: He Who Gets Slapped.
Best Visual Effects: The Thief of Bagdad.
Pretty great year as far as techs go, you can definitely tell just this year alone how ahead of their time they were and how much they were growing with their extent of film knowledge. If you don't believe me, simply look at the incredible artistic design and special effects on display in The Thief of Bagdad (though it'd be a ten times better film if anyone - ANYONE - was the lead but Douglas Fairbanks), or even the fantastic editing and special effects tricks in Sherlock Jr (probably my favorite Buster Keaton film so far).
Even F.W. Murnau brings his A game with what I think is his best film yet (even better than his oft-praised Nosferatu) with The Last Laugh. A fantastically simple story brought together by an impeccable directorial effort. No dialogue, just pure cinema, and the camera work is a game-changer (or was at least).
Too bad the acting was mostly just there this year, no real stand-outs aside from the Greed trio who really bring it all to life so well and make the film feel as real as it does for its time. Greed would probably be my second perfect 10 of the decade, but it's bogged down by external forces ruining the director's vision. I'd love to sit and watch the 4-hour version at some point and see how my rating sits then. Otherwise, that and Sherlock Jr are certainly two of the best I've seen so far.
P.S. Typically I'd ask for recommendations for the following year but I'm practically already done. I just have a couple spots left to fill, so feel free to throw some names out for 1925 and I'll check out any I haven't already seen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2017 12:06:29 GMT
Nice list, haven't seen many but I enjoyed The Last Laugh. Also very excited to see both He Who Gets Slapped and Greed.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 27, 2017 16:31:42 GMT
Interesting to see you put ZaSu Pitts in Lead. For me, she's my Supporting Actress of the decade.
Still recommend you see L'Inhumaine.
|
|
|
Post by idioticbunny on Mar 27, 2017 16:51:05 GMT
Nice list, haven't seen many but I enjoyed The Last Laugh. Also very excited to see both He Who Gets Slapped and Greed. Thanks! I would say at least check out any in that top five you haven't seen, the bottom five range from serviceable to poor. Which is a shame considering the bottom five consist of Victor Sjostrom (my favorite director of the 1920s), a Gloria Swanson picture, a Harold Lloyd comedy, and my first foray into John Ford and Ernst Lubitsch. Should have made for a killer year, but while some had some shining spots, they felt pretty run-of-the-mill compared to the type of stuff the top half of my list was doing that year.
|
|
|
Post by idioticbunny on Mar 27, 2017 16:55:09 GMT
Interesting to see you put ZaSu Pitts in Lead. For me, she's my Supporting Actress of the decade. Still recommend you see L'Inhumaine. I'm sure it's much more different in the 4-hour version, but from the 2+ hour version, she shared just as much screen time with Gowland after the first fifteen minutes or so. Regardless, I'm sure we can agree she gave a hell of a performance. Any other supporting actress/ actress contenders to consider from 1924? I actually debated between that and The Thief of Bagdad as the last film to check out for 1924, but decided to go with the latter since it was on Steven Schneider's "1001 Films to See Before You Die" list (even if I wouldn't entirely agree with the list thus far). I'll definitely get back around to it - I have a huge selection of films I've missed out on that way I can have something to look forward to getting back to once I finish this whole film journey. Anything for 1925 to recommend, even though I'm a film shy from completing my line-ups for it?
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 27, 2017 17:14:17 GMT
Interesting to see you put ZaSu Pitts in Lead. For me, she's my Supporting Actress of the decade. Still recommend you see L'Inhumaine. I'm sure it's much more different in the 4-hour version, but from the 2+ hour version, she shared just as much screen time with Gowland after the first fifteen minutes or so. Regardless, I'm sure we can agree she gave a hell of a performance. Any other supporting actress/ actress contenders to consider from 1924? I actually debated between that and The Thief of Bagdad as the last film to check out for 1924, but decided to go with the latter since it was on Steven Schneider's "1001 Films to See Before You Die" list (even if I wouldn't entirely agree with the list thus far). I'll definitely get back around to it - I have a huge selection of films I've missed out on that way I can have something to look forward to getting back to once I finish this whole film journey. Anything for 1925 to recommend, even though I'm a film shy from completing my line-ups for it? Eh, I've seen both and I still get the impression that she's supporting, but it's even more apparent in the extended version, particularly because it feels much more Gowland-centric. But either way, she is a force to be reckoned with. As for female performances of the year, yeah, not too well-versed. I've been on an early Russian cinema kick of late, though, starting with 1915 and trucking merrily along. I'll keep an eye out once I get to '24. For 1925, here are some hidden gems: Master of the House The Big Parade The Lost World The Freshman Tartuffe
|
|
|
Post by idioticbunny on Mar 27, 2017 17:21:13 GMT
I'm sure it's much more different in the 4-hour version, but from the 2+ hour version, she shared just as much screen time with Gowland after the first fifteen minutes or so. Regardless, I'm sure we can agree she gave a hell of a performance. Any other supporting actress/ actress contenders to consider from 1924? I actually debated between that and The Thief of Bagdad as the last film to check out for 1924, but decided to go with the latter since it was on Steven Schneider's "1001 Films to See Before You Die" list (even if I wouldn't entirely agree with the list thus far). I'll definitely get back around to it - I have a huge selection of films I've missed out on that way I can have something to look forward to getting back to once I finish this whole film journey. Anything for 1925 to recommend, even though I'm a film shy from completing my line-ups for it? Eh, I've seen both and I still get the impression that she's supporting, but it's even more apparent in the extended version, particularly because it feels much more Gowland-centric. But either way, she is a force to be reckoned with. As for female performances of the year, yeah, not too well-versed. I've been on an early Russian cinema kick of late, though, starting with 1915 and trucking merrily along. I'll keep an eye out once I get to '24. For 1925, here are some hidden gems: Master of the House The Big Parade The Lost World The Freshman TartuffeYeah, it feels like a pretty barren year for female performances outside of Pitts and the cast of The Marriage Circle. Definitely let me know. Well, I've seen 3 out of those 5 and the other two are on my list, so that definitely helps narrow down what I should see! Thanks for the recommendations per usual.
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Apr 1, 2017 2:50:30 GMT
Slowly but surely making my way through it. 1924 was certainly a lot better year than the previous two, but still not quite reaching the peaks of early Sjostrom, Chaplin, and Griffith, though there are still some great works in the mix. Here are my full line-ups: Best Picture: 01. Greed. 02. Sherlock, Jr. 03. The Hands of Orlac. 04. The Last Laugh. 05. The Thief of Bagdad. 06. Girl Shy. 07. He Who Gets Slapped. 08. The Marriage Circle. 09. The Iron Horse. 10. Manhandled.That's an interesting lineup. I've seen half of your and 14 in general from 1924 (including shorts and counting Nibelungen as 2). I would rank them something like this: 1. The Last Laugh 2. Sherlock Jr. 3. Greed 4. The Navigator 5. He Who Gets Slapped 5. Die Nibelungen (the whole thing) 7. The Marriage Circle 8. Entr'acte 9. Paris qui dort 10. Micheal 11. Au secours! 12. Ballet mécanique 13. Opus III *Niebelungen and He Who gets Slapped are on the same place because I currently find them somewhat hard to rank because in hindsight Nibelungen looks much better but I enjoyed He Who Gets Slapped a lot while watching it. The Last Laugh is a film that really impressed me. I just love Murnau and when it comes to pure expression, this is so incredibly powerful because for once it's all in the images, no dialouge intertitles at all but still every little corner of the plot is so evocatively explored. Just the opening scene hits you with so much already and everything seems to fit. I agree that it's better crafted than Nosferatu but I still prefer Nosferatu for the nightmare-like narrative (the editing is very unusual, shots linger on for strange periods of time and often it cuts away from the action, one time even to a scene that has nothing to do with the plot of the film) which is pretty unparalleled. Sherlock Jr. is all around incredible fast paced and inventive fun. Greed I think has it's flaws (ok, really it's the cutting...) but it is aswell such an incredibly evocative film which oozes with atmosphere. It reminds me quite a bit of Sjöström with all that violence and the incredible tension. It's more decadent than Sjöström though. I'm a little curious as to why you skipped Niebelungen and The Navigator. Both are great films. Niebelungen might be a tad long but it's entirely one of a kind and perhaps the most creative of all films Fritz Lang made (even more so than Metropolis). The visuals are incredibly stunning and probably the best evocation of german myth there has ever been. The Navigator is Keaton at his peak, it's not as good as Sherlock but still a lot of fun (and with amazing special effects as usual). I don't know if I have that much to say about the others. I think I said quite a bit about The Marriage Circle already. Otherwise the Rene Clair shorts (Entr'acte and Paris Qui dort) I would highly recommend because they are so incredibly inventive (just read the plots and you'll see what I mean). Micheal was a disappointment coming from Dreyer (who I'm a big fan of). It has it's moments but it felt incredibly stale. Of yours I still really want to see The Thief of Bagdad (which looks incredible, I wonder if it can live up to P&P's version from 1940 which is also very good), The Hands of Orlac (I should have gotten around to this much sooner because I love german expressionism and Wiene's Caligari) and Girl Shy. Do you have anything (spoilerfree) to say about the Hands of Orlac? Another question I have is: What is your perfect 10 of the decade then? I would probably put Murnau and Jannings at #1 for Director and Actor but Greed and Sherlock are of course also great in both categories. Lastly perhaps this website could be interesting to you, they have write-ups around the top 10 films from 1917-1926 and I think they do one new year at the end of every year (90 years later): www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2016/12/26/the-ten-best-films-of-1926/
|
|
|
Post by idioticbunny on Apr 1, 2017 18:11:09 GMT
Slowly but surely making my way through it. 1924 was certainly a lot better year than the previous two, but still not quite reaching the peaks of early Sjostrom, Chaplin, and Griffith, though there are still some great works in the mix. Here are my full line-ups: Best Picture: 01. Greed. 02. Sherlock, Jr. 03. The Hands of Orlac. 04. The Last Laugh. 05. The Thief of Bagdad. 06. Girl Shy. 07. He Who Gets Slapped. 08. The Marriage Circle. 09. The Iron Horse. 10. Manhandled.That's an interesting lineup. I've seen half of your and 14 in general from 1924 (including shorts and counting Nibelungen as 2). I would rank them something like this: 1. The Last Laugh 2. Sherlock Jr. 3. Greed 4. The Navigator 5. He Who Gets Slapped 5. Die Nibelungen (the whole thing) 7. The Marriage Circle 8. Entr'acte 9. Paris qui dort 10. Micheal 11. Au secours! 12. Ballet mécanique 13. Opus III *Niebelungen and He Who gets Slapped are on the same place because I currently find them somewhat hard to rank because in hindsight Nibelungen looks much better but I enjoyed He Who Gets Slapped a lot while watching it. The Last Laugh is a film that really impressed me. I just love Murnau and when it comes to pure expression, this is so incredibly powerful because for once it's all in the images, no dialouge intertitles at all but still every little corner of the plot is so evocatively explored. Just the opening scene hits you with so much already and everything seems to fit. I agree that it's better crafted than Nosferatu but I still prefer Nosferatu for the nightmare-like narrative (the editing is very unusual, shots linger on for strange periods of time and often it cuts away from the action, one time even to a scene that has nothing to do with the plot of the film) which is pretty unparalleled. Sherlock Jr. is all around incredible fast paced and inventive fun. Greed I think has it's flaws (ok, really it's the cutting...) but it is aswell such an incredibly evocative film which oozes with atmosphere. It reminds me quite a bit of Sjöström with all that violence and the incredible tension. It's more decadent than Sjöström though. I'm a little curious as to why you skipped Niebelungen and The Navigator. Both are great films. Niebelungen might be a tad long but it's entirely one of a kind and perhaps the most creative of all films Fritz Lang made (even more so than Metropolis). The visuals are incredibly stunning and probably the best evocation of german myth there has ever been. The Navigator is Keaton at his peak, it's not as good as Sherlock but still a lot of fun (and with amazing special effects as usual). I don't know if I have that much to say about the others. I think I said quite a bit about The Marriage Circle already. Otherwise the Rene Clair shorts (Entr'acte and Paris Qui dort) I would highly recommend because they are so incredibly inventive (just read the plots and you'll see what I mean). Micheal was a disappointment coming from Dreyer (who I'm a big fan of). It has it's moments but it felt incredibly stale. Of yours I still really want to see The Thief of Bagdad (which looks incredible, I wonder if it can live up to P&P's version from 1940 which is also very good), The Hands of Orlac (I should have gotten around to this much sooner because I love german expressionism and Wiene's Caligari) and Girl Shy. Do you have anything (spoilerfree) to say about the Hands of Orlac? Another question I have is: What is your perfect 10 of the decade then? I would probably put Murnau and Jannings at #1 for Director and Actor but Greed and Sherlock are of course also great in both categories. Lastly perhaps this website could be interesting to you, they have write-ups around the top 10 films from 1917-1926 and I think they do one new year at the end of every year (90 years later): www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2016/12/26/the-ten-best-films-of-1926/Hey, thank you very much for that link! That's incredibly useful, so I appreciate it. I actually think The Last Laugh could easily move its way up, but the two above it are just so damn good (for different reasons). I have to say, it's easily Murnau's best from what I've seen (this includes Faust from 1926). His ingenuity both with the camera and the way he tells the story is the reason they call silent cinema the "purest" form of cinema. It's absolutely incredible, as you say, how he manages to convey so much plot and detail without ever communicating a single word to the audience. Plus, Emil Jannings is absolutely incredible (especially considering how drastically different he was in Faust, I'm now making an effort to seek out more of his work) and would easily be my win any other year, but Gowland's performance was just so raw and gut-wrenching that it was hard not to reward it. That's also the reason I give Greed the edge. I love the comparison to Sjostrom as that sounds about right, it was this dark, twisted cautionary tale that seems so ahead of its time and yet perfect for it as well. Would have been perfect had it not been cut to pieces back in the day. I was quite disappointed with He Who Gets Slapped because, outside of the stellar performances, the story just didn't capture me with Sjostrom's usual tendency toward the dark side of things. This one felt less like Sjostrom and more like a darker Charlie Chaplin story. It just didn't feel like his type of work. I'm more excited to check out his two Gish efforts in the next couple years. Don't worry, I plan to get around to both The Navigator and Niebelungen when I circle my way back. I only have time for ten (or eleven if I've already seen one before) so that I can kind of check out all the essentials and also beef up my line-ups a bit as I go. Hence why I go for a Gloria Swanson picture that actually wasn't all that interesting and skip out on some fantastic Lang film because my actress line-up is lacking - plus, there's always a chance of being surprised! That 8.1 IMDB rating of Manhandled sure got my hopes up too. This is just one reason of course. Most of the time I only pick out a random handful (plus essential viewings) so that I might have some really good ones to watch down the road. My reasons vary. As for Navigator, I try to limit myself to one Keaton and one Lloyd each year so I make room for other films. Plus, as just stated, I'll have something to look forward to down the road! I can't say I'd really recommend The Thief of Bagdad for its story, and its long run-time is certainly felt. In fact, the main reason it struggles is because of Douglas Fairbanks as the lead. I really, really do not like him. He may have been an actor perfect for his time considering it was full of over-actors, but watching him today you can just tell he reeeeaaallly overdoes it. This was probably his worst case that I've seen. That being said, the sheer technical ingenuity of the film - the fantastic visual effects, art/costume design, and even a gender-switching role that actually caught me by surprise to find out afterward - make for one hell of a cinematic marvel for its time. I'd say it's absolutely worth seeing because of the technical design, but I apologize in advance for Fairbanks and the pace. Also, I mainly watched it because it was on Steven Schneider's 1001 Movies to See Before You Die. Girl Shy is definitely Lloyd at his most Keaton - which sounds great right? Unfortunately Lloyd and Keaton are two different breeds for me. I watch Keaton because his height and physical comedy are made for stunts, whereas Lloyd works wonders with his face and innocent charm. While the climatic stunt galore toward the end is fun, it distracts from what makes Lloyd's films pop. The Freshman is more his speed. Of course, I'd say watch it and decide for yourself - certainly wouldn't hurt. The Hands of Orlac is the one I can truly recommend. I wasn't a big fan of Caligari even though it would probably top most of my technical categories for the decade. The acting was so-so and the story ruined most of its mystery far too quickly. But with Orlac, it almost felt Hitchcockian in the way it piled on palpable tension slowly, bit by bit, to the point where you feel the lead character's own paranoia. That's the best I can do without spoilers, but it's another technically brilliant film from Wiene, but with an incredibly tense plot to boot. Absolutely check it out. EDIT: Oh, and my perfect 10 of the decade is The Phantom Carriage. I loved it so much, the next Criterion sale after I watched it, I immediately picked up the Blu-ray.
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Apr 2, 2017 9:31:23 GMT
Hey, thank you very much for that link! That's incredibly useful, so I appreciate it. I actually think The Last Laugh could easily move its way up, but the two above it are just so damn good (for different reasons). I have to say, it's easily Murnau's best from what I've seen (this includes Faust from 1926). His ingenuity both with the camera and the way he tells the story is the reason they call silent cinema the "purest" form of cinema. It's absolutely incredible, as you say, how he manages to convey so much plot and detail without ever communicating a single word to the audience. Plus, Emil Jannings is absolutely incredible (especially considering how drastically different he was in Faust, I'm now making an effort to seek out more of his work) and would easily be my win any other year, but Gowland's performance was just so raw and gut-wrenching that it was hard not to reward it. That's also the reason I give Greed the edge. I love the comparison to Sjostrom as that sounds about right, it was this dark, twisted cautionary tale that seems so ahead of its time and yet perfect for it as well. Would have been perfect had it not been cut to pieces back in the day. I was quite disappointed with He Who Gets Slapped because, outside of the stellar performances, the story just didn't capture me with Sjostrom's usual tendency toward the dark side of things. This one felt less like Sjostrom and more like a darker Charlie Chaplin story. It just didn't feel like his type of work. I'm more excited to check out his two Gish efforts in the next couple years. Don't worry, I plan to get around to both The Navigator and Niebelungen when I circle my way back. I only have time for ten (or eleven if I've already seen one before) so that I can kind of check out all the essentials and also beef up my line-ups a bit as I go. Hence why I go for a Gloria Swanson picture that actually wasn't all that interesting and skip out on some fantastic Lang film because my actress line-up is lacking - plus, there's always a chance of being surprised! That 8.1 IMDB rating of Manhandled sure got my hopes up too. This is just one reason of course. Most of the time I only pick out a random handful (plus essential viewings) so that I might have some really good ones to watch down the road. My reasons vary. As for Navigator, I try to limit myself to one Keaton and one Lloyd each year so I make room for other films. Plus, as just stated, I'll have something to look forward to down the road! I can't say I'd really recommend The Thief of Bagdad for its story, and its long run-time is certainly felt. In fact, the main reason it struggles is because of Douglas Fairbanks as the lead. I really, really do not like him. He may have been an actor perfect for his time considering it was full of over-actors, but watching him today you can just tell he reeeeaaallly overdoes it. This was probably his worst case that I've seen. That being said, the sheer technical ingenuity of the film - the fantastic visual effects, art/costume design, and even a gender-switching role that actually caught me by surprise to find out afterward - make for one hell of a cinematic marvel for its time. I'd say it's absolutely worth seeing because of the technical design, but I apologize in advance for Fairbanks and the pace. Also, I mainly watched it because it was on Steven Schneider's 1001 Movies to See Before You Die. Girl Shy is definitely Lloyd at his most Keaton - which sounds great right? Unfortunately Lloyd and Keaton are two different breeds for me. I watch Keaton because his height and physical comedy are made for stunts, whereas Lloyd works wonders with his face and innocent charm. While the climatic stunt galore toward the end is fun, it distracts from what makes Lloyd's films pop. The Freshman is more his speed. Of course, I'd say watch it and decide for yourself - certainly wouldn't hurt. The Hands of Orlac is the one I can truly recommend. I wasn't a big fan of Caligari even though it would probably top most of my technical categories for the decade. The acting was so-so and the story ruined most of its mystery far too quickly. But with Orlac, it almost felt Hitchcockian in the way it piled on palpable tension slowly, bit by bit, to the point where you feel the lead character's own paranoia. That's the best I can do without spoilers, but it's another technically brilliant film from Wiene, but with an incredibly tense plot to boot. Absolutely check it out. EDIT: Oh, and my perfect 10 of the decade is The Phantom Carriage. I loved it so much, the next Criterion sale after I watched it, I immediately picked up the Blu-ray. Yeah, He Who gets Slapped seems very much like a Hollywood story, not something Sjöström would get to himself. Supposedly one critic back then even compared Sjöström to Chaplin and Lubitsch based on this film (I guess he hadn't seen Sjöström's swedish films)... I still like it quite a lot though. It's a shame Tower of Lies is lost because it seems like Sjöström actually picked the material himself for that one (it's based on a work by the author who also wrote The Phantom Carriage and multiple of Sjöström's other swedish works) and worked with Chaney and Shearer again. Generally it seems like half of Sjöström's Hollywood work is lost and that actually more of his swedish films persist... The 2 Gish films are great though, The Wind is up there with Phantom Carriage imo (really, it's amazing), Scarlet Letter is a bit mundane for Sjöström but Gish gives a hell of a performance which elevates the film, it would not have worked with a lesser actress (her performance in Wind is probably the best silent cinema performance though). It's also quite surprising Manhandled would be such a big disappointment with such a high rating. Personally I had never heard of it but generally I would like to watch some of the Swanson picks sometime (the De Mill films mostly but of course also Von Stroheim's unfinished Queen Kelly). Somehow I never got around to any of them despite actually having some interest. As far as Thief of Bagdad goes, it sounds like it would be right up my alley. I love visual extravaganza and I don't much mind bad acting (mostly). I have also never seen a Fairbanks film actually. Generally I would like to check out the 3 major Wiene films I haven't seen (Genuine, Crime and Punishment and The Hands of Orlac). I think I'll try to watch them in chronological order because with Orlac last because that seems to have the best reputation and by the way you describe it, it sounds like it's a really well narrated film which is lovely (while Genuine is often described as an overexpressionistic mess, it's also only available in a heavily cut version). I must say that personally I adore Caligari (and I also thought Veidt was excellent), I can't imagine anything really beating that but the narration is admittedly somewhat disjointed (which I actually liked), I guess maybe that's what turned you off.
|
|
|
Post by idioticbunny on Apr 2, 2017 17:07:35 GMT
It's also quite surprising Manhandled would be such a big disappointment with such a high rating. Personally I had never heard of it but generally I would like to watch some of the Swanson picks sometime (the De Mill films mostly but of course also Von Stroheim's unfinished Queen Kelly). Somehow I never got around to any of them despite actually having some interest. As far as Thief of Bagdad goes, it sounds like it would be right up my alley. I love visual extravaganza and I don't much mind bad acting (mostly). I have also never seen a Fairbanks film actually. Generally I would like to check out the 3 major Wiene films I haven't seen (Genuine, Crime and Punishment and The Hands of Orlac). I think I'll try to watch them in chronological order because with Orlac last because that seems to have the best reputation and by the way you describe it, it sounds like it's a really well narrated film which is lovely (while Genuine is often described as an overexpressionistic mess, it's also only available in a heavily cut version). I must say that personally I adore Caligari (and I also thought Veidt was excellent), I can't imagine anything really beating that but the narration is admittedly somewhat disjointed (which I actually liked), I guess maybe that's what turned you off. That's hilarious to think someone actually felt Sjostrom was akin to Chaplin... Yeah, clearly hadn't seen his work in Sweden. I, too, was sad to hear Tower of Lies is supposedly lost. I hope they recover a random copy somewhere in the world because I think Chaney and Sjostrom made a great pair, but He Who Gets Slapped felt like the wrong movie for it. I'm very excited for the two Gish efforts though. My favorite actress and director of the decade working together sounds blissful to me. I can definitely say after Lillian Gish, Gloria Swanson would be my favorite actress of the decade. It's certainly not hard to see why - just like Gish, she commands the screen with her eyes. She really lives within her characters. However, I'd say the issue is she wouldn't pick as interesting of projects as Gish and wouldn't challenge herself too often. Of course, seeing a highly rated Swanson title had me curious so I wanted to see it, but it was fairly disappointing - mainly because its run-of-the-mill direction and poor writing, it even brings her acting down a tad. I would definitely say to check out her early work with DeMille, she was on top form there - even battles with Gish's performance in Way Down East for my Actress win in 1920 with Why Change Your Wife?Well, you can definitely check Bagdad out and see what you think of Fairbanks! He was a big movie star in the day, but I think it was mainly because his "looks" and the fact that he was in just about every action-adventure movie back in the day. Bagdad is certainly the most visually interesting, so give it a shot I say. I would also like to see those other two Wiene films, so you'll have to let me know what you think of them when you do. I'm sure the disjointed narrative of Caligari was purposeful given its ending, but it felt messy. Obviously I'm in the minority with that feeling as its pretty well-loved, but I think Orlac has just the focus I was looking for in Caligari and everything just works so much better. Make sure when you do though you watch it with the music from Paul Mercer. His score is probably one of the most deliciously creepy scores I've ever heard. Really aided the film well.
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Apr 3, 2017 1:05:47 GMT
That's hilarious to think someone actually felt Sjostrom was akin to Chaplin... Yeah, clearly hadn't seen his work in Sweden. I, too, was sad to hear Tower of Lies is supposedly lost. I hope they recover a random copy somewhere in the world because I think Chaney and Sjostrom made a great pair, but He Who Gets Slapped felt like the wrong movie for it. I'm very excited for the two Gish efforts though. My favorite actress and director of the decade working together sounds blissful to me. I can definitely say after Lillian Gish, Gloria Swanson would be my favorite actress of the decade. It's certainly not hard to see why - just like Gish, she commands the screen with her eyes. She really lives within her characters. However, I'd say the issue is she wouldn't pick as interesting of projects as Gish and wouldn't challenge herself too often. Of course, seeing a highly rated Swanson title had me curious so I wanted to see it, but it was fairly disappointing - mainly because its run-of-the-mill direction and poor writing, it even brings her acting down a tad. I would definitely say to check out her early work with DeMille, she was on top form there - even battles with Gish's performance in Way Down East for my Actress win in 1920 with Why Change Your Wife?Well, you can definitely check Bagdad out and see what you think of Fairbanks! He was a big movie star in the day, but I think it was mainly because his "looks" and the fact that he was in just about every action-adventure movie back in the day. Bagdad is certainly the most visually interesting, so give it a shot I say. I would also like to see those other two Wiene films, so you'll have to let me know what you think of them when you do. I'm sure the disjointed narrative of Caligari was purposeful given its ending, but it felt messy. Obviously I'm in the minority with that feeling as its pretty well-loved, but I think Orlac has just the focus I was looking for in Caligari and everything just works so much better. Make sure when you do though you watch it with the music from Paul Mercer. His score is probably one of the most deliciously creepy scores I've ever heard. Really aided the film well. Oh boy, my list of "please finally recover these lost films!" is so incredibly long by now that I almost think they must recover one of them sometime. However I don't know how likely it is still to recover those specific films but then again, I'm also baffled about how one could even lose them to begin with. From Sjöström I would actually most hope for a recovery of the Divine Woman as it stars Greta Garbo (there is a 9 minute surviving fragment though and I guess if the findings would exceed 45 min. the film could potentially be semi-watchable already (if we had the most important scenes)). As far as all lost films go, Murnau's 4 Devils would be to die for (but any of his other films, especially would be such an incredible find aswell, that I would probably travel major distances to attend a screening of it, especially Der Januskopf among Murnau's german work is something I'm incredibly excited about). I think Lilian Gish is probably my favorite silent film actress aswell (Garbo is the only major competetion, although I probably should watch more with Brigitte Helm) but while Sjöström is among my favorite directors in the silent age, I would still have to go with Murnau. I'll be sure to let you know what I think of the other 2 Wiene films. I think I might watch Genuine soon as there is a good looking print on YouTube. The Crime and Punishment print I found is decisively more messy, I'm thinking about tinting it myself to tarnish that a little or maybe I'll wait for a better version. Also thanks for the score recommendation for Orlac, there is often not enough empathis put on this. I would wish there was some kind of database about the best scores for a specific film, perhaps also with recommendations for other music (with a specific mood) if there is no score. I certainly hate to watch something with an unfitting score. It can destroy the entire experience. I have actually seen a few silent films recently though. So perhaps I'll just report back on them: - La petite marchande d'allumettes (1928) - I don't think there would be space on this for your 1928 ballot because it's such a ridiculously great year (it would surely drown in the '28 thread) but still for what it's worth this is a really (bitter-)sweet and visually ambitious rendition of the classical fairy-tale and it's the least lofty impressionist film I've seen, it has Renoirs basic humanism on full force already but also visual effects that look surprisingly excellent and such a lovely horse-chase sequense. - Ich möchte kein Mann sein (1918) - This was the weakest Lubitsch I have seen so far (says more about Lubitsch's great ouvre though). It is fun and actually surprisingly relevant today with the gender debates and it actually has a rather commendable vision about how people might have false illusions about the opposite gender. The ending is great but the film lacks the visual inventiveness of Lubitsch's later films (still his wit was very much in place already and the film is definitely ahead of it's time). - La glace à trois faces (1927) - Experimental film with a capital E. It's really hard to find a proper stance on this film, one one hand, I found the narrative somewhat trite and disconnected (I always feels this a little with Epstein but it's especially bad here) but on the other hand it is structurally incredibly accomplished, or to say it in another way: It expresses ideas I have never seen in cinema before. It is almost ruizian in it's approach to identity... I'm certainly glad I watched it but I find it utterly flawed aswell, it's hard to balance out a great invention and flawed storytelling. - Storm over Asia (1928) - This is close to masterpiece status. I wrote about it in another thread: Perhaps this could be dubbed Russia's answer to Greed (maybe an odd comparison but there are quite a few similarities)... I'm shocked to say that it does not pale in comparison. It incorporates the most visionary uses of montage I have ever seen and the images in this are generally so starkly observant. There are quite a few scenes in this that are more impressive than anything Greed has to offer qutie frankly (and the ending is one of the very best endings I've ever seen, it truly carries the weight of the entire film into a gigantic explosion, I don't think I have ever seen an ending of such culminative dramatic weight). Still all the intellectualism comes at the prize of the narrative which is somewhat clunky compared to the beautiful and vast narrative that Greed has to offer. The characters likewise are half-objects. Of course this is all intentional but as a result it can't quite reach Greed. - Klostret i Sendomir (1920) -I think I made 2 mistakes when watching this film: I was tired and I watched it with a rather poor score and only later found out that there was one with actual choire music which would have fit the film a billion times better... Thus I kind of had trouble getting into the film but the ending floored me I must say and let me to reevaluate what came before. Sjöström is just so gutwrenchingly violent, it gets me every time (he is much more violent than films of this century it seems, at least when one considers the mental impact). I also very much liked the gothic sets in the film but I wish there was slightly more outdoor footage (especially for Sjöström who otherwise uses landscapes so much and so evocatively). There were a lot of incredibly details in the visuals but I felt that they were a little lost due to the rather poor print that spared out much of the darker parts of the image (and it is probably the only one in home video distribution, it looks like from a VHS copy). If a restauration would occur I would immidiatly rewatch it (and perhaps I'll do it anyway sometime with the other score). Generally it's unfathomable how not all of Sjöström's films are available to the public but I guess this is perhaps because of the dichotomy between critical evaluation of him and mass market viability of any of the unreleased films (I'm particularly thinking of the 3 hour long Sons of Ingmar). Generally the film is incredibly accomplished though, it's told with such overwhelming skill and security which shows Sjöström's experience and it's also allegedly hard to forget and even somewhat inspiring because of how visceral and concise the tale is. I also watched some shorts, most prominently Pudovkin's Chess Fever from 1925 (after being so eneamored by Storm over Asia) - and I must say I'm incredibly surprised. This feels just like it could have been made by one of the silent comedy giants (Keaton, Chaplin or Lloyd). It just hits all the right spots despite being Pudovkin's first (and I believe only) try at silent comedy and even his first fiction film in general. Of course this increased my respect for Pudovkin even more but generally it's incredibly baffling to see such an audatious, action packed and visually inventive comedy from someone else than the comedy giants, it's thousand times more accomplished than Chaplin's first try for instance and although I haven't seen Keaton's or Lloyd's first, I don't think they would have any chance at topping this. I would highly recommend to check it out, if only to be baffled about this not being a Keaton film. On YouTube there is a version which plays this to a loop of 3 Kevin MacLeod pieces and although 2 the 2 piano tunes sound a little too typical for silent films, the 3rd tune (which underlines the chess fever) fits so incredibly well that I would recommend to watch that version. Here's a link if you're interested, it's only 20 min.:
|
|
|
Post by idioticbunny on Apr 3, 2017 20:04:48 GMT
Oh boy, my list of "please finally recover these lost films!" is so incredibly long by now that I almost think they must recover one of them sometime. However I don't know how likely it is still to recover those specific films but then again, I'm also baffled about how one could even lose them to begin with. From Sjöström I would actually most hope for a recovery of the Divine Woman as it stars Greta Garbo (there is a 9 minute surviving fragment though and I guess if the findings would exceed 45 min. the film could potentially be semi-watchable already (if we had the most important scenes)). As far as all lost films go, Murnau's 4 Devils would be to die for (but any of his other films, especially would be such an incredible find aswell, that I would probably travel major distances to attend a screening of it, especially Der Januskopf among Murnau's german work is something I'm incredibly excited about). I think Lilian Gish is probably my favorite silent film actress aswell (Garbo is the only major competetion, although I probably should watch more with Brigitte Helm) but while Sjöström is among my favorite directors in the silent age, I would still have to go with Murnau. I'll be sure to let you know what I think of the other 2 Wiene films. I think I might watch Genuine soon as there is a good looking print on YouTube. The Crime and Punishment print I found is decisively more messy, I'm thinking about tinting it myself to tarnish that a little or maybe I'll wait for a better version. Also thanks for the score recommendation for Orlac, there is often not enough empathis put on this. I would wish there was some kind of database about the best scores for a specific film, perhaps also with recommendations for other music (with a specific mood) if there is no score. I certainly hate to watch something with an unfitting score. It can destroy the entire experience. I have actually seen a few silent films recently though. So perhaps I'll just report back on them: - La petite marchande d'allumettes (1928) - I don't think there would be space on this for your 1928 ballot because it's such a ridiculously great year (it would surely drown in the '28 thread) but still for what it's worth this is a really (bitter-)sweet and visually ambitious rendition of the classical fairy-tale and it's the least lofty impressionist film I've seen, it has Renoirs basic humanism on full force already but also visual effects that look surprisingly excellent and such a lovely horse-chase sequense. - Ich möchte kein Mann sein (1918) - This was the weakest Lubitsch I have seen so far (says more about Lubitsch's great ouvre though). It is fun and actually surprisingly relevant today with the gender debates and it actually has a rather commendable vision about how people might have false illusions about the opposite gender. The ending is great but the film lacks the visual inventiveness of Lubitsch's later films (still his wit was very much in place already and the film is definitely ahead of it's time). - La glace à trois faces (1927) - Experimental film with a capital E. It's really hard to find a proper stance on this film, one one hand, I found the narrative somewhat trite and disconnected (I always feels this a little with Epstein but it's especially bad here) but on the other hand it is structurally incredibly accomplished, or to say it in another way: It expresses ideas I have never seen in cinema before. It is almost ruizian in it's approach to identity... I'm certainly glad I watched it but I find it utterly flawed aswell, it's hard to balance out a great invention and flawed storytelling. - Storm over Asia (1928) - This is close to masterpiece status. I wrote about it in another thread: Perhaps this could be dubbed Russia's answer to Greed (maybe an odd comparison but there are quite a few similarities)... I'm shocked to say that it does not pale in comparison. It incorporates the most visionary uses of montage I have ever seen and the images in this are generally so starkly observant. There are quite a few scenes in this that are more impressive than anything Greed has to offer qutie frankly (and the ending is one of the very best endings I've ever seen, it truly carries the weight of the entire film into a gigantic explosion, I don't think I have ever seen an ending of such culminative dramatic weight). Still all the intellectualism comes at the prize of the narrative which is somewhat clunky compared to the beautiful and vast narrative that Greed has to offer. The characters likewise are half-objects. Of course this is all intentional but as a result it can't quite reach Greed. - Klostret i Sendomir (1920) -I think I made 2 mistakes when watching this film: I was tired and I watched it with a rather poor score and only later found out that there was one with actual choire music which would have fit the film a billion times better... Thus I kind of had trouble getting into the film but the ending floored me I must say and let me to reevaluate what came before. Sjöström is just so gutwrenchingly violent, it gets me every time (he is much more violent than films of this century it seems, at least when one considers the mental impact). I also very much liked the gothic sets in the film but I wish there was slightly more outdoor footage (especially for Sjöström who otherwise uses landscapes so much and so evocatively). There were a lot of incredibly details in the visuals but I felt that they were a little lost due to the rather poor print that spared out much of the darker parts of the image (and it is probably the only one in home video distribution, it looks like from a VHS copy). If a restauration would occur I would immidiatly rewatch it (and perhaps I'll do it anyway sometime with the other score). Generally it's unfathomable how not all of Sjöström's films are available to the public but I guess this is perhaps because of the dichotomy between critical evaluation of him and mass market viability of any of the unreleased films (I'm particularly thinking of the 3 hour long Sons of Ingmar). Generally the film is incredibly accomplished though, it's told with such overwhelming skill and security which shows Sjöström's experience and it's also allegedly hard to forget and even somewhat inspiring because of how visceral and concise the tale is. I also watched some shorts, most prominently Pudovkin's Chess Fever from 1925 (after being so eneamored by Storm over Asia) - and I must say I'm incredibly surprised. This feels just like it could have been made by one of the silent comedy giants (Keaton, Chaplin or Lloyd). It just hits all the right spots despite being Pudovkin's first (and I believe only) try at silent comedy and even his first fiction film in general. Of course this increased my respect for Pudovkin even more but generally it's incredibly baffling to see such an audatious, action packed and visually inventive comedy from someone else than the comedy giants, it's thousand times more accomplished than Chaplin's first try for instance and although I haven't seen Keaton's or Lloyd's first, I don't think they would have any chance at topping this. I would highly recommend to check it out, if only to be baffled about this not being a Keaton film. On YouTube there is a version which plays this to a loop of 3 Kevin MacLeod pieces and although 2 the 2 piano tunes sound a little too typical for silent films, the 3rd tune (which underlines the chess fever) fits so incredibly well that I would recommend to watch that version. Here's a link if you're interested, it's only 20 min.: I've only seen two Garbo films and I can't say I find much - outside the way she uses her eyes to provoke - to her acting that would consider her one of the greats. Maybe I just haven't gotten to the good stuff yet, but from Joyless Street and Flesh and the Devil, I would consider them strong performances, but nowhere near the all-time status people give her. Even from just one performance from Gish and Swanson I could tell they were greats. Maybe a few more films will help to tell. But yes, there are so many lost films - even a couple of Hitchcock's early stuff - that I would love to see. There has to be a print of all of these lost films somewhere. I can't imagine they would play nation-wide on a big screen and not a single copy survived. Maybe one day. After all, they found Dreyer's Joan of Arc in an insane asylum. Also, I think Murnau has certainly come into his own since The Last Laugh. There's just a real passion in his work and he's always pushing the envelope a way very few others did during the era (and I say this as a Sjostrom fan, he certainly never went above and beyond, but he was fantastic at what he did). So not a bad choice. I just find a lot of his early stuff is lacking from a narrative standpoint and outside of his past couple films (thanks to the great Emil Jannings), not a strong urge for good acting. I absolutely agree about scores, there should definitely be a database for this. But maybe just a google search with "movie name + best music" could help if you want to dig that deep. I use Fandor for a lot of these silents and most of the time they offer great scores (really you can never go wrong when you see the names Carl Davis or Robert Israel attached, but I rarely see them do horror scores, which is where it really aids an older film like that). But sometimes, like when I watched Abel Gance's The Wheel, the score was almost like a track someone just set on it, and so sometimes it fit, sometimes there was a happy score playing during a really tragic scene. So I totally understand. Thanks for the feedback on some of those films - I actually have Storm Over Asia on my list after watching Pudovkin's Mother recently. As another student of Lev Kuleshov (the other being Eisenstein), I gave it a shot and it surprised me so I'll gladly be watching another of his - especially with your good word of mouth and it being on Schneider's "1001 Films" list. I'll add the others to my lists too, especially since they're so short - why not? And I had no idea Chess Fever was a comedy, especially knowing how the three Russian titans of editing (Eisenstein, Pudovkin, and Kuleshov) all like their tragic stories. That's very awesome to hear, I'll be sure to watch it. SOOO glad you liked Sendomir though. It was the reason why Sjostrom became a top priority for me. I think it was the first silent film I watched after The Kid and Birth of a Nation and it solidified why there was so much more to see than the "classics". For such a young filmmaker, he showed so much restraint and packed such a magnificent punch into such a short film - but it's also mainly due to the fantastic performances of his actors. I give it a 9/10, but it might easily be a perfect 10 if not for the same issues you point out - which is mostly due to the poor print that's available. Why this isn't also on Criterion's to-do list is beyond me. I'm looking to finish up 1926 soon, so I'll be sure to report back on that.
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Apr 4, 2017 3:45:08 GMT
I've only seen two Garbo films and I can't say I find much - outside the way she uses her eyes to provoke - to her acting that would consider her one of the greats. Maybe I just haven't gotten to the good stuff yet, but from Joyless Street and Flesh and the Devil, I would consider them strong performances, but nowhere near the all-time status people give her. Even from just one performance from Gish and Swanson I could tell they were greats. Maybe a few more films will help to tell. But yes, there are so many lost films - even a couple of Hitchcock's early stuff - that I would love to see. There has to be a print of all of these lost films somewhere. I can't imagine they would play nation-wide on a big screen and not a single copy survived. Maybe one day. After all, they found Dreyer's Joan of Arc in an insane asylum. Also, I think Murnau has certainly come into his own since The Last Laugh. There's just a real passion in his work and he's always pushing the envelope a way very few others did during the era (and I say this as a Sjostrom fan, he certainly never went above and beyond, but he was fantastic at what he did). So not a bad choice. I just find a lot of his early stuff is lacking from a narrative standpoint and outside of his past couple films (thanks to the great Emil Jannings), not a strong urge for good acting. I absolutely agree about scores, there should definitely be a database for this. But maybe just a google search with "movie name + best music" could help if you want to dig that deep. I use Fandor for a lot of these silents and most of the time they offer great scores (really you can never go wrong when you see the names Carl Davis or Robert Israel attached, but I rarely see them do horror scores, which is where it really aids an older film like that). But sometimes, like when I watched Abel Gance's The Wheel, the score was almost like a track someone just set on it, and so sometimes it fit, sometimes there was a happy score playing during a really tragic scene. So I totally understand. Thanks for the feedback on some of those films - I actually have Storm Over Asia on my list after watching Pudovkin's Mother recently. As another student of Lev Kuleshov (the other being Eisenstein), I gave it a shot and it surprised me so I'll gladly be watching another of his - especially with your good word of mouth and it being on Schneider's "1001 Films" list. I'll add the others to my lists too, especially since they're so short - why not? And I had no idea Chess Fever was a comedy, especially knowing how the three Russian titans of editing (Eisenstein, Pudovkin, and Kuleshov) all like their tragic stories. That's very awesome to hear, I'll be sure to watch it. SOOO glad you liked Sendomir though. It was the reason why Sjostrom became a top priority for me. I think it was the first silent film I watched after The Kid and Birth of a Nation and it solidified why there was so much more to see than the "classics". For such a young filmmaker, he showed so much restraint and packed such a magnificent punch into such a short film - but it's also mainly due to the fantastic performances of his actors. I give it a 9/10, but it might easily be a perfect 10 if not for the same issues you point out - which is mostly due to the poor print that's available. Why this isn't also on Criterion's to-do list is beyond me. I'm looking to finish up 1926 soon, so I'll be sure to report back on that. Well, with Garbo you have to consider that her very first film performance ever was in 1920 when she was just 15. In Flesh and the Devil she is actually only 21 (which sounds completely crazy to me). It's actually similar with Swanson, she got her first screen credits with 15 and then had her really big roles at about 20. Gish only started film acting when she was almost 20. However Garbo gets much better later with more experience. Her performance in Ninotchka is in the running for best female performances of all time I'd say. Flesh and the Devil was the film where I was the least enamoured with her performance from the 4 I've seen. From my memory I thought she was considerably better in The Mysterious Lady from 2 years later. Yes, it's somewhat unfathomable with the lost films but I think even some of the big ones are probably lost forever but I sincerely hope we get lucky with some major finds in the future aswell (there are also quite a few interesting films in archives which never got a home video release). Dreyer's Joan of Arc actually was never completely lost as far as I'm concerned (Anna Karina watches it in Godard's Vivre Sa Vie from 1962 for instance, which was many years before the find and it featured as #7 on Sight and Sounds first 1952 poll) but the only version known to exist was a cut version for a long time and the one they found in the insane asylum in '78 was the original. It's a little similar with Metropolis which was found in 2008 (which only very little material missing): Metropolis existed for many years only in a version which omited about an hour, where it was allegedly hard to follow the plot. As for Murnau, I don't think his early films look all that great, it seems that he was still learning (although Murnau learned so incredibly fast), you have to remember that he directed his very first film in 1919 (while Sjöström started in 1912 and had 9 years to build towards The Phantom Carriage). I have not seen Schloß Vogelöd and Der Gang in die Nacht but they seem more "flat" than his later work (still I very much would like to watch them at some point). Der brennende Acker however has a very distinct visual style already, I find that it recalls some of the violence in Sjöström's or Von Stroheim's films in how it renders the landscape but the acting isn't memorable. It's hard to asses when excactly Murnau developed which new skills because so many of his films are lost but to me it seems like Nosferatu is the first film where he really got it all together for the first time (I also think the acting is excellent, especially Schreck but I do understand the expressionistic overacting is not for everyone, especially not in a film like Nosferatu which is otherwise ratehr romantic). Phantom from the same year is visually even more ambitious (it even potentially is inspired by Sjöström's Phantom Carriage) but the narrative is too grounded in conventions and the parts of visual excellence are too few and too far between. Generally it seems like Phantom is a first step towards the more audatious visual style of his later career which he then almost mastered already with The Last Laugh. Generally Faust and Sunrise do even expand on this though. Sunrise is my pick for best direction of all time. Noone else could have done it that way. Apart from this Murnau always had a bit of a penchant for simplicity it seems, while he pushed his visual style with a lot of films, Tartüffe from '25 is much less sophisticated than The Last Laugh and City Girl is also a step back from Sunrise (but studios gave Murnau a hard time). I have actually seen Genuine (1920) yesterday and I feel somewhat awkward by how incredibly surprised I was by that film. I was so sure it would be a cheap Caligari rip-off with little artistic thought put into it (because everyone said so) but now I have to roll back and say that I'd probably is a masterpiece, way ahead of it's time and really expanding on what was done with Caligari (I wouldn't go so far to say that it's a better film but it seems thematically more ambitious). I don't think there is any way people in the 20's could have really understood this (maybe some very few) and I think time has only just caught up with the film now. It feels incredibly contemporary; dealing with themes of beauty, life, lust and death in a symbiotic fashion it's perhaps an expressionist rendering of baroque themes but the great thing about Genuine is that it all falls together into a complete vision. Nothing is explained, nothing makes sense, it just happens. However on the basis of you not being teribly mad about Caligari I'm hesistant to recommend it (because it seems like all the things you disliked about Caligari are even more empathized here). It very curiously only "exists" (for home media purposes) in a heavily truncated form that is basicly only half the film, while the entire film is available in multiple archives it seems (Next time I'll get to Munich I'll be sure to check out if one can actually see it at the archive there which I've read somewhere). It really shows that the film is so heavily truncated, you can not follow the plot without thinking around multiple edges (it's so bad that characters randomly pop up and you have to guess who they are) but still the 44 min. fragment is around masterpiece status to me. Make of that what you want... I think I might write a full review soon. The film really is in dire need of revision. It's the most underrated film I've ever seen. I must count myself as a fan of Wiene now (although with so many of his films being lost, it's almost impossible to classify him as a director, I have no clue what the hell he was thinking when he made this), I'm very excited for Crime and Punishment and The Hands of Orlac. I think one advise I would give if you do one day decide to watch it would be to not think so much about it from a plot standpoint but only about what happens in the image you are just watching (the film feels like a nightmare and as disjointed), likewise I would much recommend P. Emerson Williams score (is uploaded on YouTube by himself) because it captures the atmosphere of the film so incredibly well.
|
|
|
Post by idioticbunny on Apr 10, 2017 23:04:46 GMT
Well, with Garbo you have to consider that her very first film performance ever was in 1920 when she was just 15. In Flesh and the Devil she is actually only 21 (which sounds completely crazy to me). It's actually similar with Swanson, she got her first screen credits with 15 and then had her really big roles at about 20. Gish only started film acting when she was almost 20. However Garbo gets much better later with more experience. Her performance in Ninotchka is in the running for best female performances of all time I'd say. Flesh and the Devil was the film where I was the least enamoured with her performance from the 4 I've seen. From my memory I thought she was considerably better in The Mysterious Lady from 2 years later. Yes, it's somewhat unfathomable with the lost films but I think even some of the big ones are probably lost forever but I sincerely hope we get lucky with some major finds in the future aswell (there are also quite a few interesting films in archives which never got a home video release). Dreyer's Joan of Arc actually was never completely lost as far as I'm concerned (Anna Karina watches it in Godard's Vivre Sa Vie from 1962 for instance, which was many years before the find and it featured as #7 on Sight and Sounds first 1952 poll) but the only version known to exist was a cut version for a long time and the one they found in the insane asylum in '78 was the original. It's a little similar with Metropolis which was found in 2008 (which only very little material missing): Metropolis existed for many years only in a version which omited about an hour, where it was allegedly hard to follow the plot. As for Murnau, I don't think his early films look all that great, it seems that he was still learning (although Murnau learned so incredibly fast), you have to remember that he directed his very first film in 1919 (while Sjöström started in 1912 and had 9 years to build towards The Phantom Carriage). I have not seen Schloß Vogelöd and Der Gang in die Nacht but they seem more "flat" than his later work (still I very much would like to watch them at some point). Der brennende Acker however has a very distinct visual style already, I find that it recalls some of the violence in Sjöström's or Von Stroheim's films in how it renders the landscape but the acting isn't memorable. It's hard to asses when excactly Murnau developed which new skills because so many of his films are lost but to me it seems like Nosferatu is the first film where he really got it all together for the first time (I also think the acting is excellent, especially Schreck but I do understand the expressionistic overacting is not for everyone, especially not in a film like Nosferatu which is otherwise ratehr romantic). Phantom from the same year is visually even more ambitious (it even potentially is inspired by Sjöström's Phantom Carriage) but the narrative is too grounded in conventions and the parts of visual excellence are too few and too far between. Generally it seems like Phantom is a first step towards the more audatious visual style of his later career which he then almost mastered already with The Last Laugh. Generally Faust and Sunrise do even expand on this though. Sunrise is my pick for best direction of all time. Noone else could have done it that way. Apart from this Murnau always had a bit of a penchant for simplicity it seems, while he pushed his visual style with a lot of films, Tartüffe from '25 is much less sophisticated than The Last Laugh and City Girl is also a step back from Sunrise (but studios gave Murnau a hard time). I have actually seen Genuine (1920) yesterday and I feel somewhat awkward by how incredibly surprised I was by that film. I was so sure it would be a cheap Caligari rip-off with little artistic thought put into it (because everyone said so) but now I have to roll back and say that I'd probably is a masterpiece, way ahead of it's time and really expanding on what was done with Caligari (I wouldn't go so far to say that it's a better film but it seems thematically more ambitious). I don't think there is any way people in the 20's could have really understood this (maybe some very few) and I think time has only just caught up with the film now. It feels incredibly contemporary; dealing with themes of beauty, life, lust and death in a symbiotic fashion it's perhaps an expressionist rendering of baroque themes but the great thing about Genuine is that it all falls together into a complete vision. Nothing is explained, nothing makes sense, it just happens. However on the basis of you not being teribly mad about Caligari I'm hesistant to recommend it (because it seems like all the things you disliked about Caligari are even more empathized here). It very curiously only "exists" (for home media purposes) in a heavily truncated form that is basicly only half the film, while the entire film is available in multiple archives it seems (Next time I'll get to Munich I'll be sure to check out if one can actually see it at the archive there which I've read somewhere). It really shows that the film is so heavily truncated, you can not follow the plot without thinking around multiple edges (it's so bad that characters randomly pop up and you have to guess who they are) but still the 44 min. fragment is around masterpiece status to me. Make of that what you want... I think I might write a full review soon. The film really is in dire need of revision. It's the most underrated film I've ever seen. I must count myself as a fan of Wiene now (although with so many of his films being lost, it's almost impossible to classify him as a director, I have no clue what the hell he was thinking when he made this), I'm very excited for Crime and Punishment and The Hands of Orlac. I think one advise I would give if you do one day decide to watch it would be to not think so much about it from a plot standpoint but only about what happens in the image you are just watching (the film feels like a nightmare and as disjointed), likewise I would much recommend P. Emerson Williams score (is uploaded on YouTube by himself) because it captures the atmosphere of the film so incredibly well. That makes sense. I didn't realize Garbo and Swanson started so young. That's crazy to me. However, I feel like acting in the '20s feels like it only revolves around the leads, which is probably why they never got noticed until they were leads. If you're not a lead, you're just filler it seems. But it's amazing to me how some actors never got the limelight, yet always managed to do great work in those "filler" roles. I'm looking forward to her 1930s stuff, particularly Ninotchka. I actually never knew the details about Joan of Arc, but that makes a lot more sense. It's still insane that there are always "bits and pieces" of movies found. Like the fact that we can find Metropolis (save an hour of footage), like what happened to the other hour? How does a chunk of that go missing but the rest in tact? Always seems so weird to me that someone could forget something so valuable or lose it. But I digress. I'm glad to hear Sunrise is your pick for best direction of all-time - makes me even more excited to watch it soon. I always forget that was Murnau's work, he has such a diverse filmography and he doesn't seem to be known for one particular genre or style, which is great. I had seen Phantom and I loved his visual ideas, but as you say, it was marred by poor plotting and a horrendous leading performance from Alfred Abel, who is easily the worst actor of the decade I've seen - and the one and only reason to not look forward to watching Metropolis for the first time. I don't mind the overacting to an extent. Maybe it's from my love for B-movies, but I can always tell the difference between a good over-actor and a bad one. However, in the case of Nosferatu, I think the lead is a bad over-actor and Shreck (who I consider supporting) just didn't really do much of anything with the role other than make creepy faces, so I was disappointed in that regard. If anything, Murnau was the MVP of Nosferatu. Thanks for the feedback on Genuine. I'm very sure I'll get around to Weine's other work at some point, so I'm glad to hear you were a fan. Believe me, though most of my favorites of the decade aren't as abstract, I enjoy some ingenuity behind the camera. I still quite enjoyed Dr. Caligari, I just didn't love it like most due to the flaws I mentioned, but I certainly still enjoyed it. I took a break due to the local film festival I've been attending, so I apologize for the super late response, but I'll be sure to finish up 1926 soon. Turning out to be a disappointing year I think, but not a bad one.
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Apr 11, 2017 1:54:59 GMT
That makes sense. I didn't realize Garbo and Swanson started so young. That's crazy to me. However, I feel like acting in the '20s feels like it only revolves around the leads, which is probably why they never got noticed until they were leads. If you're not a lead, you're just filler it seems. But it's amazing to me how some actors never got the limelight, yet always managed to do great work in those "filler" roles. I'm looking forward to her 1930s stuff, particularly Ninotchka. I actually never knew the details about Joan of Arc, but that makes a lot more sense. It's still insane that there are always "bits and pieces" of movies found. Like the fact that we can find Metropolis (save an hour of footage), like what happened to the other hour? How does a chunk of that go missing but the rest in tact? Always seems so weird to me that someone could forget something so valuable or lose it. But I digress. I'm glad to hear Sunrise is your pick for best direction of all-time - makes me even more excited to watch it soon. I always forget that was Murnau's work, he has such a diverse filmography and he doesn't seem to be known for one particular genre or style, which is great. I had seen Phantom and I loved his visual ideas, but as you say, it was marred by poor plotting and a horrendous leading performance from Alfred Abel, who is easily the worst actor of the decade I've seen - and the one and only reason to not look forward to watching Metropolis for the first time. I don't mind the overacting to an extent. Maybe it's from my love for B-movies, but I can always tell the difference between a good over-actor and a bad one. However, in the case of Nosferatu, I think the lead is a bad over-actor and Shreck (who I consider supporting) just didn't really do much of anything with the role other than make creepy faces, so I was disappointed in that regard. If anything, Murnau was the MVP of Nosferatu. Thanks for the feedback on Genuine. I'm very sure I'll get around to Weine's other work at some point, so I'm glad to hear you were a fan. Believe me, though most of my favorites of the decade aren't as abstract, I enjoy some ingenuity behind the camera. I still quite enjoyed Dr. Caligari, I just didn't love it like most due to the flaws I mentioned, but I certainly still enjoyed it. I took a break due to the local film festival I've been attending, so I apologize for the super late response, but I'll be sure to finish up 1926 soon. Turning out to be a disappointing year I think, but not a bad one. The story behind Metropolis is actually that it was truncated for American release to fit what Paramount thought was the taste of the American people. The original German version was slammed by critics and was poorly received by audiences aswell. Thus it was destroyed and the American cut was played in Germany aswell. I personally like Alfred Abel quite a lot actually and if I remember correctly his role in Metropolis is a bit more restrained and somewhat different from his earlier work (also because he actually plays an older person). Apart from that his role also isn't thaaaat huge. He is by no means a lead.
|
|
|
Post by idioticbunny on Apr 11, 2017 17:05:37 GMT
The story behind Metropolis is actually that it was truncated for American release to fit what Paramount thought was the taste of the American people. The original German version was slammed by critics and was poorly received by audiences aswell. Thus it was destroyed and the American cut was played in Germany aswell. I personally like Alfred Abel quite a lot actually and if I remember correctly his role in Metropolis is a bit more restrained and somewhat different from his earlier work (also because he actually plays an older person). Apart from that his role also isn't thaaaat huge. He is by no means a lead. Ahh, I didn't know that. Still crazy how people just burned movies if they "sucked". Imagine if we continued doing that years later - some of my favorite movies, like Vertigo or Psycho would have been wiped out just because of initial backlash. Also I had assumed he was a lead because his name was always first billed when researching the film. I'm certainly glad to hear he won't be in it as much. I just think he has a minimal expertise in what acting means. He only overacts when he has no idea how to portray an emotion, his face is like a mopey version of a blank emoji haha. Granted this is just judging from both Phantom and Dr. Mabuse, so we'll see how this goes. Still very excited for the film outside of him.
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Apr 11, 2017 18:59:51 GMT
The story behind Metropolis is actually that it was truncated for American release to fit what Paramount thought was the taste of the American people. The original German version was slammed by critics and was poorly received by audiences aswell. Thus it was destroyed and the American cut was played in Germany aswell. I personally like Alfred Abel quite a lot actually and if I remember correctly his role in Metropolis is a bit more restrained and somewhat different from his earlier work (also because he actually plays an older person). Apart from that his role also isn't thaaaat huge. He is by no means a lead. Ahh, I didn't know that. Still crazy how people just burned movies if they "sucked". Imagine if we continued doing that years later - some of my favorite movies, like Vertigo or Psycho would have been wiped out just because of initial backlash. Also I had assumed he was a lead because his name was always first billed when researching the film. I'm certainly glad to hear he won't be in it as much. I just think he has a minimal expertise in what acting means. He only overacts when he has no idea how to portray an emotion, his face is like a mopey version of a blank emoji haha. Granted this is just judging from both Phantom and Dr. Mabuse, so we'll see how this goes. Still very excited for the film outside of him. Him going mad is one of my favorite parts of Dr. Mabuse actually. I liked him a lot in that and generally I enjoy his flat and bewildered portrayals (always slightly apathic), I always sympathize a lot with him. I think he gets top billing for Metropolis because he's the most well known actor in it (or at least was at the time). But if I remember correctly the leads are really Gustav Fröhlich and Brigitte Helm (Fröhlich probably puts Abel to shame when it comes to overacting and I don't think his performance is particularly great but in a film like Metropolis it really doesn't need to be, perhaps a better performance would have actually hurt the film - but Helm is perhaps the most incredible german actress of the silent era and her performance in Metropolis is amazing).
|
|
|
Post by idioticbunny on Apr 11, 2017 20:24:45 GMT
See he was probably the biggest reason the film lost any emotional impact in that big scene, which was a shame. Still love the film, as it's one of my favorites of the decade, but I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on Abel However, I've not seen anything from either of those actors, and clearly you're a fan of Helm, so I'm excited to see it for her.
|
|