1920s List Discussion and Suggestions (Lists project Vol. 3)

[knives]

Lubitsch I really can't understand your position on Keaton. You say he only appeals to academics due to a lack of looseness, yet you complain that he lacks the character and small moments that you find make Chaplin and Lloyd so great. Aren't those some what opposed positions? It also suggests that academics don't appreciate Chaplin or Lloyd which is just blatantly false. I think it's safe to say that Chaplin is the more critically loved comedian. Also it prevents, as pointed out already, the viewpoint that Keaton is simply genuinely funny. In fact you seen to be the one over thinking things with your take on the scenery gag.
It's fair that you don't find him funny, but much as in the case of Dreyer, just because you don't connect doesn't mean he lacks those abilities. Using less absolutes will do you a hell of a lot of good in these discussions.

[swo17]

Re: Keaton, it's still early, but surely Sherlock Jr. will wind up in the top 2 or 3 of my list. With The General not far behind. I suppose there's no accounting for tastes, but I guess I'm of the mind that if you can't get anything out of Keaton's best work, then what's even the point of watching any movies ever?

Other than the big titles everyone's mentioning, I also have a lot of love for One Week (in which Keaton demonstrates the little-known fact that he was also a skilled carpenter), The Scarecrow (kitchen gadgets galore!), and College (essentially, Keaton's take on Lloyd's The Freshman, but with more pole vaulting).

In conclusion, I fully expect Keaton to be the Yevgeni Bauer of the 1920s list. Don't let me down guys.

[Tommaso]

I'm sorry to let you down, swo. While I like Keaton much better than Chaplin (at least if it comes to silents), I'm afraid there's too much else that has to be on my list. I rather think that the two Bauers of the 20s list will be Lang and Murnau, at least if it comes to the top ten.

[tojoed]

For me the only problem is which Keatons to leave out, but two definites are Sherlock Jnr and The Navigator.

[swo17]

I rather think that the two Bauers of the 20s list will be Lang and Murnau, at least if it comes to the top ten.

Lang and Murnau strike me more as the Lois Webers and Lumière brothers of the 20s list, respectively. Which is to say, there's plenty of love to go around.

[nsps]

Our Hospitality is easily my favourite Keaton, and currently resides at about number 3 on my list. I love the portentous, deadly serious drama of the opening scene, and the way Keaton follows this up by riding in on his silly bicycle. …

The whole sequence where Keaton is staying with the Canfields, knowing that they'll try to kill him the moment he sets foot outside, makes me laugh more than anything else he did - especially the moment where he's trying to get some time alone with the girl (while she's playing the piano), and so runs outside to lure her brothers away, before dashing back to resume his nonchalant pose beside the piano. And so many comedians could take a lesson from the final gag of the film, which proves that you can be a little sentimental in a comedy without sacrificing the laughs.

Our Hospitality was my introduction to Keaton, and still in my top three or four Keaton films. You're dead right about the scenes in the house, simply hilarious. If Lubitsch can't see what's funny about those, I don't know what to say. Also, I love the pre-dinner prayer in that section. The idea that Keaton isn't funny is simply impossible for me to understand. His entire demeanor, his posture, his impractical logic, his small but effective adjustments in facial and body language, and really everything about him is all just peerless.

I'm surprised to hear claims that the setups to Keaton's gags are obvious. The man was a master of misdirection (perhaps thanks to his time with Houdini?). He'd set up the audience to expect one thing, then surprise them with something else. (See the suspense railroad sequence at the end of ONE WEEK.)

Other than the big titles everyone's mentioning, I also have a lot of love for One Week (in which Keaton demonstrates the little-known fact that he was also a skilled carpenter), The Scarecrow (kitchen gadgets galore!), and College (essentially, Keaton's take on Lloyd's The Freshman, but with more pole vaulting).

In conclusion, I fully expect Keaton to be the Yevgeni Bauer of the 1920s list. Don't let me down guys.

He'll certainly be the Bauer of my list!

Agreed on One Week and The Scarecrow. While it never seems to be his top-ranked short in traditional regard, in my experience The Scarecrow is most likely to send people who aren't familiar with silent films into fits of laughter.

I'm also a fan of The High Sign, which was Keaton's first short, but he shelved it because he wanted to debut with something grander, which turned out to be One Week. Among other things, it perfectly encapsulates the feeling of reading a broadsheet newspaper. (Something future generations will never understand.) Plus the final sequence of Neighbors is just brilliant. Oh! And…

ETC.

[myrnaloyisdope]

I expect the big three to dominate the list. Harold Lloyd will be my Bauer.

Safety Last is my favorite film by any of the big 3, and the answer to the eternal question: "What's a good introduction to silent films". The small gags are wonderful, I love the little jailhouse gag at the beginning, and the ambulance sequence is a hoot, as is the shopboy stuff. Lloyd just hits every note perfectly in this one, and then you have the astonishing climbing sequence. It's a perfect film.

Never Weaken is a bit of a dry run for Safety Last, with Lloyd in a similarly precarious position high above the ground. Again the little stuff works beautifully, I love all the suicide gags, and despite it's silliness I love the set-up with the Lloyd and his pratfalling accomplice duping people into seeing some quack doctor. Maybe my favorite 2 reeler.

Why Worry? seems to be one of the more devisive Lloyd features, but I love it. The dynamics between Lloyd and the John Aasen are brilliant in that they manage to be incredibly funny together but also convey some heart. The banana republic stuff is very good as well.

For Heaven's Sake is another of Lloyd's lesser regarded features. Lots of highlights in this one, of course the frantic bus ride that closes the film is the most famous sequence, but the section where Lloyd tries to gather up all the crooks to go to church is incredible.

Not to mention Girl Shy, Hot Water and Speedy.

I think can narrow Chaplin down to The Kid and possibly The Circus. The Kid makes me bawl like Jackie Coogan, and still has some very funny sequences. I think it's Chaplin's best film personally. The Circus has some great set pieces and a manic quality to it that I find very funny.

Outside of the big 3, Raymond Griffith definitely deserves some love. His forgottenness today is due to the lack of availability of almost all of his films. There are a few now floating around, but he's been seriously neglected. Hands Up! is the best I've seen, a civil war comedy that in it's own time was considered far superior to The General. Griffith teaching a group of Indians the Charleston is a highlight and the final gag is jawdroppingly funny. Definitely check it out.

[knives]

Days of Youth
Sorry it took me so long to get to this Reno.

Watching this approached perfect as much so as the limit of my computer screen could manage. About half way through I took a long look at the film and just had to say I absolutely loved this movie. I've enjoyed a great deal all of the previous Ozus I've seen, even loved a few, but this gave me this more direct reaction. There was no alternative. I'm not sure why this fairly early and all together different Ozu is the one for me, but there you have it.
It really is shockingly different though. The Tracking shots, POVs, and close up of feet almost made this a surreal experience. Despite the grammar being so radically different it is undeniably Ozu. The way conversations carry on is the closest to his later styling, but even that manages to be different in an interesting way. The way the characters are different, but similar is also pretty involving. These are some of Ozu's youngest protagonists, but they fit the mold of so much of the later molds. My favorite was the Harold Lloyd look alike who's jacket alone spoke volumes about him. Very few directors can say so much about people with so little.
If this ever gets more recognition though, I hope it kills off that whole most Japanese of directors bull with the prominence of Borzage's 7th Heaven.

[Michael Kerpan]

Ozu's protagonists tended to be around his own age. Unfortunately, most of the films with young protagonists made by the young Ozu are lost. ;~{

Days of Youth is quite a delight. I especially like the ski-cam shots (were these the first in a feature film?) Apparently Ozu's cinematographer's uncle owned a ski resort -- so Ozu and company could make this unusual winter film fairly easily.

In Why Worry -- I love the interaction between Lloyd and Ralston as much or more than that between Lloyd and his sweet-natured "giant" friend.

[knives]

Ozu's protagonists tended to be around his own age. Unfortunately, most of the films with young protagonists made by the young Ozu are lost. ;~{

That phrasing couldn't be anymore sad. It's as if we are missing out on a entire persona of Ozu due to the mishandling of his films. To see him as an awkward young man (if this film is any indication) would create by virtue an entirely new level to an already unique personality. I suspect this is especially true with his first film which on the vague available details sounds like nothing else he ever did.
At least we have this bizarre quaint film though.

[Sloper]

So I've managed to see Asta Nielsen's Hamlet (dir. Svend Gade, 1921), albeit in a horrible bootleg VHS copy that flickers constantly, and with un-subbed German intertitles; so a fair bit of it went over my head, and it was occasionally hard to judge the mise-en-scène through the wobbly haze. This version had a nice piano score, though.

Even in such an inferior presentation, it's obviously a rather beautiful film. Nothing amazing or groundbreaking, but there is a lot to admire here. I found myself thinking of Die Nibelungen a lot of the time, and though Hamlet is hardly in the same league, I did wonder whether Lang might have seen it and been at least a little inspired. It's a slow, brooding revenge melodrama, crammed with lowering architecture, dank caverns, scheming females and weak men, intricately patterned tapestries, door panels and floor tiles reinforcing the psychological conflicts on display, and plenty of shadows for the actors to creep in and out of - what more could you ask?

As far as I can tell, the story derives to a great extent from an old version of the Hamlet legend (possibly a version speculated over by 19th-century scholars, I'm a bit hazy on this) in which the prince was in fact a princess, posing as a man in order to sustain the illusion that the king had a legitimate heir. Hamlet is in love with Horatio, who is in love with Ophelia, who is in love with Hamlet; you can imagine how this plays out.

First and foremost, this change in the hero's gender is a very intelligent way of getting around the Achilles' heel of silent Shakespeare: with Hamlet now a woman pretending to be a man, much of his (i.e. her) torment can be conveyed through gestures and facial expressions, rather than through long vacillating speeches. And of course this is particularly the case with Asta Nielsen, who has such a richly expressive face, and whose acting in this film is hypnotically effective. Her huge, heavy, shaded eyelids cover all but the merest glimpse of her eyes for most of the time, and this is very well suited to the character's state of lethargic despair. When this despair is punctuated by surges of terrible anger, the sudden widening of the eyes is all the more powerful. Nielsen's hair is arranged to cover one side of her forehead, and in close-ups that side of her face is normally the one left in shadow; the other side of her pale oval face stands out in stark contrast - a nice visual representation of duality, which Nielsen exploits beautifully. During the 'Mousetrap' sequence (in this version, the king was murdered with an actual snake) she slithers across the ground towards Claudius like a snake, watching his reactions, and the camera pans along with her. Very nice. She also keeps her cool when, in one scene, the feather pen on her writing desk is ignited by a candle, and she has to blow it out very quickly while remaining in character. Anyone else seen this?

[Tommaso]

Yes, I have, and though I badly need to re-visit Hamlet to say something detailed, I remember having been quite impressed by it, too. Here's what I wrote three years ago in the German Filmmuseum thread:

"Yes, I watched the arte transmission yesterday, and I was completely blown away. This is one of the most free adaptations of that play (comparable to what Kurosawa did to "Macbeth"), but even the idea of Hamlet being a woman in disguise I found worked in the context. It opened up all sorts of subtexts which one might only guess at in the play: Hamlet being in love with Horatio rather than with Ophelia, the affair with the latter getting on lesbian overtones etc. And the film itself is a marvel, too: magnificent shots (despite of a thoroughly static camera), highly atmospheric interiors, a dark and erotic atmosphere throughout (Asta Nielsen is f'king unbelievable in her bisexual appearance).

The new resto is fantastic, too. The film is battered in places, with some nitrate decomposition occasionally, but overall looks more than watchable, with good detail and contrast, and marvellous tintings that enhance the atmosphere in a great way, as do the very germanic looking intertitles (either original or faithfully recreated). The new soundtrack is by Michael Riessler, at the same time sounding very medieval and archaic but also avantgardistic (which could be said about the film as well) and to me is totally convincing.

For me, this was one of the greatest silent films I've never seen before since Stiller's "Sir Arne" and perhaps Oxilia's "Rapsodia satanica"."

Well, having seen quite a few unseen silents in the years after, I take back that final statement, but still think it's an excellent film with one of Asta Nielsen's best performances. The comparison to Die Nibelungen isn't too far-fetched, at least if you think of a certain archaic intensity that the film has, and of Asta's powerful, dark performance. I really wonder what keeps Filmmuseum from releasing it, it is announced as 'forthcoming' for at least two or three years now.

[myrnaloyisdope]

Some highlights from this week:

Blackmail - I watched the silent version and was very impressed. The tone of the film was perhaps the most fascinating thing for me, as for almost every sequence the tone of the film is very light save for the murder sequence which is convincingly grim. The film remains quite funny throughout, which leads to the irony of the ending where no one much seems to care about the murder (or who did it). Donald Calthrop's performance reminded me very much of Robert Walker's in Strangers On A Train, as the slimy and desperate blackmailer, though without the homoerotic undertones.

Anyone care to comment on the silent version vs. the talkie?

By The Law - an interesting adaptation of Jack London's story. This is filled with haunting and memorable images, particularly the striking shot of Vladimir Fogel lying in ice water at the mercy Sergei Komorov's sledge hammer. The Yukon wilderness is protrayed with striking authenticity, the photography and editing create a genuine sense of danger. The sequence with Komorov and Aleksandra Khoklova burying the dead bodies is beautifully shot, with close-ups used very evocatively. Khoklova's face is incredibly expressive, that even when she appears to be overacting she is still very compelling. The execution sequence is one of the more haunting of the era, the genuine dismay of Khoklova she places the noose around Fogel's neck is palpable. The shot of Fogel's feet swinging is enough to make one feel remorseful.

[lubitsch]

As for the tastelessness of The General, I believe that was one of the things that earned it some negative reviews at the time, but it's never really bothered me. Keaton's humour is often quite macabre - I like the version of Cops which ends with a picture of the hero's gravestone, with the signature hat dangling off one corner.

I don't mind the macabre, but a bit more sensibility in dealing with war would be nice, thesr are a few pretty cheap slapstick gags and the whole war is rather a big adventure land for Keaton which doesn't work well today. Keaton was good at inventing gags and structuring them, but regarding gender roles, racial sensitivity and politics he's never more than an average US guy from the era.

I'm surprised to hear claims that the setups to Keaton's gags are obvious. The man was a master of misdirection (perhaps thanks to his time with Houdini?). He'd set up the audience to expect one thing, then surprise them with something else. (See the suspense railroad sequence at the end of ONE WEEK.)

Well even the misdirection and the surprises are predictable. His films are so rigidly constructed like all these nutty machines you find in films like The Scarecrow, the stories and the gags are all constructed like these interlocking mechanisms, even Keaton's character is essentially a robot with a few basic behaviour routines programmed in which naturally isn't quite sufficient for everyday's life.
I always feel the fiery determination of Keaton to construct the gag to end all gags in his films and it often doesn't work for me. Laurel & Hardy in Big Business are a good example how to give a short a cohesive structure, play with the knowledge which jokes will becoming next and still be quite relaxed and funny.
Hamlet is a monumental snoozer IMHO. I don't like Nielsen particularily who surely was a ground-breaking actress in the early 10s but not by 1920 anymore. Direction and acting of the other players obviously takes a back seat to Nielsen's solo show, prestige project of its time, but with few points of interest for today's viewers.

Blackmail Anyone care to comment on the silent version vs. the talkie?

The silent is better, scene for scene.Dramatic camera travellings are replaced by static setups, swiftly told scenes get replaced by endless monologues (like the female witness) which were obviously only shot to demonstrate the new sound technique. Worst of all the rapist in spe plays the piano (!!!) before jumping into action. The sound version got famous for the "knife" sequence but that's all there is to it.
As for By the Law I wish the film would be a tad faster. It's supposed to be oppressive and moody and succeeds at that, but it really crawls. And Khokhlova is an actress which either sinks or makes the film for a viewer, there's little ground in between.

[nsps]

Well even the misdirection and the surprises are predictable. His films are so rigidly constructed like all these nutty machines you find in films like The Scarecrow, the stories and the gags are all constructed like these interlocking mechanisms, even Keaton's character is essentially a robot with a few basic behaviour routines programmed in which naturally isn't quite sufficient for everyday's life.

Funny, if I had to pick a silent comedian who acted like a robot, I'd pick Chaplin. "Let's set him on 'waddle' and let him walk around the room for five minutes. It'll be riveting!" Chaplin is so convinced that everything he does is the funniest thing anyone has ever seen that his tramp will often do nothing for half the film, assuming we're cracking up. Keaton's performances are in no way robotic, and neither are his gags. I can think of a number that would be completely impossible to predict, especially with no knowledge of later films that aped the gags.

Keaton was of course fascinated with mechanics, engineering and the way things work, and he often created an otherworldly harmony in his films. But he also made stories that were quite involving. He never appealed to the audience to sympathize with his character, he just trusted they would. Maybe that's the difference: Chaplin fans like to made to sympathize with a hero, Keaton fans like to decide for themselves whether to engage in the story.

Keaton was good at inventing gags and structuring them, but regarding gender roles, racial sensitivity and politics he's never more than an average US guy from the era.

This is true, but I don't see what that has to do with his abilities as a filmmaker. He wasn't setting out to say anything about gender, race or politics, as he considered films that explored such concerns self-important. He did, however, play with the concept of story conventions like "the girl." In Sherlock, Jr. the girl has to clear the hero herself because the male hero is so ineffectual. Throwing around the girl like a prop in The General may not have been insightful about female roles, but it wasn't really a common usage either.

Seven Chances contains the most racially offensive material of any Keaton films. Most any little or no racial material. The only scene which really seems intent on commentary is the blackface scene in College, in which Keaton plays a stereotypical blackface waiter in a restaurant staffed entirely by actual black people with no funny walk or other racist conventions. Keaton cleverly lays the contradictions of blackface on the screen for all to see. But to be honest, Keaton was more interested in playing with the theatrical conventions than saying anything of social import. He considered such statements pretentious.

[zedz]

Nice comments about Days of Youth, knives. Silent Ozu is indeed a very different director from the 'received Ozu' of later years, and he's rowdily, enthusiastically Western in many respects. Hollywood movie posters are all over the walls, and the camera's scooting and zooming in the most extraordinary ways. But as you suggest, even with all those radical superficial differences, his generous and complex approach to character is consistent. If you're willing to skip forward to the 30s momentarily, try Dragnet Girl.

I like the Nielsen Hamlet (which was based on some wacky but popular contemporary critical approaches rather than an ancient text, I believe) but not enough to get it on my list.

I agree with lubitsch that the silent Blackmail is effortlessly superior to the sound version. It's the work of a master silent filmmaker at the height of his powers, whereas with the sound version Hitch has been knocked back a little and has to scramble to make his mark in new territory. He's aware of the potentialities of the new medium, but he's also clearly hampered by its limitations. Even so, this film will be joining the queue behind some of his other works (specifically The Lodger, maybe The Ring and The Manxman).

I liked By the Law the only time I saw it, but I'll need to dig out the VHS and watch it again. It's certainly dour and moody, so fans of the Scandinavians might be interested in catching up with it.

I've raved on and on about Never Weaken before, but I'll reinforce myrnaloyisdope's recommendation by saying it will definitely be in my top ten.

I haven't even begun to sort out the Keaton shorts, but One Week and The High Sign are definitely in contention. The latter doesn't seem to get a lot of love, but I love the way it crescendos from silly, earnest fun to really ambitious filmmaking with the climactic set-piece, which is dazzling not only for its conception, but also for Keaton's amazing physical performance. Yes, he's a cog in the machine, but what a machine, and what a cog!

(Chaplin, on the other hand, would mug any screen machine, however fabulous, into submission, and I think it's that fundamental vanity which limits his appeal for me.)

And - back to Keaton - that's not even getting to the acknowledged masterpieces Cops (which preempts just about every subsequent chase film) and The Playhouse (which pre-empts, of all things, Being John Malkovich).

And I like nsps's comment on Keaton and "the girl" - I always thought the marginality and uselessness of the love interest in The General was one of the film's core gags, however sour, and he pushes it to such an extent that it becomes a comment on film conventions in general (you really think a guy who goes so far as to cast a cow as his love interest in one of his films is unaware of what he's doing in this respect?). Nevertheless, in The General he allows the gag to blossom into such eloquent moments as when he, appalled by her latest unworldly gaffe, starts to throttle, then kisses her. If that's not an encapsulation of the nature of true love, I don't know what is!

My modest contribution in terms of weekend viewing was Griffith's Sally of the Sawdust, a desperately unfunny circus comedy that fully justifies contemporary accusations that Griffith's cinema was hopelessly out of date by the mid-twenties. Even W.C. Fields looks stranded.

[Tommaso]

Continuing with large unknown stuff, here are two films by Wilhelm Prager:

Tischlein-deck-dich, Eselein-streck-dich, Knüppel-aus dem Sack: Made in 1921, this is one of the Brothers Grimm fairy-tale adaptations that were obviously quite popular around 1920 in Germany (Paul Wegener and Paul Leni also contributed to the genre, but only Leni's 1918 "Dornröschen" seems to be available in the backchannels). Three brothers all meet a benovelent dwarf or goblin who gives them magical things, but it is only the third and dumbest one who is able to punish the treacherous landlord who has stolen the magic table and the magic donkey from his two brothers. A truly lovely film, though it looks more like a film from the 1910s than from the 20s with its absence of any great play on light and shades and a mostly static camera (though there's one wonderful pan early in the film making for a great landscape impression). But a certain archaic quality fits very well to this fairy-tale which has beautiful depictions of a pre-industrial, rural Germany and is generally inventive in showing its 'magical' occurences. And I really liked that dwarf. Nice and funny summer stuff.

Much better known, or at least more often written about, is Prager's 1925 'Kulturfilm' (documentary) Wege zu Kraft und Schönheit. The film is a celebration of calisthenics, dance and sports, documenting the 1920s ideas about a healthy and beautiful body and by implication, life. However, this is far removed from the later Nazi exploitation of similar ideas, though with a lot of 'innocent' nudity and its occasional re-creations of Ancient Greece (the Judgement of Paris story and a scene in a Greek gymnasium, for instance) it has sometimes been regarded as a predecessor of Riefenstahl's "Olympia" (and there are rumours that Riefenstahl actually appears in this film as a dancer, but so far this hasn't been substantiated). These re-creations are somehow clumsy, though, and the filming of the sports events are of course no comparison to "Olympia" or even similar scenes in Vertov's "Man with a camera", but perhaps that would be expecting too much. Not all too exciting or inventive, and with 90 minutes far too long, this is nevertheless an interesting film as it seems to be an 'official' statement on how to create a more forward-looking and 'beautiful' Germany in the years of inflation and general depression in the Weimar mid-20s.

[Dr Amicus]

The Three Must-Get-Theres (Max Linder, 1922) - available here. Linder's spoof of Fairbanks (which I haven't seen - so some of the jokes may have passed me by) is a very pleasant way to spend an hour. The silly names (Dart-in-again...) raise the spectre of seeing a 20s Musketeer Movie, but luckily they're only a mild annoyance. It's not at the level of say Keaton or Lloyd, but some of the physical routines are amusing (there is a lengthy swordfight half way through which is entertaining) and there are some nice visual gags (mainly based around anachronisms - one good one involving a car) and some clever uses of irises and wipes. It all chugs along very pleasantly and doesn't outstay its welcome. It's presently threatening to knock around near the bottom of my list, but I suspect it won't make the final version (especially as 50th place is already reserved).

[knives]

Lonesome
I'd throw out a few superlatives, but they wouldn't do justice here. This seems almost deliberately a cousin of Sunrise. While I'm not prepared to make comparisons yet, I think an intelligent conversation about both could reveal even more complexities about each.
The visuals on display here are amazing though. It gives this really dystopian edge to the precedings, especially in the beginning. The scene of the two of them at work with the unmoving clock over them is terribly frightening. The two meeting is a bit like throwing themselves against the machine. A more earnest and romantic version of revolt than is usually seen in this sort of thing (ie 1984). The way the romance is handled is great too. Very put down and underplayed, though the lead actress manages to overplay everything. It's the rare sort of romance where the romanticism is gone, but it doesn't take a dark or cynical turn.

[NABOB OF NOWHERE]

Anyone London bound and with a drooping list might find a visit to this Cavalcanti mini-season worthwhile to ginger up their appetite for this project.
http://www.bfi.org.uk/whatson/bfi_south ... les_heures" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[knives]

Eleven days, huh?

Grass
I was expecting this to be very poorly dated with a lot of talking down. King Kong doesn't really scream sensitivity. This doesn't either, but aside from a few poor attempts at humour the film never seems mocking or talking down about its subject.
As a documentary it's fantastic to the point I would say it easily creams Nanook. It's always visually exciting and maybe this is just my lack of knowledge speaking, but things seem to have a reality about them.
This becomes really a must see for the river crossing near the end which whether or not they did do Nanook style trickery it still looks incredibly dangerous and frightening. I doubt any one would today find the film educating, in the sense it tries to be, but it manages to work perfectly as an adventure film corny humour and all.

[Tommaso]

Eleven days, huh?

Yeah, true. A combined effect of the World Cup and summer heat, at least in Europe, I suppose.

As to Grass: I completely agree. The nature is imposing, and the strength and determination of these people is something to marvel at, really. I find "Nanook" a little bit more captivating in terms of story(telling), but if one is interested in these early documentaries at all, Grass is certainly a must see.

Here's a little error I have to clear up:

Days of Youth is quite a delight. I especially like the ski-cam shots (were these the first in a feature film?)

Well, nothing against Ozu (even though I find Days of Youth not exactly great), but the prize for the first use of a subjective camera on skiiers unsurprisingly belongs to the inventor of the ski film genre, Dr. Arnold Fanck. Even if you don't count his Wunder des Schneeschuhs Pt.2 (1922) as a feature film, there are ski-cam shots galore in his Der große Sprung (1927), a very delightful comedy about a Berliner and his valet coming to a ski resort, with the master falling in love with the local goatherdess Gita (Leni Riefenstahl). And as she gave herself as the first prize in a big ski race, the timid guy has to learn skiing as fast as possible. As a ski coach, he has no-one else than Luis Trenker (who is also in love with the girl), and then there's of course the Berliner's valet, who tries to 'improve' on his master's chances with all sorts of weird skiing inventions. As you can imagine, this leads to some crazy and hilarious moments. The over-all effect is something like Bergfilm goes Lubitsch, and while with 110 minutes it's a bit too long, some scenes must be seen to be believed. Oh, and Riefenstahl is charmingly natural and lovely in this one. You may be surprised, especially if you haven't seen her in the 1931 "Der weiße Rausch" (which is in some ways a rather similar film, and equally good).
Available in the backchannels in a great recording off French TV.

[knives]

Can you tell I'm still relatively new to the era?

The Matinee Idol
Why Sony must you make all of your best releases look like garbage that facets wouldn't release. The contents are great, but that cover is a new level of hideous. I managed to love everything this film had to offer. It's not as strong as most of Capra's later stuff specifically for the dramatic side of things. The first forty minutes though are easily the most powerfully comedic of his work I've seen. I felt like I had run for three miles afterward. Everything worked with that (didn't hurt that I imagined David Mir's voice as being Vincent Price). I'm also real glad that they kept the dumb hick gags to a minimum. That sort of thing even managed to bug me in Sunrise (They really hadn't heard of the Venus de Milo). The last fifteen or so minutes is were all the real power is though. It starts off replicating an earlier and spent the rest of the running time making me feel horrible for it. It's not quite what Hitchcock did in Rear Window, but in its treatment of the audience this seems like a distant cousin. We're not being scolded for being voyeurs, but rather taking humour out of others failings. That's not quite right either, but that's the closest I can think right now.

SpoilerShow

The only thing that I think is compromised here is the girl taking him back. It seems like they needed a happy ending so they stuck with that. It's not bad, but it doesn't work for me.

If this is any indication though, I'm glad to learn that ironically taking enjoyment out of poor works is nothing new.

In Old Arizona
This manages to prove something else is as old as time, the oscars handing out awards and nominations to the most bloated and undeserving parties. I thought it might be okay, after all all Walsh must have done enough to earn a credit and the cover gives this perfect vibe, but alas I got a refried turd instead. For twenty minutes this movie manages to be at least entertaining and than Warner Baxter turns up in what has to be the worst performance to win any award. Honestly the only way I can conceive the academy thinking that was a good idea is that the live action Mario gave such a abominable performance that Baxter looked that much better by comparison. The story itself and how it's directed is completely forgettable and uninteresting. I honestly thought Destry Rides Again and Blazing Saddles were exaggerating how bad those pre-Stagecoach talking westerns were, guess not. I'd honestly would have mistaken this for a comedy except it tries so hard to be serious in its last five minutes. Even if it were intentionally 'funny' none of the jokes land. It's just boring corny moment after boring corny moment, but I've already wasted too much time over this waste.

Orochi
This managed to surpass my already astronomical expectations. Worth every penny this one. The transfer is gorgeous given what Japanese films even from the forties can look like. The DVD does that weird improperly running thing twice, something that I didn't think could happen on DVD, but otherwise is clear and nice throughout. The Benshi stuff was pretty interesting to. I had to mute the teevee and mostly ignored the text, but it was nonetheless an interesting viewing. While it was completely unnecessary, especially with Bando's amazing performance which I'll talk about in a sec, I thought the 'dialouge' was fairly interesting and kind of answered if the dialouge was actually written for those scenes or if the actors just went off a description. I hated the editorializing for the most part, but during the action scenes they seemed to add energy to the space in a go-go-power rangers sort of way.
Going back to Bando the film rests entirely on him and he manages to make every movement work. This is really a performance that you almost never see in action movies.He managed to give a full range of emotions without ever changing his face. Especially during the ending it looked like he was wearing a mask the whole time, like the stress of the events made the character into a ghost.

SpoilerShow

The character completely sold me too. The way he evolves over the course of the film is entirely natural and very sad. The moment that most powerfully sold me to that is of course the last decision he ever makes. I think it speaks volumes on the part of the director and writer that he doesn't immediately reach for his sword. He first asks and begs, even throwing away his pride in those offers to save the girl. He never answers with violence and when he has to its always this mournful thing. Not a new discovery for those who've watched it, but I think for a moral standpoint at least this makes Orochi one of the best action films ever. Of course this does come into question for the character, not the creators who manage to stay separate, with the almost rape scene by the hero. It definitely leads to the question if by saving this other girl who had spurned him does that make up for the fact that he condoned the kidnapping and nearly raped this other girl he lusted after. I think the creators treat it as a karmic trade off, though even than we see him slide again with the accidental murder of the policeman. As for me I don't think it's a trade off at all, but it does prevent him from becoming a villain. The ending helps a lot in this regard because it shows that he's slide into a place that he needs assistance out of, but society is unwilling to through him that rope. For a bad man to become good again he needs that rope. Also the last shot, shots really, reminded me of the ending to Fantasia and gave me a similar effect of even though light has turned to darkness night will fall again soon.

This was such a good experience that I'm demanding everyone who hasn't seen it to watch it. I only regret I can only afford one of these a year now that I've experienced it.

Finally does anyone know where I can find A Page of Madness? That looks particularly excellent.

[Tommaso]

Well, in the pre-20s list-making I reserved #50 on my list for a film that obviously wasn't too important, but so hilarious and enjoyable that I thought it simply had to be on it (Abel Gance's "La Folie du Docteur Tube"). Now it seems I have found the same for the 20s list.

So, Ladies and Gentlemaniacs, welcome to the world of crime, wild animals, stunts and sensations, and Germany's first ever action hero: HARRY PIEL!

Was ist los im Zirkus Beely? (1927) seems to be one of the very few (perhaps the only?) of the silent films made by Harry Piel that survive in a relatively completely form today. The man was one of Germany's most successful popular actors and directors in the 10s and 20s, and while this film apparently isn't even among his most 'sensational', it's utterly enjoyable nevertheless. Piel (named Peel here) gets a phone call from a friend just before this friend is murdered, and the traces lead to the Beely circus which is just about to be re-opened. While the police suspect Piel of the murder of his friend, our hero makes his way into the circus as a performer, trying to solve the sinister murder case on his own. While doing this, he has to fight lions and tigers, escape being pressed to death by a moveable stage floor, undergo dangerous fights with the criminals and do some risky stunts under the circus dome. In the process, he can make fun of the police who is always two steps behind his own investigations...

Absolutely gorgeous pulp, and highly entertaining indeed. Imagine a mix of Feuillade and James Bond, and you have a rough idea. More details can also be found at Herr Graf Ferdinand von Galitzien's blog. Shown by arte some years ago in a beautifully restored print. It's absolutely beyond me why this isn't out on dvd...

So, #50 it must be.

[Michael Kerpan]

No adequate release of Page of Madness (none that uses the best availabe source) -- only inadequate "non-commercial" versions.