Sir Arne's Treasure (Mauritz Stiller, 1919)

[Michael]

Once a while a movie blows me away so hard that I couldn't find my way back. Sir Arne's Treasure is no exception. My initial impression of the film without looking it up was that it was a cousin of Robin Hood and such. Boy, how wrong I was. It turned out to be one of the most exquisitely crafted films ever - so wonderfully gloomy and chilly that makes the gravity and gloom of Satantango and Winter Light a baby sigh. I can't even articulate why this film hit me the way it did. It hit me really hard.

Images of raw winterscapes burn themselves so hard in my mind. And more and more images kept burning and burning. Arne's is truly ghostly in image and feeling.. the textures and details, every wart and crack and all, are stunning.

Imagine yourself living all alone in the middle of an icy lake. This is how the film made me feel all the way through. You want so badly for a cup of hot cocoa.

I'm sitting here still stunned by that movie I saw a few days ago.

If you're a skeptic of the film like I was, then don't, please don't, miss out on this complete revelation. Don't be shocked if you find it sailing up to my top ten in the future.

PS Not knowing much about the history of Santa Claus and his costume, does the Santa costume that we know of today here in the US originate in Sweden? Because the fellas in the film seem to come straight out of North Pole.

[HerrSchreck]

Hah hah, yea I noted the Klaus hats as well when they're on the run disguised as tanners.

Yes, all the Xmas tradition-- sleigh rides w reindeer, the bells on the sleds, and the style of habidashery are all patently scandinavian. For the full deal on Klaus etc and the Nordic tradition, you could find that pretty easy on the web.

[zedz]

There's more where this film came from. I trust you'll be checking out the other Kino Stillers. I'm actually more of a fan of his comedies (the few I've seen), but that doesn't detract from the sheer, grim brilliance of Sir Arne's Treasure. Sjostrom's work of the period is up there too, my favourite being The Outlaw and His Wife, which has similarly wonderful use of locations. The Phantom Carriage is his best-known, it's on the release horizon, and it's magnificent, but I find it less surprising (Griffith goes German?)

Sir Arne's Treasure (along with Phantom Carriage) used to be a no-brainer for all-time-greatest lists, an inevitable inclusion along with Metropolis, Caligari and The Last Laugh (yes, that canonical). Its fall in critical fortune shows just how arbitrary (and fashion- / availability-sensitive) these canons can be.

[HerrSchreck]

I think the fall you mentioned is mostly a result of it's inaccessibility in the video age (as opposed to arbitrary winds.. which do indeed on the other hand play into any listmaking enterprise based on taste of course) to introduce it to a new generation, whereas the other films you mentioned always saw their countries of origin (or the US) getting "restored" versions out there in some form or another. I can recall seeing terribly deteriorated truncated Grapevine type tapes of ARNE that looked like rat snot and blew the sublime atmospherics of the film completely thru the window. Nothing can compare to seeing the fully restored cut of the film with the tinting schematic recovered.

That said I think zedz is exaggerating juuuuuust a bit to make his point (which is a valid one nonetheless): yes the film was heavily lauded back a generation or two, and yes it made a number of prestigious top ten lists... but I'd hesitate to put its international prestige in the canonical rank of METROPOLIS - LETZE MANN - POTEMKIN, for the simple fact that... it's just not that canonical. It never was, which is why it fell off the radar, and the present day generation of cineastes in general don't know what the hell it is, and think its a pirate adventure like Mike did. It was often overshadowed by stuff like GOSTA BERLING (for obvious-- read Garbo, as well as its length, and we know how "size matters" in some minds!-- reasons) which imho opinion, despite the wintry locations, naturalistic acting, script by the same author, is not anywhere near as poetic and deeply sublime as ARNE. It would be overshadowed by Sjostrom's films as well-- KORKARLEN (COACH), THE WIND, HE WHO GETS SLAPPED-- none of which hold a candle to the recovered ARNE.

Nor does Stillers own EROTIKON, despite some wonderful cosmopolitan location shooting around Stockholm and sophisticated romantic (and gender) humor and risque menage blueprint which had such a profound effect on Lubitsch just prior to his emigration to Hollywood.

Even now, with the film having been recovered and in circulation for a few years, you rarely hear the film talked about in canonical terms like CALIGARI NOSFERATU etc etc. There's just not the forests of ink wasted on books and articles about this man and his films, that you'll find on the rest of the canon.

[zedz]

That said I think zedz is exaggerating juuuuuust a bit to make his point (which is a valid one nonetheless): yes the film was heavily lauded back a generation or two, and yes it made a number of prestigious top ten lists... but I'd hesitate to put its international prestige in the canonical rank of METROPOLIS - LETZE MANN - POTEMKIN, for the simple fact that... it's just not that canonical.

Yeah, probably. It didn't rank quite as high as those, but any decent-sized 'authoritative' History of Cinema list I've seen pre-1980 never fails to mention this or Korkalen. Not Gosta, though, but that one seems to have survived into the later collective subconscious better, probably owing to the Garbo factor.

For the record, I'd argue that He Who Gets Slapped, at least, holds a candle to this Stiller, though they're completely different kinds of films. Has anybody ever seen any of Stiller's American films? I know it was a troubled transition for him, but the guy had talent to burn.

[Michael]

Caligari, Nosferatu, The Last Laugh, Metropolis, Potemkin - all the canons mentioned here - I first learned about when I was young back in the 70s and 80s. But I NEVER heard a word about Arne's till zedz mentioned about it for the Lists Project here. I was not convinced to check it out till HerrSchreck brought my attention back to it with his top ten. After being blown away by his picks, Menilmontant and Usher, I thought "lets go for Arne's next". Arne's punched everything out of my body, making me realize where the hell I've been. Now I need to check The Scarlet Empress, another Schreck fave (rated a step above Arne's), but Netflix keeps forgetting to stock it.

[zedz]

Caligari, Nosferatu, The Last Laugh, Metropolis, Potemkin - all the canons mentioned here - I first learned about when I was young back in the 70s and 80s. But I NEVER heard a word about Arne's till zedz mentioned about it for the Lists Project here.

In my parallel universe, I first heard about the film in the mid-80s in a very serviceable "100 Best Films" volume - still one of the best of its kind I'd encountered (I wonder where it is now?), compiled from multiple critics' submissions and very much a canon of canons, with only a few eccentricities (e.g. then-new Heimat and Herzog's Signs of Life, both of which I agree with anyway). In the intensive film-book phase that ensued, I came across it again and again, particularly in older (60s or earlier) film-history volumes (always, inevitably, paired with Korkalen), so by the time I finally got a chance to see them both in the early 90s they were very highly anticipated (I drove 8 hours to see some great 35mm prints). As noted, at the time both were overshadowed by the surrounding films (Love and Journalism, Erotikon, The Outlaw and His Wife), and ever since I've been desperate to see more Scandinavian films from the period - they were ridiculously ahead of the curve.

[HerrSchreck]

Michael, I wouldnt let david hare find out you've never seen THE SCARLET EMPRESS-- he might fly over to the west coast and beat you over the head with flix or flox.

Wow man, by the time you're done w these films, you'll be reduced to some kind of gelatinous substance that your dude is going to hafta piece back together bit by bit-- wait until you get a load of EMPRESS! Have you seen DEVIL IZZA yet?

EDIT: z, I'd definitely agree SLAPPED is one of the better results of the emigration (that frickin depleted Sweden and left it a wasted husk of it's former pioneering self) to Hollywood of the Scandinavian core, but I've never seen THE SCARLET LETTER. And definitely a superior Chaney from this period, seeing him well-directed and restrained from chewy gestures.

I was always under the impression that Stiller did almost nothing in Hollywood beyond one or two pics... He came in approx 1925 after GOSTA: I know he got sole credit for HOTEL IMPERIAL & BARBED WIRE, TEMPTRESS w Garbo had to be finished by Fred Niblo due to fights w mgm, and was back in Sweden by 1927, and before 28 was up the man was dead (his irascibility in the US probably heightened by his undisclosed illness which he didnt even realize he was suffering from). But he just didnt click in the studio system, whereas Sjostrom seemed to thrive being more extrovert type and leaning on the expat community for support. Stiller had more biting a personality apparently and just didn't click out there. Perhaps if he didnt get so sick (and die) he could have at least found his way like Lang in Hollywood, learning to get by, or revivified the Scandinavian scene which by that time was moribund and could certainly have welcomed him back if for no other than purely financial reasons.

A major tragedy of the Paul Leni/FW Murnau stripe.

[Michael]

Have you seen DEVIL IZZA yet?

The Devil is a Woman? If so, no I haven't seen that one yet. The only Sternberg films I've seen are The Blue Angel and Blonde Venus. The reasons why I've been postponing watching The Scarlet Empress: 1) not available on Netflix 2) not wanting to buy the DVD after reading complaints of CC's poor transfer.

[HerrSchreck]

1) You should buy the CC EMPRESS for two reasons-- one, it's not likely to be superceded in R1 by Universal (unless you want to buy the gigantic set in R2)... and two because the CC is not all that bad, there's just some grain in excess, and it's framed more properly than the R2 (and it has a magnificent very rare extra w von Sternberg being interviewed and setting up a "sternbergian" shot for a young Kevin Brownlow and the BBC). As a lower tier CC it's worth it for the extra alone, not to mention one of the very best films in the collection. It's not like it'smissing footage or damaged.

For less than 20 bucks you should grab the R1 MARLENE DIETRICH Glamour Collection (unless, again, you're going to buy the R2 superduper collection which includes SHANGHAI EXP, which I suspect is going to be announced soon by CC.. just a hunch)-- it gets you MORoCCO, VENUS, DEVIL IZZA, plus GOLDEN EARRING & FLAME of NEW ORL (I could live with out the last title, but the other four are mandatory for any cineaste). Hugely worth it just for the Sternbergs alone.

[Matt]

And not to imply that you have a one-track mind, Michael, but here's a tip that may get you to spring for the Dietrich Glamour Collection in addition to Herr S's recommendation: Gary Cooper was never hotter than in Morocco.

[Tommaso]

Let me speak up a little for the Universal "Empress". I haven't seen the CC version, but the framing on the Universal isn't really distracting (though the Beaver comparison reveals that indeed something is missing). What the Beaver also reveals is that the CC seems to be far darker. Can you really clearly detect the women on that torture device in the CC (cap 3)? No; so in other words: greyscale and contrast is much more natural apparently on the Universal. The film looks wonderfully smooth and clear here, on a par with all the good releases of early 30s films from WB, for example. And the Universal IS available on its own: the French disc seems to be gone, but exactly the same disc with slightly different cover can still be had in Holland (and dead cheap on ebay). I suppose all the other films in the Universal Dietrich collection are available as stand-alones from the Dutch, too.

And the film of course is an incredible masterpiece. At least the set design is; I'd rate it even higher than the somewhat comparable "Ivan The Terrible" in this respect.

Briefly about "Sir Arne"/Stiller: I'd also say that this should belong to the 'canon' and it is certainly by far the most impressive of the three Stillers available. I just wonder why "Erotikon" is so little praised. I found that a totally enjoyable, well-played early comedy that even reminded me a little of what Lubitsch perfected a little later. And that scene in the opera house also has some rather amazing stage designs. "Gösta", which I watched last of the three films, was indeed a let-down (though it features a marvellous Garbo). I wonder why Stiller was able to deliver such a painfully slow-going and visually often fully conventional film after he made such masterpieces as "Sir Arne". It's better than "Gone with the wind" (why am I always reminded of that one here?), but it can be equally painful.

[Danny Burk]

I'd agree with the comments here on SCARLET EMPRESS. The main thing is, you've GOT to see it. And SOON! Wait till you see what you've been missing. It and DEVIL are absolutely my two all-time favorite films. The photography, sets, lighting..all are ravishing beyond belief, not to mention the many quirky touches and, in EMPRESS, a lot that went over apparently blind censors' heads.

Yes, the Criterion is grainy. I've also got the French DVD; it is less grainy and has better tonality; I prefer it of the two. But as Herr Schreck mentioned, the Crit is worth getting for the bonus JvS docu. Very unfortunate that Universal simply supplied their usual preprint to Criterion for the release; all of the old versions, including original 16mm prints, look the same. UCLA has what's supposed to be a glorious restoration (I've never seen it) that really should have been used instead of the grainy Universal-supplied preprint.

[Michael]

Ok ok. I will devote myself to watching the Dietrich Glamour Collection and Scarlet Empress next two weeks.

[Via_Chicago]

I just watched this, and came into it utterly ignorant of early Swedish silents (not counting Sjostrom's The Wind, which is pretty great in its own right), save for Sjostrom's Ingeborg Holm. Of course, with that as my frame of reference, the two films felt like absolute night and day in terms of style. By 1919, gone were the long takes of Sjostrom circa 1913-1914, and in were astonishing camera movements, an utterly unhinged mise-en-scene (really, I felt, the most remarkable aspect of Arne), and location shooting. Again, I don't know how indicative Arne is of Swedish filmmaking around 1919-1920, but it certainly felt loads different from what I know of Swedish cinema in the early narrative years.

There was a moment early in Arne, when the camera tracks through a prison corridor, that my mouth dropped open and everything became abundantly clear. There is something about camera movement in silent cinema, perhaps a combination of low fps and the total underuse of movement in general, that creates a feeling of otherworldliness and strangeness. It transports the viewer, and here, Stiller creates a totally alien, foreign, frozen wasteland that is as much a factor of the film's location shooting as it is of Stiller's mise-en-scene.

And this mise-en-scene, everything from how Stiller uses the frame, his montage, and his camera movement, contributes to the film's tone in a way few other silents do, at least outside of Murnau, Lang, and Griffith (and other giants). In some ways, Stiller not only anticipates German Kammerpsiel, but he takes the best elements of Griffith's montage (particularly Griffith's ability to create tension in cutting rhythms), and adds his own Scandanavian sensibility to create a cinema purely his own. Arne seems to exist within its own cinematic world and its own cinematic terms. A masterpiece.

As to the Kino disc, this is some of their best work. A fine transfer with one of their best silent scores (that seemed to draw on Scandanavian music - reminiscent to these ears of Iceland's Sigur Ros - as well as of the French Impressionists, especially the work of Erik Satie). Some fine special features as well. Totally worth the buy.

In my parallel universe, I first heard about the film in the mid-80s in a very serviceable "100 Best Films" volume - still one of the best of its kind I'd encountered (I wonder where it is now?), compiled from multiple critics' submissions and very much a canon of canons, with only a few eccentricities (e.g. then-new Heimat and Herzog's Signs of Life, both of which I agree with anyway).

I think you're thinking of this list by John Kobal. There must be a mention of Stiller somewhere in the book, but no films by Stiller show up in the final 100.

[GringoTex]

I also checked this out on Shreck's recommendation. The mise-en-scene is a good 5 years ahead of its time (in a period of cinema in which innovation can be measured by months). Acts 3.5-5.5 are lousy story construction, but 24 hours after viewing it, that no longer mattered. It's a masterpiece of mood, and that's all I now remember.

[zedz]

In my parallel universe, I first heard about the film in the mid-80s in a very serviceable "100 Best Films" volume - still one of the best of its kind I'd encountered (I wonder where it is now?), compiled from multiple critics' submissions and very much a canon of canons, with only a few eccentricities (e.g. then-new Heimat and Herzog's Signs of Life, both of which I agree with anyway).

I think you're thinking of this list by John Kobal. There must be a mention of Stiller somewhere in the book, but no films by Stiller show up in the final 100.

I was thinking of that book, so thanks for linking the list. (Moonfleet is another intriguing inclusion.) I guess the Stiller and Sjostrom must have been in another 'Best 100' list I discovered around the same time. I think it was Italian in origin, compiled in the 70s, and its token Oshima was The Ceremony. Or maybe I really am delusional. It's entirely possible.

[SoyCuba]

I just watched this for the first time and... Just WOW! This is an amazing movie, and when I tried to compare it to something else I've seen I just didn't find anything to compare it with. The closest thing I could come up with was SATANTANGO which is at least somewhat similar in mood and also achieves the strong feeling attached to place and weather. The plot in both cases are also a bit Shakespearean. And even SATANTANGO is hugely different as it's completely missing the supernatural elements (well, nearly anyway as there is the almost humorous moment with the fog), the themes are entirely different and the ending is obviously completely different in tone. Ok, so I haven't seen THE PHANTOM CARRIAGE yet (I will watch it this week) or many other Swedish silents and don't know how it compares to them. Also, now that think of it, I believe Thomas Vinterberg might have been trying to achieve something like this for IT'S ALL ABOUT LOVE, which I found a failure though.

This will definitely make it into my top10.

[Erikht]

I have just watched "Sir Arne's Treasure", as well as "Körkarlen" and "Häxan" last week. I must say I am rather taken with them. Good luck I still got three films left in the Boxed set from Swedish Film Institute (well, 4 actually, as "Peter the Tramp" (1922, 100 minutes) are listed as extra on the "Gösta Berlin" Disc.

I would think that one of the reasons for "Gösta Berling"s prpredominances the quality of the book, as it is one of Lagerlöf's best known (and best) novels.

[Yojimbo]

I just watched this for the first time and... Just WOW! This is an amazing movie, and when I tried to compare it to something else I've seen I just didn't find anything to compare it with. The closest thing I could come up with was SATANTANGO which is at least somewhat similar in mood and also achieves the strong feeling attached to place and weather. The plot in both cases are also a bit Shakespearean. And even SATANTANGO is hugely different as it's completely missing the supernatural elements (well, nearly anyway as there is the almost humorous moment with the fog), the themes are entirely different and the ending is obviously completely different in tone. Ok, so I haven't seen THE PHANTOM CARRIAGE yet (I will watch it this week) or many other Swedish silents and don't know how it compares to them. Also, now that think of it, I believe Thomas Vinterberg might have been trying to achieve something like this for IT'S ALL ABOUT LOVE, which I found a failure though.

This will definitely make it into my top10.

I probably have the DVD over two years now, and still haven't gotten around to watching it yet.
But your comparing it to 'SATANTANGO ' has just made me leapfrog it towards the front of the ever-increasing queue!

[Saturnome]

I could have sweared I posted here, I saw the film more than a year ago and truly loved it, though I remember being confused at some time in the ending and I'll agree with GringoTex with the lousy story construction at some point.

[Erikht]

Well, I liked Gösta Berlings saga. If anything, it could have been longer. But it did strike me that this film was made by people who knew the book well, and they probably had an audience with at least a nodding aquaintance with the book in mind when they made it. I do see that today it would have lost some of it's charm outside of Scandinavia.

Some of the scenes were very well shot, though. The chasing scene, with Don Juan running wild with the wolfes after is great. But then, it is very well written too, almost with the words making heartbeats when you read.

[MichaelB]

Now that's just sadism, reviving this thread. I could have seen Sir Arne's Treasure with live music at the Wroclaw Opera ten days ago, but I didn't buy a ticket as it was sold out and the organisers didn't tell me that they'd reserved one for me until I bumped into one of them afterwards and she asked me why I hadn't picked it up.