criterionforum.org

Trying to get my list into sort of a final shape, just watched You Only Live Once-

It's definitely not my favorite Lang of the thirties, and may be the only one I've seen that won't make my list. As with Port of Shadows, it felt like the ironic turnabouts were all too pat, too neatly balanced to feel real- and as with Blonde Venus, it made its point so thoroughly that it almost felt sadistic. I can't deny that it's a movie with a lot of power, and one animated by righteous and extraordinary anger- somewhere between Brute Force and Fury- but as with Blonde Venus, it has some extraordinary work by the same filmmaker to compete with.

It's fascinating as a precursor to all kinds of lovers on the run movies, though- the last half hour predicts Ray's They Live By Night, and all the movies in that line of descent (Breathless, Bonnie and Clyde, Thieves Like Us, etc.)- and while it feels a bit manipulative in a way Lang's movies rarely do, I can't deny that I was manipulated successfully. It's possible that I would come around on this one if I gave it some time, as I think this is a case where I don't want to rank the movie because I'm angry at it, not because it's weak.

(It was definitely nice to see Lang's expressionism pop out during some of the shots in the prison- I'm not sure that there are many shots in Lang's American period more remarkable than ones that appear throughout the second act of this movie.)

Oddly enough You Only Live Once is my highest ranking Lang, and my favorite Lang overall. Though I think M is a better film, I enjoy You Only Live Once more. In part it is because I am a sucker for Henry Fonda and I adore Sylvia Sidney, whilst I am also a big fan of the archetype of the Bonnie and Clyde sort of story, if I get motivated to do the 1950's list, Gun Crazy will be placing very high.

I agree that the film is a bit manipulative, but any movie that contains close-ups of Sylvia Sidney looking sad can be called manipulative. I find it really fascinating how the film changes pace for the final section, with Fonda and Sidney on the run. Rather than have the typical montage of glamour and excitement of being on the run, the film jumps ahead and focuses entirely on capturing the decidedly unglamourous aspects of being on the run, namely scrounging for food and not being able to rest even for a second for fear of being caught. The sense of impending doom is never counteracted with any real sense of hope, which I think heightens the spiritual aspect of the ending, as the hope for these characters isn't in this life, but in the next. Freed from the baggage of the past, they can start again.

Another aspect of the film I enjoy is how rewatchable it is, I've seen the film probably seven or eight times and each time I notice something new each time, like how the prisoners he interacts with very briefly earlier in the film, end up being key later on in his escape attempt. The film has a lot of little details that make the film very rewarding.

I'm kind of in the same boat- for all that I love and respect M, I think both Testament of Dr. Mabuse and Fury rank above it for me- I can understand why M is the more universal classic, but the other two have a stronger personal connection.

As for You Only Live Once, I thought the title of the movie a cruel answer to the sense of hope that the end seems to raise, and a negation of the priest's beliefs- Lang's cynicism seems omnipresent, and it's hard to believe that he held out hope for much of anything. It's such a nasty movie, never allowing anyone more than a few moments of joy-

Spoiler

Fonda and Sidney's honeymoon is ruined by the asshole hotel proprietor, their joy in finding a house is cut short by Fonda getting fired, the should-be triumphant moment of discovering that his innocence has been proved is turned into one of the worst as Fonda finds out he's killed the priest at the same time, and as you say, even the high life on the lam skips past any expression of joy and into the cruel and unpleasant reality of staying alive on the fringes.

How could such a movie hold out hope for redemption?

I do wish I'd watched it earlier, as I think my feelings towards it might change on rewatching.

Finally as last tip

Germany

It's tempting to split the decade into two parts, Weimar and Nazi era, but that's debatable since the established genres continued throughout the decade. Of the 150 films I've seen roughly 30 I'd classify as listworthy. I assume that everyone knows M, Blue Angel and People on Sunday , and I hope that Westfront 1918, Liebelei and Mädchen in Uniform/Maidens in Uniform are still known well enough to be in everyone's viewing list, so here are the glorious lost masterpieces roughly sorted by quality from top to bottom though the bottom would probably crack my top 50 list.

Fährmann Maria/Ferryman Maria is arguably the knockout film of the decade, a unique blend of German romanticism, regional 'heimat' realism and national fantasy traditions. Frank Wysbar's direction plays like a cross between Lang's Der müde Tod and Dreyer's Vampyr, hardly a word is spoken for long parts. The leading lady is aptly Vampyr's Sybille Schmitz, a very unusual looking, brooding actress. The ability to make the most of atmosphere out of the smallest means is remarkable.

Morgen beginnt das Leben/Life Begins Tomorrow is probably the best film of directing genius Werner Hochbaum. It tells a very simple story, a man is released from prison, his girlfriend is supposed to meet him, but comes to late. The man begins to doubt her while searching in the city for her. It's difficult not to see much of the modernistic cinema of the 60/70s especially Antonioni's films or the lonely drifter films from Rafelson here. all based on acute observation of Berlinnese life. One of the most unusual films to be made during the Nazi reign and indeed not unappreciated by the critics since the regime wasn't unreceptive to avantgarde techniques, Riefenstahl's films are the best example.

Ich bei Tag und du bei Nacht/I by Day, You by Night is arguably the most rounded of the early German sound operettas and all the time ironically commenting on its own cliches via film clips of a far more stereotypical operetta. It belongs to the realistic Berlin tradition with a contemporary setting, a man and a woman sharing the same room for rent, one for the night the other for the day. Naturally they find the other tenant unlikeable judging from the traces each leaves, but meeting unknowingly in real life is another matter. With the charming couple Käthe von Nagy and Willy Fritsch and some joyfully silly songs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbYXInOnhuU" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, Ludwig Berger's film just breezes past you.

Der Kongreß tanzt/The Congress dances is the Viennese style counterpart, the only film by impressario Eric Charell with the dream couple Fritsch/Harvey. It's a rousingly filmed musical with elaborate sets and camera travellings and hit numbers which you hear whistled in every third Japanese film of the 30s. It's genuinely funny and cliche ridden in a good natured way but also gently melancholic as befits a Vienna film though it's completely a German production. The following song is the signature song of the whole genre http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZNKGCTy7l4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; , notice the endless camera travelling. Friedrich Hollaender's Ich und die Kaiserin is an intriguing companion piece in the same style.

Viktor und Viktoria is the best German comedy of the 30s (or any other decade) by comedy master director Reinhold Schünzel but out heroic subtitlers sometimes erratically dabble with Richard Oswald's oeuvre instead of making the most important films , so no subs for this classic. And it needs them because it is a blazingly fast comedy of errors whose plot is known from the Blake Edwards remake, alone the first sequence is a whirlwind of characters and situations. With two top stars of the era, Adolf Wohlbrück and Renate Müller, the latter singing the following lovely tune http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oP36hRFT ... re=related" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

Razzia in St. Pauli/Raid in St. Pauli the second Werner Hochbaum film, this one is from 1932 and it positively oozes milieu autheticity taking place in Hamburg. A thief climbs into the room of a prostitute (Gene Tierney lookalike Gina Falckenberg) and plans to escape with her. The film moves from modernistic city portrait to a study of Hamburg's local atmosphere ending up in a bar where you can almost smell the interiors. The third Hochbaum film Schleppzug M 17 features Heinrich George and Asphalt seductress Betty Amann in a story of a barge captain who falls for a young woman, plenty of atmosphere and locations here again. Hochbaum is THE unknown 30s director, while Schünzel's, Berger's and Wysbar's best films at least run or ran on German TV, Hochbaum is still a myth with a retrospective here and there every decade, but no penetration whatsoever into the national (or international) consciousness.

Das blaue Licht is even available on subtitled DVD but it shouldn't be forgotten in the shadows of Riefenstahl's more famous documentaries. It's arguably one of the best shot shot movies of the decade again using a legend like story of a grotto of stones which glistens blue across the mountains when the moon shines. Only a young girl knows the mystery of it. A very simple story, but like many of the German mountain films it's extremely impressive in their use of real locations (which is quite a relief betwen all these studio bound films of the era) and a poetical, mystical approach. The mountain film genre is the most genuinely national genre with uniquely German sensibilities. Another very impressive example on DVD more focussing on the survival of a lone man on the mountain is Arnold Fanck's Stürme über dem Montblanc/Storm over Mont Blanc relying even more on nature in its wildest, most dangerous frenzy and the battle against it.

Brennendes Geheimnis is my favorite of the early Siodmak's, a sensitive story of a young boy who is used by a dazzling gigolo in order to gain favour with his attractive mother. Not unlike The Fallen Idol this is one of the few classic films to take children seriously. Siodmak's moody Abschied and the wacky comedy Der Mann der seinen Mörder sucht also belong to the very best 30s German films.

Anna und Elisabeth is Wysbar's second eerie contribution telling the story of a young girl who seems to have raised her brother from the dead capturing the attention of an older ill woman who becomes dependent on her. The interaction between Dorothea Wieck and Hertha Thiele from Maidens in Uniform and the Dreyeresque direction makes for an unusually engrossing and intelligent reflection on miracles and the belief in supernatural powers.

Bel Ami is IMHO Willi Forst's best film of the 30s though others may prefer the witty comedy Maskerade directed with style and being a great international success. the Maupassant novel keeps up the high tempo and the fluid visual language, but adds layers of depth to the proceedings as a portrait of a society. And it has Lizzi Waldmüller singing the title song one of the many hits the era produced http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USRu1AIZcFw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Das Mädchen Irene/The Girl Irene is Schünzel's excursion into drama territory. It starts extremely stylish in high society and evolves surprisingly to a drama where the young daughter of a woman who wants to marry again refuses to accept the new father. Not only does Schünzel orchestrate the frenzy with visual flair using the expressive young acress Sabine Peters with her huge eyes, but he also manages to record an unforced natural behaviour between all family members, it plays like real life not the artificial youths of other films of the era.

Der brave Sünder/The Upright Sinner was a surprise, directed by theater legend Fritz Kortner who was a far better film director than is usually admitted. It's a visually inventive satire on the stuffy petite bourgeoisie with german comedy legend Heinz Rühmann in an supporting role. Rühmann's films often are cosy, modest affairs, but here and there some prove to be surprisingly engaging and interesting. Der Florentiner Hut an adaptation of the famous comedy An Italian Straw Hat that Rene Clair also filmed a decade earlier uses everything in the cinematic trick bag from the illustrated credits to an extensive subjective camera. No subs yet, though. Man braucht kein Geld also was a surprisingly interesting and witty comedy.

Der Student von Prag is well known from its first two incarnations, but gets a pretty radical reinterpretation here with the fantastic element being kept in doubt for the whole running time. Arthur Robison proves he hasn't lost his knack for eerie historical fantasy since Schatten 13 years earlier and Adolf Wohlbrück competes well with Wegener and Veidt.

Was Frauen träumen/What Women dream was another revelation for me. Director Geza von Bolvary directed some funny though not overly coherent comedies in the Weimar era and some glossy, fluid films during the Third Reich, no real masterpiece, so my expectations weren't too high. But it's a bloody stylish, elegant comedy-drama with Nora Gregor (from Regle du Jeu) as a compulsive jewel thief whom a man tries to save from doom while his friend a police detective (Peter Lorre) bumbles along and botches almost everything he touches. Subs are in the process of being written, but probably too late for international viewers.

Das Leben kann so schön sein is another unsual Nazi film showing a young couple who want to start a life on their own. But the money problems put pressure on the happiness and especially the man is woefully unable to master his problems until they break apart. No surprise that this was redoctored, one wonders how the script got past the censors. It features my favorite leading lady of the era, IIse Werner. The lack of subs takes it out of the competition I guess.

Finally Veit Harlan also left his mark on the decade. Verwehte Spuren has no subs yet, but it's the same chilling story as the British film So long at the Fair where an ill World Fair guest vanishes over night and all people deny to ever heard of her. The even better film is Die Reise nach Tilsit based on the same story as Sunrise though shot in a more realistical and psychological vein. I may be the only one preferring it to the Murnau version, but you can judge for yourself.

Finally it should be mentioned that Austria developed into a haven for international refugees who didn't wish to tangle with the Nazi regime. some impressive films were made there with local hero Willi Forst being the most prominent director, but Werner Hochbaum, Gustav Machaty and Pal Fejös shot quite remarkable films there, too. The latter's Sonnenstrahl, a romance of two people who try to commit suicide at the start of the film (he has to save her out of the water istead of going ahead with his own suicide) and fight back a way into life despite many setbacks, is my last recommendation in this post.

Just watched Shanghai Express- definitely going to make my list, though it lags behind both Scarlet Empress and The Devil is a Woman for me. I think I like the Von Sternberg/Dietrich collaborations in direct proportion to how much Dietrich controls everything within the movie, and though she is wonderfully and elegantly herself in this one, she is once again shackled to a man who isn't worthy of her (though less badly than in, say, Blonde Venus.)

Despite that, though, it's an amazing movie- it felt something like Stagecoach and The Lady Vanishes, a party of unfamiliar people thrown together by their means of transportation, with constantly shifting relationships within the group and a sense a lot of them aren't who they pretend to be, both to themselves and others. Though I have political problems with the borderline Fu Manchu characterization of the rebel leader, I can't otherwise fault the plot, and I enjoyed the prominence and power given to Anna May Wong's character- it's a lot of fun, as both the movies it resembles are, in part because it offers such a good field to entertaining character actors (here, frequent MVP Eugene Pallette steals the show.)

I really liked how much strength Marlene got to show here- I'm generally annoyed at plots that hinge on one character refusing to explain the seemingly compromising situation in which they were found, but here it seems not only plausible but actually laudatory;

Spoiler

I was enough on Dietrich's side that I didn't particularly want her to make amends with Doc, whose curt dickishness seemed to reinforce the notion that he was an unworthy object of her affection. The "I would have done it for anybody" line that she throws back in his face, in particular, almost made me cheer, as did Wong knifing the rebel leader, which gave her a position of strength perhaps even greater than Dietrich's, as she kills him entirely for her own reasons.

It's an interesting comparison to Stagecoach, particularly in the gender politics, which are much more progressive here, though subtly so- the Dallas analogues do not need to be made Madonnas to be redeemed, nor for that matter, particularly need redemption at all. Moreover, they are the prime movers, while nearly all of the men (including Doc) are more likely to be acted upon than to act- again, Wong's character in particular stands out.

Spoiler

Her role could easily enough have been another inscrutable Oriental, a sort of dangerous savage character who is capable of murder because she's not civilized enough for ladylike passivity, but she isn't played that way- though she is obviously a dangerous woman, we never feel as though her actions are inexplicable, or even questionable- she, like Dietrich here and elsewhere, does only what she needs to do.

Though it won't top my list, it will certainly be there. I've come around a bit on Blonde Venus, in part because it has yet to leave my head- so von Sternberg is up to four titles for me, more than any other director. It's not something that worries me.

matrixschmatrix wrote:I was totally on board with the ending this time, too- the whole thing about how fucking with them is dangerous, and how they defend one another, is reinforced repeatedly throughout, and the mood felt less 'suddenly the characters we like are monsters' and more 'the characters we like enact fairly justified retribution for being a horrible person.'

I just watched FREAKS for the first time in about a decade (and the last time I saw it, the distributor accidentally sent a print dubbed in French), and have a similar view. I can see how the ending sequence, taken on its own, turns the freaks into horror monsters. But even if the film suggests that the freaks do vile things, it says that other people's cruel treatment makes them that way. And as a cinematic experience, it creates a chill by first becoming intimate with the personal side of the characters, then showing them in this brooding horror sequence as they set forth to defend their friend and enact revenge.

It's a little problematic, but ultimately it works.

I just watched Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde- I can see why it's a beloved movie, as the performances, camerawork, and particularly the makeup effects were all fairly remarkable, but there's something about the plot that just seems creakily Victorian- and it's not well reconstructed in the movie.

The message seems primarily to be that there's a monster hiding in everyone who must be stamped upon and forced down at all times, lest it consume everything. Hyde is not merely Jekyll's impulses unleashed- there is nothing good about him, no whereas Jekyll is full of impulsive decency- nor is there any compensating angel to represent some kind of balance. It doesn't feel particularly as though Hyde is Jekyll's true self, the man he longed but would not allow himself to be- he's merely the mirror image in every way. It's hard to see anything alluring in that.

There's an implication that it's the General's stupid conformity that pushes Jekyll to turn himself into Hyde in the first place, and there we see a bit of "Hyde is the man Jekyll will not allow himself to be"- but it doesn't feel well followed through upon, and the sense that Jekyll is a slavering sex monster who could only be properly sated through marriage just makes the thing feel more Victorian still (or like a Twilight novel.)

As I said, there's a lot to recommend the movie- the way the camera moves would be remarkable for any era, but seems still more remarkable for something made the same year as Dracula- and I think most of my issues with it are inherent to the source material (I think the only version of the Jekyll/Hyde duality was Alan Moore's highly revisionist take, which may have colored my perception of the whole thing.)

lubitsch wrote:
It's tempting to split the decade into two parts, Weimar and Nazi era, but that's debatable since the established genres continued throughout the decade.

Right, the split occurs somewhere around 1938, with the remaining major directors of the Weimar era having either left the country (Wysbar, Schünzel) or heading for the their last works (Fanck, Hochbaum); same for the actors and actresses, with for instance Lilian Harvey ending her German career or Renate Müller being dead, and new and far more conventional players like Marika Rökk, Zarah Leander or (heavens...) Jopi Heesters beginning to emerge. There's really a change in style and - with some notable exceptions - a general loss in quality in the films made in the second half of the Third Reich, which means that for the 40s list I will have far fewer German films on the list. Thankfully the Austrians kept on a little better in the 40s with Forst and Bolvary, but that's another story.

lubitsch wrote: Viktor und Viktoria is the best German comedy of the 30s (or any other decade) by comedy master director Reinhold Schünzel but out heroic subtitlers sometimes erratically dabble with Richard Oswald's oeuvre instead of making the most important films , so no subs for this classic.

What this film really needs are German subs, as this is probably the most deplorable victim of FWMS' attempt at 'audio restoration'. After the Stiftung applied their noise filters, the dialogue has become almost unintelligible even for German speakers, and sitting through this indeed remarkable film is somewhat of a chore now. So unless someone unearths an age-old TV recording of this and manages to combine the audio with the image of the current dvd (which may prove difficult due to all sorts of factors), the chances for someone subbing this seem pretty low to me.

lubitsch wrote: Bel Ami is IMHO Willi Forst's best film of the 30s though others may prefer the witty comedy Maskerade directed with style and being a great international success. the Maupassant novel keeps up the high tempo and the fluid visual language, but adds layers of depth to the proceedings as a portrait of a society. And it has Lizzi Waldmüller singing the title song one of the many hits the era produced http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USRu1AIZcFw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Forst made so many great films during the decade (and the following one) as a director and as an actor that it's really hard to pick only one; so if someone votes for Bel Ami, I won't have an argument about that, even though this film has always struck me as a little too cold and clever. At least it has the advantage over Maskerade to have Forst in the role of both main actor and director, but the same would go for the little known Ich bin Sebastian Ott, a much 'smaller' film, but one of his most thoughtful and complex. Unfortunately that one won't be subbed until the end of the voting period, but those who understand German might nevertheless seek out this little masterpiece.

lubitsch wrote: Finally Veit Harlan also left his mark on the decade. Verwehte Spuren has no subs yet, but it's the same chilling story as the British film So long at the Fair where an ill World Fair guest vanishes over night and all people deny to ever heard of her. The even better film is Die Reise nach Tilsit based on the same story as Sunrise though shot in a more realistical and psychological vein. I may be the only one preferring it to the Murnau version, but you can judge for yourself.

Yes, both should be seen, even though I won't have any Harlan on my list for this decade. Too many other films, and after all, I need at least a few German films from the 40s for the next list, and so I'll keep Harlan for that.

The message seems primarily to be that there's a monster hiding in everyone who must be stamped upon and forced down at all times, lest it consume everything. Hyde is not merely Jekyll's impulses unleashed- there is nothing good about him, no whereas Jekyll is full of impulsive decency- nor is there any compensating angel to represent some kind of balance. It doesn't feel particularly as though Hyde is Jekyll's true self, the man he longed but would not allow himself to be- he's merely the mirror image in every way. It's hard to see anything alluring in that.

Hyde isn't the true self of Jekyll, but the manifestation of all that's bad in him. The message isn't so much that this monster in everyone must be stomped, but that by attempting to erradicate it entirely (as Victorian society pushed its members to do) one is doomed to be overtaken by it. Jekyll explains this all in his lecture at the beginning, when he proposes that everyone has two sides all mixed up within them. His potion's aim is to divide the two sides, with the idea being that the moral superiority of the good side will obviously defeat and contain the evil side. And of course the opposite happens and Jekyll becomes addicted.

The crux of the story isn't that bad must be defeated lest it swallow us, but rather that the effort to contain those bad desires will corrupt the good if they are not occasionally let out. Which is why the marriage is so mooted, not just because Jekyll is a sex monster, but because it's the only place where he can fulfill those desires in a way society will accept. It's very much criticizing the society of the era (both the novel's and the 1930s of the film) for refusing to accept this 'badness' in any form.

I'm much more inclined to treat Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (book included) as an interesting fantasy rather than a message movie. As message movie, you can kind of shrug your shoulders at its commonplace ideas; as a fantasy, it's a very absorbing story of a man who accidentally taps into a source of pure evil and becomes increasingly powerless to stop it from taking him over. It's a good story to tell, rather like The Invisible Man, or Dorian Grey, even, another movie that gets taken for having a message but is better approached as an interesting story to work through.

That said, if I had to find a message in it, Shrew's version seems more likely, although you can pick holes in it, too, because in the end the story doesn't try to be a coherent depiction of good and evil.

What I love about the March movie is how much of it doesn't feel Victorian. Hyde's abusive relationship with the prostitute feels as modern as any depiction of an abusive relationship. It's ugly, degrading, and a bit tough to sit through. Hyde's evils are banal in a way that makes them all the more unpleasant, because if they were grandiose they would feel at a distance rather than uncomfortably close.

Mr Sausage wrote:What I love about the March movie is how much of it doesn't feel Victorian. Hyde's abusive relationship with the prostitute feels as modern as any depiction of an abusive relationship. It's ugly, degrading, and a bit tough to sit through. Hyde's evils are banal in a way that makes them all the more unpleasant, because if they were grandiose they would feel at a distance rather than uncomfortably close.

It doesn't seem like something the Victorians liked to talk about, but it does feel like an aspect of Victorian relationships- if you read the Sherlock Holmes stories, for instance, the physically violent beast husband comes up more than once (generally as part of Conan Doyle's crusade to legalize divorce.) What felt Victorian about the depiction is that there's nothing attractive about Hyde, not to anybody- if there were a dark allure to him, both Jekyll's addiction to becoming him and the arc of his relationship with the prostitute would feel more real to me.

If you want to look at it in Freudian terms (which I normally don't care for, but the narrative really does cry out for it), Hyde is pure ego- it's difficult for me to accept Shrew's take, because the manifestation of 'evil' in him is so bound up with a willingness to act on impulse, and to be 'bestial'. The conflation of those things- the idea that all things associated with the body and nature are evil, and that all things associated with the soul and purity are good- is what I see as one of the key beliefs of the Victorian mindset. I can't agree with Shrew that the movie argues that the best way to deal with the demon id is to let it out- that's why Jekyll believes, and when he acts on it, he is destroyed.

For me the 30 s are a pretty weak decade. Only a few really great films, only a few really great directors if looked at from a modern point of view.

The best who worked continuously were imo:

Carne
Clair
Lubitsch
Renoir
von Sternberg
Hitchcock
Vigo
Ophüls

maybe also Wyler, Ford, Hawks, Curtiz, de Mille, Lang

matrixschmatrix wrote:I can't agree with Shrew that the movie argues that the best way to deal with the demon id is to let it out- that's why Jekyll believes, and when he acts on it, he is destroyed.

Well, again, I don't think the movie argues anything, personally, and I think it's a mistake to go looking in it for coherent ideas about the nature of good and evil. It's not a film (or book) of ideas. The sooner you drop your search for a convenient explanatory summary, the sooner you'll be able to enjoy what the movie is actually doing. You have to admit, all your troubles have come from not yet finding a satisfactory verbal reduction of the thing.

matrixschmatrix wrote:It doesn't seem like something the Victorians liked to talk about, but it does feel like an aspect of Victorian relationships- if you read the Sherlock Holmes stories, for instance, the physically violent beast husband comes up more than once (generally as part of Conan Doyle's crusade to legalize divorce.)

Let's not pretend the physically violent husband is historically specific. However, it was open enough for discussion in the Victorian period for Emily Bronte to write about it in Wuthering Heights.

matrixschmatrix wrote:What felt Victorian about the depiction is that there's nothing attractive about Hyde, not to anybody- if there were a dark allure to him, both Jekyll's addiction to becoming him and the arc of his relationship with the prostitute would feel more real to me.

I don't know what's Victorian about that. It is, anyway, as it should be, because while Jekyll is not pure good, but a double mixture as it were, Hyde is pure and concentrated, without any dilution from Jekyll. It sounds like you want this movie to be the Nutty Professor. It's more unsettling, I find, for Hyde to be totally repulsive and yet to get everything he wants just through intimidation and force of will.

matrixschmatrix wrote:The conflation of those things- the idea that all things associated with the body and nature are evil, and that all things associated with the soul and purity are good- is what I see as one of the key beliefs of the Victorian mindset.

That's a centuries old Christian dichotomy, and is more central to the two-or-so centuries preceding the Victorian era (indeed, much of British Romanticism, which preceded Victorianism, was a reaction against this dichotomy).

Anyway, it's been a hundred years already, do we really need to continue trotting out the old Lytton Strachey caricature of Victorianism? Should we not get around to admitting that the Victorian era was considerably more interesting and complex than the summary dismissal of it as closeted and hypocritical (not strictly true) would have you believe? I mean, come on, this was the period in which Dante Gabriel Rossetti and Algernon Charles Swinburne were popular! Two poets who wrote almost exclusively about dark, consuming, destructive sexuality (50% of Swinburne's verse is about how much he enjoys being flogged!).

Here are my 4 spotlight films on megaupload for swos entry post (I'll upload the missing parts within the next 24 hours), you have to join three of them with hjsplit (free download). English subtitles are at subscene.com (Swo could you mention this source for the subs in the entry post? I don't know if everyone knows where to look for subs)

Razzia in St. Pauli
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=R6NXJAQB" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Fährmann Maria
Part 1 http://www.megaupload.com/?d=VIN1PU03" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Part 2 http://www.megaupload.com/?d=TBW8LIRV" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Morgen beginnt das Leben
Part 1 http://www.megaupload.com/?d=RZN99G7G" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Part 2 http://www.megaupload.com/?d=435GLR6M" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ich bei Tag und Du bei Nacht
Part 1 http://www.megaupload.com/?d=YCAJC32Y" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Part 2 http://www.megaupload.com/?d=LG64FIRZ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mr Sausage wrote:Well, again, I don't think the movie argues anything, personally, and I think it's a mistake to go looking in it for coherent ideas about the nature of good and evil. It's not a film (or book) of ideas. The sooner you drop your search for a convenient explanatory summary, the sooner you'll be able to enjoy what the movie is actually doing. You have to admit, all your troubles have come from not yet finding a satisfactory verbal reduction of the thing.

I don't think I do have to admit that- I think my troubles come from finding the story as told arbitrary and without particular internal logic- obviously, for the transformation to work as a story, it has to work psychologically or metaphorically or something, and I don't think it does.

Let's not pretend the physically violent husband is historically specific.

No, that wasn't the point that I was trying to make- I was saying that depiction is something that does not contradict the feeling of Victorianism, which was a claim you made.

It is, anyway, as it should be, because while Jekyll is not pure good, but a double mixture as it were, Hyde is pure and concentrated, without any dilution from Jekyll. It sounds like you want this movie to be the Nutty Professor. It's more unsettling, I find, for Hyde to be totally repulsive and yet to get everything he wants just through intimidation and force of will.

The problem is that if Hyde's totally unattractive, then I don't find him unsettling, because he doesn't feel real, nor like anything I can imagine being tempted to become. Why is Jekyll attracted to him? Moreover, why should anyone have a being of pure evil hiding in them? It's one thing if the idea is, as Jekyll claimed, that in letting the evil out the good becomes purified (and I would have enjoyed seeing how much more pure the already borderline sanctified Jekyll could have gotten), but as it stands it's difficult to see any real connection between Jekyll and Hyde beyond that they're played by the same actor.

That's a centuries old Christian dichotomy, and is more central to two or so centuries preceding the Victorian era (indeed, much of British Romanticism, which preceded Victorianism, was a reaction against this dichotomy).

Anyway, it's been a hundred years already, do we really need to continue trotting out the old Lytton Strachey caricature of Victorianism? Should we not get around to admitting that the Victorian era was considerably more interesting and complex than the summary dismissal of it as closeted and hypocritical (not strictly true) would have you believe? I mean, come on, this was the period in which Dante Gabriel Rossetti and Algernon Charles Swinburne were popular! Two poets who wrote almost exclusively about dark, consuming, destructive sexuality (50% of Swinburne's verse is about how much he enjoys being flogged!).

Well, I'll concede that the definition of 'Victorian' I'm using here comes out of Huxley's Point Counter Point and is probably unfair- my goal here isn't to attack the Victorians, but to attack that particular duality, which I hate. It's certainly one associated with the Victorians, but you're absolutely correct that it's not at all unique to them.

matrixschmatrix wrote:I don't think I do have to admit that- I think my troubles come from finding the story as told arbitrary and without particular internal logic- obviously, for the transformation to work as a story, it has to work psychologically or metaphorically or something, and I don't think it does.

Except it is arbitrary. A guy drinks a potion and becomes evil. It's magic, pretty much. It doesn't need any psychological or metaphorical value to work. As for a lack of internal logic, I don't remember any. I'm hazy on Jekyll's specific reasons for continuing his experiments, but it came across like stubbornness. He can't let it go until he proves his theories right, a trope that gets picked up and used over-and-over in the mad scientist movies of the thirties and forties.

matrixschmatrix wrote:No, that wasn't the point that I was trying to make- I was saying that depiction is something that does not contradict the feeling of Victorianism, which was a claim you made.

Besides bringing up that abusive husbands existed in the Victorian era, which has nothing to do with presentation, you haven't actually shown how the presentation does not contradict the cliches of Victoriaism. There is nothing reserved or refined about the presentation of that relationship. On the contrary, it is handled very realistically, with the way Hyde isolates her, terrorizes her, breaks her down, makes her dependent. It's so acutely handled that it could as easily be a representation of a modern abusive relationship. Meaning, there is nothing about it that is specific to its time period. Its psychology is accurate enough to avoid that.

matrixschamtrix wrote:The problem is that if Hyde's totally unattractive, then I don't find him unsettling, because he doesn't feel real, nor like anything I can imagine being tempted to become.

Why would you want to feel tempted to become him? Your criticizing the film for not wanting to make Hyde attractive enough to seduce the audience ("wouldn't you like to be Hyde for a day?!"). It's a pretty irrelevant point. This isn't about you, it's about what happens when a Doctor in London discovers a serum that concentrates evil in him, and how that plays out amidst his specific surroundings. It seems like you had some sort of preconceived notions about what this movie should be doing. It's not a movie of ideas, it's not trying to make evil attractive, it's not indulging in banalities about the social ramifications of repression. It's a fantasy/sci-fi story. Unless you understand that, you're probably never going to appreciate it. You're just going to keep complaining about flaws that are only flaws if you think the movie is trying to do what it isn't actually doing.

I don't know whether I find Hyde real or not (or why I should), but I know his crimes are effective for being depicted as ordinary human crimes.

matrixschmatrix wrote:It's one thing if the idea is, as Jekyll claimed, that in letting the evil out the good becomes purified (and I would have enjoyed seeing how much more pure the already borderline sanctified Jekyll could have gotten), but as it stands it's difficult to see any real connection between Jekyll and Hyde beyond that they're played by the same actor.

I don't see why there should be one anymore than why there should be a connection between Larry Talbot and The Wolfman.

Mr Sausage wrote:Besides bringing up that abusive husbands existed in the Victorian era, which has nothing to do with presentation, you haven't actually shown how the presentation does not contradict the cliches of Victoriaism. There is nothing reserved or refined about the presentation of that relationship. On the contrary, it is handled very realistically, with the way Hyde isolates her, terrorizes her, breaks her down, makes her dependent. It's so acutely handled that it could as easily be a representation of a modern abusive relationship. Meaning, there is nothing about it that is specific to its time period. Its psychology is accurate enough to avoid that.

Well, no, I brought up that similar depictions of abusive relationships existed in that time period, specifically in the Holmes canon- obviously people behaved much the same regardless. The reserved and the refined in Victorian depictions are associated with 'civilization', and I don't think it breaks the cliche of Victorianism to depict brutality and cruelty outside of that- showing that civilization was what prevented those things is key to the colonialist narrative, if nothing else.

Why would you want to feel tempted to become him? Your criticizing the film for not wanting to make Hyde attractive enough to seduce the audience ("wouldn't you like to be Hyde for a day?!"). It's a pretty irrelevant point. This isn't about you, it's about what happens when a Doctor in London discovers a serum that concentrates evil in him, and how that plays out amidst his specific surroundings. It seems like you had some sort of preconceived notions about what this movie should be doing. It's not a movie of ideas, it's not trying to make evil attractive, it's not indulging in banalities about the social ramifications of repression. It's a fantasy/sci-fi story. Unless you understand that, you're probably never going to appreciate it. You're just going to keep complaining about flaws that are only flaws if you think the movie is trying to do what it isn't actually doing.

I don't know whether I find Hyde real or not (or why I should), but I know his crimes are effective for being depicted as ordinary human crimes.

The filmmaking pretty specifically works to underline the degree to which the audience will empathize with Jekyll, and his subsequent transformation- the first person camerawork, the mirror shots, etc. If the movie works for you on other terms- as just "some bad things happen, and then it ends"- that's fair enough. It doesn't work for me on those terms.

I don't see why there should be one anymore than why there should be a connection between Larry Talbot and The Wolfman.

Haha, never liked that one much, either. At least there, though, the movie doesn't seem to be trying to underline the connections between them- the Wolfman is seen as a curse, not as a temptation, and there's no sense that the two of them should fit together as an integrated psyche.

matrixschmatrix wrote:Well, no, I brought up that similar depictions of abusive relationships existed in that time period, specifically in the Holmes canon- obviously people behaved much the same regardless. The reserved and the refined in Victorian depictions are associated with 'civilization', and I don't think it breaks the cliche of Victorianism to depict brutality and cruelty outside of that- showing that civilization was what prevented those things is key to the colonialist narrative, if nothing else.

Well, if you're going to take that line, Hyde gallivants in high society and use his upward mobility to get around, and then goes off to beat prostitutes in back rooms.

matrixschmatrix wrote:The filmmaking pretty specifically works to underline the degree to which the audience will empathize with Jekyll, and his subsequent transformation- the first person camerawork, the mirror shots, etc. If the movie works for you on other terms- as just "some bad things happen, and then it ends"- that's fair enough. It doesn't work for me on those terms.

I think the POV shot works rather differently. It obscures Jekyll's identity until he finally sees himself in the mirror in full evening get-up. It's not a trick to increase audience identification; it underlines the trappings through which Jekyll will understand his own identity--through how he looks, especially through what his appearance says about his personal qualities--only to later break that identity by altering his physicality even while preserving certain trappings like dress and so forth. Jekyll understands his own goodness in terms of how it is reflected in (or, more accurately, constructed by) his physical appearance. So when he isolates and brings out the evil in him, his self construction is destroyed or undermined (his looks become ape-like, and his dress ceases to signify his goodness since ugly Hyde prefers them as well). Jekyll anyway was never all good (he visits the prostitute after all), but he nevertheless associated his physical qualities with the goodness in him, something the mirror shot brings out.

matrixschmatrix wrote:Well, no, I brought up that similar depictions of abusive relationships existed in that time period, specifically in the Holmes canon- obviously people behaved much the same regardless. The reserved and the refined in Victorian depictions are associated with 'civilization', and I don't think it breaks the cliche of Victorianism to depict brutality and cruelty outside of that- showing that civilization was what prevented those things is key to the colonialist narrative, if nothing else.

Well, I can't speak to the Holmes depictions, but even I brought up Wuthering Heights. My point was the difference between a depiction of an abusive relationship during Victorian England, and a Victorian depiction of an abusive relationship. I don't think Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is the latter.

Mr Sausage wrote:I think the POV shot works rather differently. It obscures Jekyll's identity until he finally sees himself in the mirror in full evening get-up. It's not a trick to increase audience identification; it underlines the trappings through which Jekyll will understand his own identity--through how he looks, especially through what his appearance says about his personal qualities--only to later break that identity by altering his physicality even while preserving certain trappings like dress and so forth. Jekyll understands his own goodness in terms of how it is reflected in (or, more accurately, constructed by) his physical appearance. So when he isolates and brings out the evil in him, his self construction is destroyed or undermined (his looks become ape-like, and his dress ceases to signify his goodness since ugly Hyde prefers them as well). Jekyll anyway was never all good (he visits the prostitute after all), but he nevertheless associated his physical qualities with the goodness in him, something the mirror shot brings out.

Hmm, that's actually a really interesting interpretation- though I would quibble that Jekyll never intentionally visits a prostitute (when he sees her, it's in the context of helping her after she's been beaten, and he gallantly came to her aid.) I think if the movie had highlighted Jekyll's negative qualities more, I would have liked it better- there are a few that come out, particularly the weakness he shows towards the end, when he has essentially become Hyde's enabler.

According to the commentary, Mamoulian specifically said his purpose in the first person shots was to increase audience identification, and I still feel as though the movie expects you to see the world through his eyes- a more dispassionate take on both sides of his character would work better for me, but again, I don't think that's what's in the movie.

Well, I can't speak to the Holmes depictions, but even I brought up Wuthering Heights. My point was the difference between a depiction of an abusive relationship during Victorian England, and a Victorian depiction of an abusive relationship. I don't think Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is the latter.

I think insofar as there's an especially modern component to it, it's that Hyde is clearly as intelligent a man as Jekyll, and uses his intellect as much as his body in terrorizing Ivy- it's not something that seems as though it would be out of place as a purely Victorian element, but it does actually seem fairly out of place for Hollywood. It's much nastier and more real than one would expect in that context.

matrixschmatrix wrote:though I would quibble that Jekyll never intentionally visits a prostitute (when he sees her, it's in the context of helping her after she's been beaten, and he gallantly came to her aid.) I think if the movie had highlighted Jekyll's negative qualities more, I would have liked it better- there are a few that come out, particularly the weakness he shows towards the end, when he has essentially become Hyde's enabler.

Oh yeah. I've seen the movie many times, but it's been a few years since the last time, so I forgot the context in which he initially visited her. Anyway, I think you may be right, that the movie doesn't emphasize enough Jekyll's human frailties.

matrixschmatrix wrote:According to the commentary, Mamoulian specifically said his purpose in the first person shots was to increase audience identification, and I still feel as though the movie expects you to see the world through his eyes- a more dispassionate take on both sides of his character would work better for me, but again, I don't think that's what's in the movie.

*throws hands in air* And here I thought it was using its POV and mirror shots to do something more complex than that. I think I'll just mutter Lawrence's maxim to myself and move along.

matrixschmatrix wrote:it's not something that seems as though it would be out of place as a purely Victorian element, but it does actually seem fairly out of place for Hollywood. It's much nastier and more real than one would expect in that context.

Very much agreed. It's one of the things that stood out as most impressive (as unpleasant as those elements are), and was only possible because it was pre-code. Cruelty within a relationship is an all too human evil.

Just a reminder that I'll be accepting lists for only one more week, until the end of the day next Sunday (whenever Sunday ends in your part of the world). Many thanks to everyone who has contributed so far.

I'm currently in the awkward position of having 51 films that I absolutely must include on my list, and seemingly everything I try to rewatch looking out for flaws I end up only liking more. Does anyone know if curing blindness is actually possible (or was in 1931)? Or if it was readily advertised in the classified sections of newspapers? If not, I guess I'll kick off City Lights, I don't know.

swo17 wrote:Just a reminder that I'll be accepting lists for only one more week, until the end of the day next Sunday (whenever Sunday ends in your part of the world). Many thanks to everyone who has contributed so far.

I'm currently in the awkward position of having 51 films that I absolutely must include on my list, and seemingly everything I try to rewatch looking out for flaws I end up only liking more. Does anyone know if curing blindness is actually possible (or was in 1931)? Or if it was readily advertised in the classified sections of newspapers? If not, I guess I'll kick off City Lights, I don't know.

Depending on the blindness, yes, it is possible. I don't know which specific blindnesses could be cured in 1931, tho'.

EDIT: apparently cataract surgery goes back to at least the sixth century AD, so I guess, yes, blindness in 1931 could be fixed in at least one case.

Dammit.

How about...Was the trail in The Big Trail really that big?

It did take them some months to get to the end.

That's it, I'm rolling my 51-sided dice.