Siegfried's Death (1924) Review

Director: Fritz Lang
Stars: Paul Richter, Hanna Ralph
Genre: Fantasy, Drama, German Expressionism

Directed by Fritz Lang (Metropolis, The Big Heat, M, Destiny) during his expressionist period in the silent era, Siegfried's Death is part one of Lang's two part fantasy epic known as Die Nibelungen (The Nibelungs), the second part being Kriemhild's Revenge.

It's a story about a great warrior Siegfried who travels far to marry a beautiful woman, the sister of King Gunther. After doing a few favors for King Gunther he marries his sister and becomes close friends with the King. But, as you may of guessed, things start to go wrong for just about everyone.

I'll start off by saying that if Fritz Lang's Metropolis was the 2001: A Space Odyssey of the silent era, then Fritz Lang's Die Nibelungen is certainly The Lord of the Rings of it. It's quite the epic fantasy. The highlight of the action is definitely towards the beginning when Siegfried slays a fire-breathing dragon. May I remind you this was made in 1924? It's awesome though and the visual effects in this film are quite stunning, and captured by some great cinematography I may add. 

Unfortunately towards the middle the film slows down. And let me remind you that this is a two and a half hour film so the middle is pretty damn long. It gets a bit boring and slow-paced and it definitely drags at parts compared to its great opening. It's not so bad, it has its moments, but I think it could of definitely benefited from being shortened or by adding a bit more action to it. Because as it is now it's largely a medieval melodrama. Not a bad medieval melodrama mind you, but still, who wants melodrama when you can have fantasy action?

It's an impressive film technically and an enjoyable film sometimes. Of course Fritz Lang's directing is stellar, and its German Expressionist qualities certainly bring the film to life, but it is a very slow and tedious film that can put some to sleep if you're not prepared for it.

Purchase Siegfried's Death on Amazon: Blu-Ray - DVD - Fritz Lang Collection - VHS

Waxworks (1924) Review

Director: Paul Leni, Leo Birinski
Stars: Emil Jannings, Conrad Veidt, Werner Krauss, William Dieterle
Genre: German Expressionism, Fantasy, Horror

Waxworks is an early anthology film which consists of three stories of ranging genres.

Paul Leni directs, the same man who later went on to direct two great horror classics, The Cat and the Canary and The Man Who Laughs. William Dieterle, who also acts in here, serves as assistant director, he later went on to direct many more films. It's written by Henrik Galeen, who also wrote The Golem and Nosferatu. Alfred Junge was the set decorator, who later worked on many Michael Powell films and even on Hitchcock's original The Man Who Knew Too Much.

Anyway, onto the story. A young poet, played by William Dieterle, accepts a job at a wax museum where he is to write back stories for each of the wax figures.

The first story he writes is for Harun al-Rashid, played wonderfully by Emil Jannings, who you may recognize from more popular films such as Faust, The Last Laugh, The Last Command, The Blue Angel, or Tartuff. It's a nice little tale that involves thievery, adultery, and even a bit of magic. This one definitely falls into the adventure genre and the epic sets definitely reflect that. This first story was also pretty funny at times and even had a hint of slapstick to it. 

The second story is about the czar of Russia, Ivan the Terrible, played by one of my favorite actors of the era, Conrad Veidt, who you probably know as Cesare from The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari or from his also great performances in The Hands of Orlac, The Man Who Laughs, The Thief of Bagdad, or his later role as the Major in Casablanca. The story itself of this one was kind of boring at first, it's kind of like a historical film that flirts with horror, but the excellent ending made up for it. The sets and costumes are wonderfully dark and twisted. 

The third and final story, which is just the poet dreaming, is the most disappointing. It's only five minutes long though so I can't complain much. The poet dreams that he and his girlfriend are being chased by Jack the Ripper...expect the Jack the Ripper is really Spring Heeled Jack. Nothing really happens, he just wakes up and it ends. The sets here are still great, and Jack the Ripper is played by Werner Krauss, who is recognizable as Dr. Caligari from The Cabinet of, and he also co-starred with Emil Jannings in Tartuff. Though his part is very short here, he still does a solid job. This last part just felt very lazy and missed a lot of potential; they had a great character, Jack the Ripper, played by a great actor, in a great setting, but they failed to capitalize on any of that and what could have been amazing ended up being mediocre. 

That's really all there is to say about Waxworks. An anthology film that has hints of horror, fantasy, and adventure, with some great talent behind it, though much missed potential. Worth watching for its great visuals and actors. 

Purchase Waxworks on Amazon: DVD - German Horror Classics Collection

The Golem (1920) Review

Director: Paul Wegener, Carl Boese
Stars: Paul Wegener, Albert Steinruck, Carl Boese
Genre: German Expressionism, Fantasy, Horror
Also known as: Der Golem, The Golem: How He Came Into the World

An early work of cinematic German Expressionism based on the 1915 novel of the same name by Gustav Meyrink, but the tale's roots go back hundreds of years to Jewish folklore stories.

So, basically, a Jewish rabbi creates a golem from clay and uses sorcery to bring him to life in order to protect the Jews of Prague from persecution. The only problem is, the Golem ends up causing a few problems for everyone due to some after-effects of the spell used to bring him to life...or something along those lines.

It kind of felt like a Frankenstein-esque story, and I've even heard that James Whale took inspiration from this while directing Frankenstein (1931). There's even a scene in here where a little girl gives the monster a flower, similar to the scene in Frankenstein.

There's not much to say about this one. It's solid German Expressionism, though it didn't quite captivate me as well as many others of the genre have. It just felt a little boring to me.

The set design is pretty awesome, designed by the wonderful architect, Hans Poelzig. It manages to have a twisted feel, but not as surreal as, for example, the sets of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari.

The cinematography is well-done, Karl Freund being the head cinematographer. Freund is known for his work on other film, such as Metropolis, The Last Laugh, Key Largo, and he's even directed a few films, most noteworthy being Universal's The Mummy and Mad Love, the remake to German Expressionist classic, The Hands of Orlac. The Golem was once of the earlier projects he worked on, but his charm is ever present.

Paul Wegener, who also directs, plays the Golem. The Golem actually looks pretty funny, though the make-up isn't bad. There are some pretty cool special effects here, or really only during one part specifically, when they were reading the spells. For its time it was actually pretty amazing.

It wasn't bad but I wasn't overly impressed by it. I can really only recommend it to fans of German Expressionism or those interested in Jewish mysticism. 

Purchase The Golem on Amazon: DVD 

From Morn to Midnight (1920) Review

Director: Karlheinz Martin
Stars: Ernst Deutsch, Erna Morena, Hans Heinrich von Twardowski
Genre: German Expressionism, Experimental, Crime
Also known as: Von morgens bis Mitternacht, From Morning to Midnight

Wow. Well, this certainly is a rare little gem. One of the strangest films I've ever watched.

From Morn to Midnight has a strange history behind it. The film was completed in 1920 but it couldn't be shown in Germany and the only place it ended up getting a release was in Japan. Shortly after its Japanese release the film was believed to be lost, until, in the 1960's, a blurry, damaged copy was found. Blurry and damaged it remained for decades, until recently when it underwent a restoration. 

Adapted from a play by Georg Kaiser, the story is set up like a station drama (modeled after the religious Stations of the Cross, and every Christian knows how that ends). 

It's about a bank cashier who suddenly realizes the mundanity of his life. In a moment of passion he decides to steal the money from the bank and just like that he becomes a 'cashier on the run.' With his new found riches he seeks the passion that he desires in his life. He tries his luck at politics, sports, women, gambling, but all to no avail. Throughout the film the cashier's death is constantly foreshadowed by the eerie face of death. He sees death in the face of a beggar that he chose to ignore, death in the face of the daughter he abandons, death in the faces of the women he mistreats. He cannot escape it. Then he realizes "All the money in the world cannot buy anything of value," as he meets his demise. 

The film really feels like an adventure. Each scene is unique and a new experience. By the time the film ends you feel like you've really traveled to all these bizarre places.

The sets here are dazzling. The most expressionistic I've ever seen. I assume you are all familiar with The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and its surreal sets, yes? Well, From Morn to Midnight has even wilder sets. Yes, it is true. It's a very theatrical film and feels a lot like watching a play. At times it even felt like I was watching a parody or satire of German Expressionism.

With beautiful set and costume design alone this film would be enjoyable. But wait, there's more! The film is a very experimental one, you have only to look at the bike race scene to realize that, I'd even go so far as to call it avant-garde. Incorporating a variety of cinematic techniques combined with what is essentially a moving painting makes for a very interesting, and wholly unique experience.

There's also some nudity in here, which was a rarity for its time. And at one point the cashier pours champagne on a drunk, passed out woman in bed. [sarcasm]Perhaps direct inspiration for the music videos of many modern day hip-hop artists?[/sarcasm]

I don't know if the version I watched contained the original composition or a new one but it was awesome. It had a very minimalistic, smooth jazz feel to it and complimented the film very well. It kind of felt like an episode of the Pink Panther cartoon. Even the sound effects that were added, e.g., drums for door knocks, shakers for laughs, were very well implemented.

The acting is awesome too. It's over-acted in the way you might expect from a silent film or a stage play, and at times looks a bit silly, but it has its own style to it. The acting feels like some kind of stylish demeanor from a foreign pseudo-reality. Ernst Deutsch, who was mostly know for stage acting in his time, does a great job as the star role. Hans Heinrich von Twardowski, who also performed in The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, does an absolutely amazing job, delivering a memorable performance. Erna Morena and Roma Bahn are both very beautiful in here and do a great job as well.

As with most German Expressionist films there are a lot of Freudian themes present. Not only that, but From Morn to Midnight also largely incorporates the philosophies and themes of Nietzsche. This provides for a very intellectual experience and leaves the film open to analysis.

I've never seen a film like From Morn to Midnight. It is truly a wholly unique piece of work and the only one of its kind, which is why it's such a tough film to apply a rating to. I ended up watching the film twice in one day, and I think I'll have to give it the five star treatment. A truly under-appreciated film of the genre.

Purchase From Morn to Midnight on Amazon: DVD or here

Warning Shadows (1923) Review

Director: Arthur Robison
Stars: Fritz Kortner, Ruth Weyher, Gustav von Wangenheim
Genre: German Expressionism, Fantasy, Horror
Also known as: Shadows: A Nocturnal Hallucination, Schatten – Eine Nächtliche Halluzination 

Wow, just wow. Warning Shadows is a very under-appreciated German Expressionist film and, in my opinion, very close to being a masterpiece. 

The film is about a husband and wife who invite four men over to their home for dinner. They also hire a shadow puppeteer for entertainment. But, alas, the husband begins to suspect that the dinner guests are making moves on his wife and that his wife is playing along with the flirt. The shadow puppeteer, who also seems to be a hypnotist, shows all the people of the house how the night will end if the guest continue their pursuit of the woman; if the man continues his jealousy; and if his wife continues her flirting; in short, it would end in disaster.

The film, at times, can be a bit confusing. It definitely requires your full attention. It's not so much that the plot is confusing, but more so that there are no intertitles and the film relies heavily on visuals to tell the story.

This actually seems to be the first feature length silent film to intentionally have a lack of intertitles and a strictly visual presentation. A technique that would be often imitated later in the genre's history.

The film takes place almost completely inside of a mansion. The sets here aren't surreal, complex, or dazzling, but it still has beautiful interior design and architecture. The main eye candy comes from the film's amazing use of shadows. The film certainly lives up to its name.

I've always had an acute interest and fascination with shadows. I'm not sure where the interest roots from but nonetheless this film only heightens my fascination. The shadow work is great in here, some of the best I've seen, which is largely due to the shadow puppeteer. It's almost as if, in certain scenes, you're watching two planes of existence at once: the material plane and the shadows.

The world of shadows is never quite the same as the real world, and this film does a great job of making a point of that. Shadows are deceiving, and I'd even say that shadows are one of the antagonists of this film. The dinner guests, just fooling around, pretend to fondle the woman's shadow. But, from the other side of the curtain it appears, to the husband, that they are actually fondling her body. This is a recurring theme in Warning Shadows, that things aren't always quite as they seem.

The first half of the film plays out a bit like a melodrama, but a good one. The story deals with lust, jealousy, vengeance, and more. The latter half of the film is a bit more action packed, since it takes place in the puppeteer's induced vision. I actually found the latter half to be a bit boring, which is a shame because it definitely had the potential to be awesome. My eyes just kind of got bored of watching and stopped paying attention.

There are some truly amazing scenes throughout the film though. I loved the mirror scene, and the the shadow animals. My favorite moment was definitely when they left the real world and entered the hallucination; their shadows shrinking into their bodies and coming out on the other side. It's a spectacle that must be seen to be understood.

It's a very stylized film. I loved the use of mirrors and even the opening credits where all the characters were introduced was ingenious.

I truly have trouble doing this film justice with mere words, it really is something you must witness for yourself. A film with so much great and only a few strides short of masterful. 

Purchase Warning Shadows on Amazon: DVD - German Expressionism DVD Collection 

Tartuffe (1925) Review

Director: F.W. Murnau
Stars: Emil Jannings, Werner Krauss, Lil Dagover
Genre: German Expressionism, Satire, Drama

Tartuffe, also commonly written as Tartüff, really impressed me. It's one of Murnau's lesser known films, and I expected a good film from him nonetheless since he's a wonderful director, but I was surprised just how good it actually was. Very, very good. 

The film is about a grandson who reveals to his grandfather that his housemaid is deceiving him in order to inherit his fortunes. The way the grandson reveals this to his grandfather is by showing him a film, based on Moliere's play, Tartuffe. It's a very early example of a film within a film. The film within a film is reminiscent of what was happening in the grandfather's real life. The film within a film is about a man who worships another religious man, only to find out that he is not quite the saint he thought him to be.

The film serves as an obvious allegory to the hypocrisy and blindness of religion. Like Moliere's original play in the 1600's, when Tartuffe was released in the 1920's it caused a bit of outrage, mostly from religious groups. 

The man, Tartuffe, played by Emil Jannings (The Last Laugh, Faust, Waxworks, The Last Command, The Blue Angel), represents religion. Tartuffe's blind follower and admirer, Orgon, played by Werner Krauss (The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari), represents just that: blind followers of religion.

The film deals with religion's hypocrisies, illogicality, and manipulations. To me, the film's basic message was that when you take a closer look at religion, and when you see its true essence, i.e., when you realize its hypocrisies and whatnot,  it is in fact a very ugly thing, and once you see this, you no longer support it. It portrays religion to be very calculating and insincere.

Tartuffe and Orgon always have their little bibles (or psalm books?) with them and they're constantly reading them, but when they read them they put the book right in front of their face and literally have their noses on the book. I like to think that this is suggesting that when you always have a bible in front of your face, or when you hold religion too closely, it makes you blind and prevents you from seeing what is right in front of you.

Religious criticisms aside, the film has other good things going for it. The sets are pretty good for one thing. The film within a film's sets in particular are nice. It has a very 18th century look...kind of a Victorian feel. The sets aren't overly extravagant and it's not as stylized as you may expect an Expressionist film to be, but still nice. 

The legendary Karl Freund is the cinematographer and this is definitely some of his best work. There's some really cool shots in here and even some that were way ahead of its time. You may not recognize Karl Freund by name, but if you've ever watched The Golem or The Last Laugh or Michael or Metropolis or Dracula or Key Largo, then you're familiar with his work. And that's only naming a few, this guy has been the cinematographer on tons of great films.

The film managed to keep me intently interested the entire time. Albeit it's a shorter film, but it's also pretty slow and silent films tend to put me to sleep if there isn't much happening. Not Tartuffe, it kept me very awake. I credit this to a great story (adapted by Carl Mayer), great acting, and great characterization.

Seriously, all the characters here are fascinating and well portrayed. We have some big name actors of the genre in here too; Emil Jannings, who was in tons of films of the time, and you may recognize Werner Krauss and Lil Dagover from The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. They all do a great job, and though there is a bit of over-acting, as you should expect in a silent film, it's actually pretty tame acting compared to a lot of other films.

In the version I watched the soundtrack was pretty good. There was no color tinting but that really didn't matter; most of the film takes place in the same place anyway.

There are many parallels drawn between this film and Murnau's earlier work, Nosferatu. In Tartuffe it is not a mythological bloodsucker, but one of reality, one we've all encountered. And again, as in Nosferatu, it is his wife that must sacrifice herself to save her husband.

Oh, and I almost forgot, early on in the film a character looks directly at the camera and talks to the audience. One of the earliest example of breaking the fourth wall that I've thus seen. Also, there's some POV cleavage shots. Murnau was a genius. 

If you're a fan of F.W. Murnau or of German Expressionism, Tartuffe is well worth the watch and a very overlooked film of the genre. 

Purchase Tartuffe on Amazon: DVD

Faust (1926) Review

Director: F.W. Murnau
Stars: Gosta Ekman, Emil Jannings, William Dieterle
Genre: German Expressionism, Fantasy

Massive, and wholly accurate, spoilers to follow

One day an angel was really bored so he decided to make a bet with Satan (angels have a bit of a gambling problem). The bet has something to do with something but...it doesn't matter. 

So there's this plague or something and this old guy Faust really wants to save everyone but he can't. So what does he do? Summon the dark lord Mephisto of course. Mephisto tries to get him to sell his soul for some awesome wizard powers and stuff but Faust refuses. But, Mephisto tricks him by saying that he could have a one day free trial of the powers, no strings attached. (It's kind of like how magazines or Netflix trick you with the one month free trial but then make it really hard for you to cancel the subscription without ending up having to pay). 

So Faust accepts the one day deal. The first thing Faust does is become a young man, because all he really wanted to do was get laid. So, young Faust goes out to find some hoes. He finds one and brings her back to his place. But, just as he's about to hit that Mephisto tells him that one day is almost over! Bummer. But Faust is like "Yo, fuck it, whatever. You can have my soul, just let me hit this right quick." Thus selling his soul to the devil. Faust was obviously thinking with his penis. 

Faust taps that ass and then after his dick softens up he realizes that that pussy probably wasn't worth the eternal damnation of his soul. But, Faust is the type of guy who makes the best of a situation. "I'm young and I have the power of Hell at my disposal. Might as well live it up, YOLO!" says Faust. 

Then they fly around for a bit and Mephisto is like "Hey, aren't these special effects really great? And these sets are amazing. We're way ahead of our time!" 

So then what does Faust do? Goes out to find some more hoes of course. Faust immediately goes for a young, innocent virgin girl and tells Mephisto to make her his. But even Mephisto, the evil demon that he is, is like "Yo, son, chill out. There's plenty of other bitches around here whose lives already suck that you can get with."

But, Faust wants that young, tight pussy. "Damn, nigga," Faust tells Mephisto, "It's like Biggie Smalls said, 'I like 'em young, fresh and clean, with no hair in between. Know what I mean?'"

So Mephisto uses his devil magic to get the virgin girl to fall in love with Faust, because, ya know, who needs honest, pure, true love? 

Oh, yeah, and then Mephisto gropes some old lady and mixes her a drink that makes her shit her pants or fart or something. Then Mephisto proceeds to go and cock block Faust and Faust is all like "Shit, nigga."

So while Faust is getting it on with that girl, Mephisto kills her mother and then goes to the girl's brother and tells him that his sister is a whore...and then Mephisto kills him too. 

As the brother lies there dying, his siter by his side, he calls his sister a wanton, which I'm guessing is a derivative word coming from the chinese food Wonton dumplings (in the olden days nobody liked Asians so they would use their food as insults). 

The entire town hates the girl now and thinks she's a slut. She goes insane for a brief moment when she thinks that her mother is a chair. 

Now, thanks to Faust, the girl has no family and is homeless. Well, actually Faust got her pregnant (they didn't have condoms back then, and I guess she wasn't on the pill) so both her and her newborn baby get to live on the freezing cold streets. None of the villagers will help her or even her dying baby, because, you know, stupid whores and their stupid babies deserve it, right? At this point the girl, Gretchen (that's her name by the way, I just remembered), is pretty mentally unstable. She hallucinates that there is a baby's crib but it's actually just snow and she ends up killing her baby. 

When the villagers find that she killed her baby they get all pissed off (because apparently they actually cared about the baby's well-being) and burn her at the stake as punishment. But Faust comes and rescues her, right? Nah. Mephisto turned Faust back into an old man and by the time he got there she was already on fire. 

But, nonetheless, old man Faust throws himself in the fire with her, and if we'd of been able to hear Gretchen over her burning flesh then I'm sure she probably said something along the lines of "LOL WUT?"

So, somehow she realizes that the old man is actually Faust, but keep in mind she was mentally unstable so who knows if it was actually even Faust. And even though Faust killed her entire family, ruined her life, and got her killed, she still loves him and they kiss as they burn to death. 

So you'd think that now Faust's soul will go to hell, because he made that whole deal with the devil, right? Well, not quite. As convenient plot-device angel explains: There is only one word that can break the pact and that word is LOVE (even if it's manipulated and insincere love that was achieved by the use of evil demon magic). Unfortunately, Mephisto couldn't afford a lawyer because I'm sure that whole LOVE bullshit would have never held up in court. 

So Gretchen and Faust get to go to heaven and I guess Gretchen will stay under the evil love spell forever and always love Faust no matter what! And Faust doesn't have to face the consequences of his actions! YAY!

And that's pretty much it. THE END. 

Things I learned from watching Faust:
1. Religious things, e.g., holy statues or crosses, force Mephisto to make funny faces.
2. Don't ever trust free trials on the internet.
3. Pussy > Soul. 
4. If the Devil wants to give you devil powers in trade for your soul, make the deal because you can fuck all the bitches and then just use the devil powers to force some girl to fall in love with you and then go to heaven because the power of love always triumphs.

Pros:

+Very awesome sets and atmosphere. Truly stunning. 

+Great actors

+Fantastic directing and cinematography from F.W. Murnau and Carl Hoffmann

+Ahead of its time special effects that still look awesome to this day

+Awesome and creepy introduction of the Mephisto character

Cons:

-Stupid, illogical story. I was never a fan of the Faust story but this isn't even a good adaptation. 

-Typical religious themes that don't fit into my philosophy or set of morals, therefore rendering it less entertaining, just as a religious man would find less satisfaction in a film that denounces religion. 

-Bad and unbelievable characters, bad character development, bad character continuity

-Has virtually nothing going for it besides its visuals. 

Purchase a mediocre, overrated movie on Amazon!: DVD - VHS

The Student of Prague (1913) Review

Director: Stellan Rye
Stars: Paul Wegener, John Gottowt, Grete Berger, Lyda Salmonova
Genre: Horror, German Expressionism

The Student of Prague is arguably the first German Expressionist film, or at least the first film to have expressionist qualities.

It's a Faustian tale about a sorcerer who offers to trade a young man riches for anything he desires in his room. The young man doesn't hesitate to accept the offer, since there was nothing in the room of much value anyway, or at least not of equal value of what he was being offered. But, the sorcerer was a clever one. The sorcerer took the young man's reflection in the mirror! Which allows for two of the same person to exist, but the reflection, which is now the sorcerer's property, is a very sinister being and stops at nothing to ruin the young man's image.

This seems to be the first film to have a doppelganger. It's also said to be the first feature-length horror movie. The story is very loosely based on the Edgar Alan Poe short story, William Wilson.

The film's story is a really cool idea, and at first I found to be very interesting, but it kind of gets a bit boring after awhile. I think it could have been much better; you'd expect a doppelganger running around being mischievous would be very fun, but unfortunately it was kind of boring. I think the film would have benefited from being a bit more fun, not really in a silly way, because it is a serious film, but in a way that would have at least been interesting.

I guess the main problem I had with it was that there was a lot of melodrama and I would have liked to see more horror or fantasy. I'm not really a fan of melodrama but the melodrama in here wasn't even good melodrama.

I did think the ending was pretty awesome though. 

The sets here aren't as dazzling and surreal as the Expressionism films that were still yet to come, but they weren't bad. There's some nice scenery in here. 

I really liked the devil character, or the sorcerer or whatever he was called. He was genuinely creepy looking and his costume design and image were fantastic and memorable. The film in general actually has a very really creepy parts, not many, but a few, which is pretty impressive being that this is a very old film. The one part that creeped me out was the part in the cemetery (or at least it looked like a cemetery) when the doppelganger appears and stares at the original for a few seconds.

I also liked the text that they repeat throughout the film; "I am not God, nor can I be the Devil, but I pronounce your name with contempt! Because wherever you are, I will be until your last hour and, in front of your headstone, I will sit on your grave."

The main antagonist, referred to as the sorcerer, is essentially Satan though. It is a 'deal with the devil' movie after all. The young man's reflection could either be looked at as his soul (kind of like in the way that vampires have no reflection because they have no soul) or it could be seen simply as his opposite, i.e., the Hyde to his Jekyll.

The sorcerer, or the devil, or Scapinelli as he's called, was played by John Gottowt, who also had roles in other great films of the genre, such as Nosferatu, Genuine: A Tale of a Vampire, and Waxworks.

There's a few different versions of this film floating about. Most websites mark it as a 85 minute film, but it doesn't seem that an 85 minute version still exists. A lot of people watch the Alpha Video version, which probably has the best visual quality, but is only 41 minutes long. The particular version I watched was 55 minutes long.

The version I watched, I believe, has the film's original score. The score is actually really good, composed by Josef Weiss, it's probably some of the best original music I've seen in a silent film. It's some really haunting music that suites the film.

Paul Wegener plays the lead role, the same guy who went on to direct the popular German Expressionist film, The Golem.

It's a solid film and undoubtedly historically significant, and it had the potential to be really great, but it's a bit disappointing in a few departments. 

 Purchase The Student of Prague on Amazon: DVD

Genuine: A Tale of a Vampire (1920) Review

Director: Robert Wiene
Stars: Fern Andra, Hans Heinrich von Twardowski
Genre: German Expressionism, Horror
Also known as: Genuine, die Tragödie eines seltsamen Hauses, Genuine, the tragedy of a strange house

Here's another great German Expressionist film directed by Robert Wiene, the same guy who directed The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and The Hands of Orlac. It's also written by Carl Mayer, an important name in the genre, and produced by Erich Pommer, another huge name of the genre. 

It's a story about a woman named Genuine, who is apparently a vampire, but I'd label her as more of a seductress or a succubus. It's kind of funny that her name is Genuine since all of her love is insincere. I guess that was the point. Anyway, Genuine controls various men in the town and forces them to slit people's throats and at one point she even commands one to kill themselves to prove their love. 

Quite honestly I found the film's plot a bit hard to follow, and the fact that part of the film is lost doesn't help matters. 

It's not your typical vampire story, though I wouldn't be surprised if Nosferatu found a bit of inspiration from this. There's a character in here, Lord Melo, who actually looks and dresses a lot like Count Orlok and there's even some similar use of shadows. 

I think it's pretty cool that a woman played the role of the vampire. The whole film plays out pretty similar to the way later monster movies did; with angry mobs and whatnot. 

I really liked the dialogue in here. Usually inter-titles are pretty boring and only serve as a means to progress the story. Not many silent films are known to have amazing dialogue. It was pretty awesome in here though, especially Genuine's lines. Here's some quotes from the film:

-"No, my angel, no, my beauty; up there is life with its ugliness. Here everything smiles at you. Only here can you be completely happy."

-"If only I could climb where I could be free, to enjoy being young and falling in love!" 

-"The desire to practice her irressistable wiles has returned." 

-"Kill yourself, kill yourself! Like in the sacrifices of long ago...What a beautiful proof of love!"

The sets here are awesome. Cesar Klein, an expressionist painter of the time, designed all the sets and costumes wonderfully. After watching the film I actually looked up some of Klein's artwork and it was all very pleasant. 

Besides cool architectural design and patterns, there were also some cool props. Like in the barber shop there was a headless skeleton with a clock in place of where his head should of been. It just looked very creepy and macabre. 

The version I watched had a guitar composition by Larry Marotta. I definitely recommend this version. The composition would be enjoyable even as a standalone work. But it compliments the film well and adds tension in all the right places. 

I think Genuine is a very good film that was underrated in its time and in our's. Perhaps not as stellar as Robert Wiene's other works, but worth the watch nonetheless. A bit hard to follow and slightly confusing, but the film's beauty makes up for it. 

Purchase Genuine on Amazon: DVD - You can also find Genuine as an extra on numerous Cabinet of Dr. Caligari DVDs.

Nosferatu (1922) Review

Director: F.W. Murnau
Stars: Max Schreck, Alexander Granach, Gustav von Wangenheim
Genre: Horror, German Expressionism

I'm posting this review on Bram Stoker's 165th birthday, which is today, the day of this post, November 8th. Without his novel, Dracula, the world would be without many great films, including this one, Nosferatu. I believe I speak for all horror fans when I say, thank you Mr. Stoker.

Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror. One of the most well-known early horror films and a big name in the genre of German Expressionism.

I often remind myself to be thankful that films like Nosferatu, or The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari are available to watch. So many of these great films in early cinema could have easily been lost, and many have been. Just looking at Wikipedia's list of lost films makes me want to cry. Who knows how many of those films would have been considered masterpieces if they still survived. Surely some of them must have been amazing films, and had they survived could have even changed the way we look at film today. It's similar to the Library of Alexandria; out of all those hundreds of thousands of books that were lost in the fire, just imagine all the great ones, just imagine what literature would be like if that library had never burned down.

So, when I watch great early films such as Nosferatu, I can't help but say to myself "We're so lucky that this film survived." Nosferatu actually came very close to being forever lost. Florence Stoker, wife of Bram Stoker (author of Dracula), actually sued the production company behind Nosferatu and won. The court had ordered to have all copies of the film burned; luckily there was one copy already in circulation around the world.

If you can think about the millions of lost books, the hundreds if not thousands of lost films, and all the other works of art lost in time, without shuttering, then you have no soul.

Moving on to the actually review, do I really have to summarize the plot? Everyone knows the Dracula story in some form or another. This film was an unofficial adaptation of Stoker's Dracula, hence the many name changes of characters; Count Dracula became Count Orlok, Renfield became Knock, etc., even the word Vampire was changed to Nosferatu.

I thought the pacing to be really good in here, especially the build-up to seeing Count Orlok. Before arriving at the castle Thomas Hutter stops at an inn, and when he mentions that he is going to Orlok's castle they all gasp and shriek. Then, even the coach that he was traveling in refuses to take him directly to the castle and instead drops him off down the road. Even just the sight of the castle itself is great. All this build towards a great introduction to the character of Count Orlok.

And what a character he is! Orlok's design is as amazing as it is terrifying. Count Orlok, to me, is still one of the most horrifying looking horror characters till this day. I mean, just look at him, he looks like a fucking vampire! With his long fingers and pointed ears. The make-up and appearance is great and Max Schreck does a fabulous job playing the creeping vampire.

Along with a scary character, Nosferatu also has a very scary atmosphere. Mix Expressionism with Gothicism and you get a truly great atmosphere. The Gothic castle, the Expressionistic use of shadows and light, the poetic writing; it all comes together wonderfully. This film still manages to scare me today. 

As I've already hinted at, the sets are great. Nosferatu is based a bit more in reality than other films of the genre, e.g., The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, and it opts for a Gothic look rather than a surreal one. Which is good. The castle's interiors are great, the castle's exterior is pretty good too, and everything just looks really good. Even the scene on the ship has a kind of murky terror look and feel.

Henrik Galeen (The Golem, Waxworks) did a wonderful job adapting the novel into a screenplay, and a very detailed screenplay at that. The director, F.W. Murnau, followed Galeen's instructions very closely on camera positioning, lighting, etc. So Henrik Galeen played a much larger role in the making of Nosferatu than his credit may suggest.

Two legendary cinematographers did the camera work, Fritz Arno Wagner and Gunther Krampf. Names that have lent their talents to other great film such as Destiny, M, Warning Shadows, and The Testament of Dr. Mabuse for Wagner, and The Hands of Orlac and Pandora's Box for Krampf. These two cinematographer's talents shine in Nosferatu, with wonderful cinematography across the board.

You may notice some actors from other German Expressionist films, and save for Schreck's masterful performance as Count Orlock and Alexander Granach's mad performance of Knock, the rest of the acting is only decent. I wouldn't call it bad by any means, but it's nothing extraordinary.  Maybe the other actors only seem dull because of Schreck's greatness. It's the type of over-acting you'd expect from most silent films, but if you don't mind the over-acting then it shouldn't be a problem. 

The score, originally composed by Hans Erdmann, however most reissues use slightly modified scores, is fantastic. I loved the haunting use of drums in the version I've watched.

There are tons of memorable scenes in here and some truly unique moments. The film also has a sort of grainy, newsreel look to it that makes it extra creepy since it makes it feel realistic...in a very fantastical way. Very similar to the appearance of Night of the Living Dead. Especially that shot towards the end when Orlok is hunched over the girl on the bed and he kind of looks directly at the camera; it looks like something you'd find on some cryptozoology website. Chilling. 

The film also makes good use of color tints. They help to differentiate between day and night (a feat that can be challenging in black and white films) and they also help set particular moods.

There's really not much bad to be said about Nosferatu. I have my nit-picks but nothing really dire. Like that werewolf dog that everyone was so terrified of, that was pretty silly. But there are very few flaws in this film and it really does hold up even now. 

Nosferatu is a true classic. The film that set the mold and the standard for all vampire movies that followed. Recommended for anyone and everyone. Make sure you get a good version with a good soundtrack and as clear a quality as possible and preferably one with color tinting present, and you'll have yourself a hell of a good time. Stay tuned for more vampire film review in the coming days.

Purchase Nosferatu on Amazon: DVD - Two Disc DVD - Stream - German Horror Classics Collection

The Hands of Orlac (1924) Review

Director: Robert Wiene
Stars: Conrad Veidt
Genre: German Expressionism, Horror, Mystery

Directed by Robert Wiene, who also directed the much more popular Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. He does a great job with this film too, which has inspired many remakes and films since.

The story follows a pianist, Orlac, who is in a bad train wreck and has his hands badly injured, permanently preventing him from ever playing again. This is something Orlac cannot live with so the doctor preforms a hand transplant surgery. But, Orlac gets the hands of a recently executed murderer. Orlac then believes that these hands are cursed and that they are driving him to do terrible things.

It's a story that we've seen repeated many times since, not only in remakes (Mad Love, and the 1960 film of the same name) but has also inspired many films such as Hands of a Stranger, The Beast with Five Fingers, or The Hand. But this film itself was actually based on a novel by Maurice Renard.

The story is a bit slow paced and melodramatic, but there are plenty of plot twists added (as Wiene seems to love) to keep it interesting. A lot of the shots are very lengthy and could have probably been significantly shortened, but it's not too bad. The film takes its time, which is good if you have patience and a solid attention span.

The sets here aren't as artful and extravagant as the twisted and surreal sets of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, but they are still very impressive in their own way. The exteriors and interiors of every building give off a very Gothic feel, especially the home of Orlac's father. The scene with the wrecked train was very convincing as well.

The cinematography is excellent. There are a lot of shots here that are ahead of its time. From intentional unfocused shots, to a scene that was shot through flowers. Every scene is well put together. My favorite bit was when Orlac dreamed he was being punched by a giant hand. It's a very visually pleasing film, as all Expressionist films should be. I think the film's stills speak for themselves.

The film undoubtedly has a very great atmosphere.  

The music compliments the film perfectly, rather than just being added on for the hell of it. At times it can build some very good tension and suspense.

The acting here, though over the top as all silent films are, is very good. There is a lot of emotion portrayed on screen and can sometimes even be frightening. Veidt does a fabulous job. Orlac, though it's hard to call him the antagonist, is very scary, especially his hands, which makes sense due to the film's name. His hands are long and slender and are constantly bulging with veins. Orlac was played by Conrad Veidt, who also played Cesare in The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari.

The ending was a bit unsatisfying. It was cheap and overly convenient...unrealistic even. It did good in one regard though: in showing us the psychological power that can change a man's reality.

I can definitely recommend this film to just about anyone.

Pros:

+Great cinematography

+Great sets and atmosphere

+Complimentary music

+Emotional and engaging acting

Cons:

-Very slow

-Unsatisfying ending

Purchase The Hands of Orlac on Amazon: DVD - Stream