Mädchen in Uniform (1931)

Young Manuela is sent to a stern boarding school where all of the girls are infatuated with the stunning headmistress von Bernburg. Manuela takes her infatuation a bit too far, and this can not be tolerated in a school for “the daughters of soldiers, and God willing, mother of soldiers too”. Does our headmistress reciprocate these feelings?

Mädchen in Uniform is in part a statement about the rise of authoritarianism in post-war Germany. As such, it would be banned outright when the Nazis take power a couple years later. They destroyed every copy within their grasp and may even have executed the author of the play it is based on. Or maybe they didn’t. Research is hard.

But more than a statement on authoritarianism, it is remembered as a landmark film embracing the “great spirit of love, in all its forms”. It would have been banned in America had Eleanor Roosevelt not spoken up for it, and went on to become a hit.

But as important as it has become to members of a certain community, I have difficulty getting past the fact that Manuela was fourteen. This is fine in the context of an adolescent awakening and infatuation, but things become problematic when read as a budding romance between student and teacher. In reality the actresses are only a few months apart in age, but change the context to priest and choir boy and the conversation takes on a whole new meaning. The film leaves some of this to interpretation.

The story, while sometimes wonky and episodic, is entertaining. Hertha Thiele is adorable and the movie was well photographed. Unfortunately the Kino version has some serious tape hiss, but I suppose we’re lucky to have it at all. AMRU 3.5.

Pandora’s Box (1929)

Lulu (Louise Brooks) is a promiscuous young woman in a relationship with an older, respected man. He must break off the scandalous relationship when he decides to marry his respectable fiancee. Lulu doesn’t play nicely and sabotages her lover’s respectable engagement. Things don’t go well for either.

Brooks was a nothing actress who walked out of her contract with Paramount to star in this Weimar silent film and became a huge star. The role of Lulu almost went to Marlene Dietrich, who had to settle on the role of Lola Lola to launch her career. Unlike Dietrich, who disingratiated herself with Hollywood over the next two decades, Brooks got it all done before the end of the 30s.

Lulu’s character is never in question. She’s a golddigger, woman of easy virtue, maybe prostitute. But she isn’t a bad person. But what strikes me most is her disconnect between her actions and their consequences to herself and others. Her friends, enchanted by her, follow the path to ruin to help her out. It’s all very tragic, but Lulu is the most tragic of all.

Had Pandora’s Box been a talkie, (like The Blue Angel), and had Brooks played nice a little better, she may be remembered as well as Dietrich is today. Maybe more. She had beauty and charisma and was set to explode in Hollywood’s golden era. Instead, she is principally known for this movie. But it’s quite a movie. She could have been so much more. AMRU 4.

“It's strange how you can get booze on credit but not bread.”

The Golem (1920)

Or, "Der Golem,wie er in die Welt kam".

The story of how the Golem came into the world is told in five Phapters. In 16th century Prague, Rabbi Low melodramatically reads in the stars disaster for the Jewish people, possibly by annoying violins. The next day the king melodramatically orders a decree evicting all Jews from the ghetto. Their crimes are listed as killing Jesus, not observing Christian celebrations, and using black magic. First two, well yea, guilty as charged. But black magic?

To defend his people, Rabbi Low melodramatically creates a circle of fire to summon a melodramatic demon and demands it to give him a magic word that will make a giant clay monster come to life. Sure, but black magic? Nonsense.

Somewhere around Phapter 3 Rabbi brings his melodramatic monster (ok, I'm going to dispense with the melodrama, I think you get the point) to the king (or whatever) to plead his case. During his magic history slide show, the building starts to collapse and kingie says he will spare the Jews if he saves him. So Golem holds up the beam and everyone lived happily ever after.

In Phapter 4 Rabbi Low deactivates Golem because he will become evil. However, some sort of love triangle is going on and a temple lackey (I'll call him Ygor) decides to reactivate clay man and sics him on his rival. Things don't turn out that well. Rival takes a brief flight and Golem runs off with precious Miriam (he drags her cave man style, rather than the conventional Frankenstein/Mummy/Gil Man/Klattu mode).

So (I suppose we're up to Phapter 5 by now) the village is burning and Low must do his fire dance (which puts fires OUT, go figure) to save the ghetto. Meanwhile, a little girl kills the monster. Roll credits.

This is actually the third of the Golem movies. The first two no longer exist save for brief clips available on YouTube. This is likely the best of the three anyhow as it's the one the writer/director wanted to make all along. And by writer/director, I meant the dude who played The Golem. This is the retelling of the Jewish folk tale. The other two were set in the modern day.

The sets were interesting. Very expressionistic. The acting, well, a little over the top. But this movie is remembered for two reasons. One, it's the obvious predecessor of Frankenstein (both in film and in literature), but mostly because of it's depiction of the Jewish struggle with prosecution a decade leading up to the Nazi raise to power. It's very historically interesting.

A little tiring to watch, however. I saw the first three Phapters then fell asleep, and saw the rest the following day. I am glad I watched it because of it's historical legacy, and in the end it held my interest, but with few title cards (and in a hard to read, old-timey font) the story must be followed by the ridiculous acting. During the love triangle part of the story, I didn't know if Miriam actually liked the poof or if she was pretending to as a favor to her father (it was the former).

Two silent movies in a row, a new record. When writing up Laugh, Clown, Laugh, I actually had to re-edit the post because I forgot to use the SILENT label. I had actually forgotten it was a silent movie. With Der Golem, you don't forget that fact. AMRU 3.

The Blue Angel (1930)

Or, more accurately, Der blaue Engel, as it was the German version I watched.

When unpopular prep school professor (Emil Jannings) learns that some of his students are visiting a cabaret to see a singer (Marlene Dietrich), he visits to catch them in the act. But it's the professor who falls for Lola Lola, and so begins his downfall.

Since Witness for the Prosecution, I've wanted to see something else by the old transvestite. Although it was really a vehicle for Jannings and his quirky mannerisms, this is the film that made her a star. She was the object of desire that the men, and boys, revolved around. She sang her signature song, Falling in Love Again, and hearing it in German was quite jarring. But then again, what isn't in that language.

Dietrich is an interesting study. She was an iconic actress, but not a terribly good one. She was a sex symbol, but nothing special to look at. Had many lovers, but few friends. This movie was banned by the Nazi party, but was a favorite of Hitler's.

The makers filmed the movie twice, once in the native German and again for English audiences. For the English version Marlene learned her lines phonetically and, oddly, spoke without accent. In this version she spoke lyrically and without the Dietrich affection ("I'm so tired ..."). Until her song, at least. I would have preferred the English version so that I could look at the actors rather than the words at the bottom of the screen.

The story, the downfall of a foolish man of some reputation, was well executed. Were it an American movie and the media in better shape, it would be regarded as a top notch film. For my purposes, AMRU 3.5.

Hey, look! The entire move is available on YouTube! That can't be legal!

Nosferatu (1922)

or A Symphony of Horror.

Young real estate agent Hutter visits the strange Count Orlok to sell him a house. The local villagers are frightened of the Count and try to convince him not to go. Once inside Orlok's castle, he discovers that he is a vampire. Hutter escapes and makes his way back to Germany to confront the monster.

Several years ago when I received a DVD collection of horror classics, I was excited to see two titles: Metropolis, which amazed, and Nosferatu, which disappointed. The public domain copies of both are of such low quality I caution anyone from watching them. Interestingly, the "fully" restored versions had a reverse effect on me. I believe I liked Nosferatu better.

Back story on the film: the filmmakers wanted to do a version of Dracula and were all set to start when they were denied the rights to the story. So, they renamed all of the characters, changed some story elements, and made a "different" vampire story. Actually, a Nosferatu movie, a similar word that might mean undead. Or not. Well, Bram Stoker's widow sued their asses and the settlement was to destroy all copies of this film. Luckily for us, it survived.

Nosferatu is described as a classic example of German Expressionism. Not wishing this to become an artistic discussion, just think of Munch's "The Scream" in movie form. What Nosferatu offers us, despite a still poor quality media and some silly, over the top silent film acting, is a truly creepy monster and setting. Orlok is not the seductively stylish character of Bela's incarnation. He is a monster in every sense of the word. In fact, director Murnau described actor Max Schreck as "Strikingly ugly".

The "special effects" may not resonate with a CGI generation, but they worked well in the day. But it was the regular effects that steal the show. The vampire's shadow on the wall is iconic, and sets the mood appropriately.

Now, I was going to save this movie for when I did the survey of vampire movies like what I did with Frankenstein, but that film study book I read used it as an example film to tie together everything they discussed.

Nosferatu offers us a lot, visually and through story. It actually strays from the book significantly in the second half and offers a cool twist on the ending. It is required viewing for any horror fan. AMRU 4. See the restored version. Why does netflix claim it was made in 1929?

One last note: when doing werewolf movies, I discovered that IMdb has werewolf is one of it's plot keywords. A werewolf is mentioned, but it doesn't play a significant role in the film.

Vampyr (1932)

Hmmmm ...

Still not sure what to make of this one. An early 30's horror movie. That should be right in my wheel house. You'd think I wouldn't have to turn it off half way because it was putting me to sleep, but that's what happened. I finished it up the following night.

This is the story of Allan Gray, a young man obsessed with the occult, who happens on an Inn where he finds evidence of a Vampyr! First, in the middle of the night, some old dude saunters into his room and leaves a package with a note that it should be opened in the event of his death. Then he follows around shadows while they go and .... I don't know what they are doing. Eventually the old dude is shot by a shadow, a young woman becomes sick, and lots of surreal scenes are shot using primitive camera techniques.

This is not an easy movie to watch. Although it's not a silent film, it might as well have been. Most of the story is revealed in title cards using a hard to read gothic font and there is almost no dialog. Characters are introduced without explanation and the story line is convoluted at best.

Still, the movie has some merit. Very stylish and atmospheric, it scores high points for originality. The disembodied shadows running around was an interesting technique and the use of double exposures and backwards film may have been avant garde back then. But the pacing was tedious and the action non-existent. Thankfully it was only 72 minutes.

The movie could stand a second viewing, if for no other reason than to figure out what the hell was going on. I can't imagine seeing it again, unless I happen upon a fully restored showing at a film festival. The Netflix streaming copy is in need of some TLC. AMRU 3.

Before I end, take a look at the wikipedia entry for the movie. A lot went on with the making that I found interesting. Very low budget using non-actors, it was filmed for three languages and constantly re-edited. The cast stayed at the inn it was filmed in, which proved very uncomfortable. Oh, and the director ended up in a mental hospital. So it goes.

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920)

Sitting on a park bench, a man tells a horrible story that happened to him and his fiancee. The man, named Francis, goes to a carnival with his friend Alan, and the lady Jane who the two men share affection for. A strange man named Dr. Caligari claims to briefly awaken the mysterious Cesare from a coma, where he foretells the future. Alan, making a game of it, asks "How long shall I live?" Cesare replies "The time is short. You die at dawn!"

Guess what. He does! That'll teach him to not take creepy carnival acts seriously.

Widely regarded as the first feature length horror film, it was groundbreaking in it's style and influence. The crate paper sets were remarkably stylistic. Dramatic shadows were painted directly onto the sets.

Here's some interesting stuff: Cesare (Conrad Veidt) went on to play Major Strasser in Casablanca. He would do one more movie before dying at age 50. He fled Nazi Germany and made a minor career for himself playing Nazis. He was set to play Dracula, but lost the role to Bela Lugosi.

The "cabinet" the title refers to is the box Cesare is kept in. The twist ending was apparently added by the producers who wanted a less "macabre" story. Cesare is described as a somnambulist, which means sleepwalker. Not sure if that description fits.

The film is available on the public domain, but I would suggest finding the KINO restoration. By no means flawless, it is significantly better in video quality, which is important for a silent film. One note, however. In the special features, you have the option of choosing the score. The default, modern score is awful. I didn't try the traditional score, but it has to be better.

Creepy, if not actually scary, all horror films owe a debt to Dr. Caligari. AMRU 3.5.

Metropolis (1927)

Back when I got my collection of horror movies, there were a couple films on it that I was very much looking forward to watching. First was Nosferatu, which I found disappointing. Secondly was Metropolis, which amazed me. The video quality on that public domain was very poor and it made me long to see a restored copy. Finally I have.

Those looking for a restored copy of Metropolis will find many. The most authoritative version is the Kino edition, which includes the most footage and uses the original score (and no, it wasn't done by Queen). Why so many versions? The original film was long. Too long, studio execs felt, for American audiences. They also had little regard for it. The film was edited, reorganized, and rescripted. Many times by many different people. Trying to piece together the original masterpiece was quite an undertaking.

The Kino edition is a little over two hours. I had the boys watch. Someday they will forgive me.

Here's the basic story: rich guy runs the plant, the Metropolis. They workers are drones who live a brutal existence in the depths. Freder, the owner's son, is a playboy who spends his time ... well, playing. The mysterious Maria brings the children of the workers into realm of the privileged to see their "brothers and sisters". Freder is captivated. He goes down below and takes the place of a worker for a ten hour shift. He learns that Maria holds illegal meetings deep in the catacombs. She is looking for a mediator between the hands and the head. Perhaps this could be Freder? Good 'oll dad will have something to say about this.

What I saw in the public domain version was a visual work of art, obscured by scratches. The story didn't make a damn bit of sense. The title cards were sometimes clipped, unclear, and some seemed to be missing. But the special effects, given the time and technology, were wonderful. A machine the men operate has a breakdown and people are killed. In Freder's eyes, the machine transforms into a giant pagan god, consuming the people. A featurette on the disk describes what Fritz Lang had to go through to make that happen. It's worth watching.

One thing I found out was that approximately a quarter of the movie is lost. They inserted title cards to describe the missing scenes as best as they can piece them together. So, the full film was, what, close to three hours long? Seriously?

Oh, the religious imagery. The virginal Maria is waiting for a mediator, which seemed like something of a messianic character. Maria speaks of the story of Babel from the old testament, there is a reference to a character named Hel (from Norse mythology, not the double-hockey sticks place), and a character named Josaphat. Oh, and the pagan god monster mentioned earlier and pentagrams everywhere, especially in evil inventor Rotwang's house. Rotwang creates an evil robot version of Maria, maybe a reference to the whore Magdalene? (I know Mary Magdalene wasn't really a whore!)

Silent films are tedious. Two hour long silent films with missing scenes are doubly so. I put the family to sleep. There were moments where I myself found my eyes closed. The amazing art work and imagery could take it only so far. That's when I learned that an almost complete version of Metropolis was discovered in a film library in Argentina. A restoration is expected to be ready in 2010. Could I sit through another, even longer viewing? That is something I will have to consider.

In the meantime, AMRU 3.5.