Ehegeschichten

I just saw this film in Paris. The showing was accompanied by a band that played wonderfully. The film is very interesting. Some of the scenes seemed a little long and were not particularly innovative. I also wasn't that taken with the female protagonist-- not with her personality or the acting. However the film also includes couple of scenes that are mesmerizing. In particular the scene in which the husband goes into a mysterious building and encounters a roomfull of men, who are all potential detectives, is one of the most remarkable I've ever seen. Together with the music, the film is delightful.

This is a movie that needs a lot of attention. The details in this movie are very important, they are very surreal, they are also very beautiful, scary, claustrophobic.. it is like watching a surreal painting and starting entering inside it, watching all the details and getting lost inside this painting.

I like the ending of the movie, it is not what I expected, it was more beautiful and I like the way the camera moves in the movie. At some points the eyes go where the director precisely wanted the eyes to fix but without any kind of play with the light or camera movements and this is great.

I like the way the actors perform their roles and also like the comical moments in this movie that because of the subject is quite depressive and the comical gags make all a turn to the plot.

the beginning of the movie is very powerful too. and it explains the reason for the ending.

I recommend this movie very much.

And Ivan is very brilliant and I had never seen him act or direct.

Nathalie Lissenko, whoever said she could be a leading lady in a film? She is so ugly the idea of two men falling in love with her is ridiculous. Even a rat or a snake would not fall in love with such a creature. On top of that (and on top of her), she has the most ridiculous hairdo in the entire history of the world. I can't believe that frump made 38 films. However, it appears that she was the wife of the writer and director of this film, Ivan Mosjoukine, or Mozzhukin, or however you want to spell it, so all one can do is feel sorry for him. This is a such a deeply weird film, it is not really enjoyable, but anything of that age which is weird qualifies for the category of 'interesting'. The film begins with an interminable dream sequence which lasts for several minutes, and one thinks the tedious images will never end. It was probably very daring for 1922, and audiences may have been spellbound at the time, or at least let us hope so. The film then has a silly story pursued in a surrealistic manner, with echoes of the hit serial 'Fantomas', that is, with mysterious detectives who can do the impossible, and who pose for the cameras so that we can admire their profiles. The leading man is called 'Detective Z', and he never stops showing us his profile, his powerful gaze, and whatever else he thinks makes him special, though he is very yawn-inducing. But wait! It turns out that this very boring man is none other than the writer and director and husband of the frump! So he had clearly had years of practice in looking at his wife without falling over in a fright. There is rather a lot of glaring from everyone in the film, which was obviously fashionable in such films then, or at least amongst the White Russians of Paris at the time. The action is set in Paris, and there are some interesting shots of Paris in 1922, though all on the Right Bank, which is pretty much what one would have expected then, just about what it is like today with less traffic, some old cars, and some men in top hats. One curiosity is that people repeatedly jump in and out of moving cabs! There are a few dramatically composed shots which have truly remarkable depth of field (one shows the leading lady in the foreground and far away a man walking away from her down a street, both in focus; another good one is on a grand staircase). I don't know why this film is called 'The Burning Cauldron', as the only thing burning from my point of view was my time going up in smoke.

For a film that combines so many elements of avant-garde European film-making (surrealism, expressionism, futurism) and is a feast of different non-realistic styles, 1923 is a very early date and, although both expressionism and futurism had a following in Russia, there is not much in pre-revolutionary Russian cinema that would lead one to expect this. In Italy there had been the futurist film Thaïs as early in 1916; in Germany Richard Oswald had already produced The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and Genuine in 1920 but in France Marcel L'Herbier's major films (L'Argent and L'Inhumaine) were still a few years in the future although he had already made the much less impressive Le Bercail (1919) and the short Prométhée….banquier (1921) and, although she was already a known film-maker, Germaine Dulac's first really memorable film (La souriante Madame Beudet) did not appear until this same year, 1923.

So the fact that Mozzuhkhin, freshly arrived from Russia and with no experience as a director (apart from the rather conventional comedy L'Enfant du carnaval also made in France in 1921)should have directed such an imaginative feast as this in 1923 is really rather remarkable. One should add that the set-decorator, Pierre Schild was also at the beginning of his career (he would later work on the Dali/Buñuel films Le Chien andalou and L'Age d'Or).

Perhaps the previous film most similar in style to this was Artur Robison's Warning Shadows which had been first shown in Berlin just the month before (even if the moral of this Mozzhukhin film turns out to be rather different).

Nathalie Lissenko,Mozzhukhin's actress-wife was by no means "hideous", but it is true that she does "look a fright" (more or less literally) and it is worth observing that this was itself an element in the art nouveau/art déco style of the period. One finds the same look with Navratilova in one the extremely rare US examples of an avant-garde film (Salomé, also 1923) and again with Jean Renoir's wife (Catherine Hessling) who appears in some of his early films even though she was reputed a beauty and had been one of his father's models. To appreciate the style, it might help to think in terms of some modern equivalent ("punk" is the obvious one). The style was already outdated by the 1930s and Elsa Lanchester's "look" as the Bride of Frankenstein might be considered a parody of the style.

This is a movie that requires several viewings to appreciate. It has a sort of hypnotic charm and oddness about it that I found gripped my attention throughout, even when I wasn't exactly sure I was understanding the message.

Ivan Mosjoukine plays the famous Detective Z who is hired by a husband to investigate his wife and persuade her to leave Paris and move with him to South America. The plot is superficially a standard detective story, but it has so many bizarre twists it ends up defying categorization. Mosjoukine shows his great talent for comedy in this film, and has a playfulness and charm that are really adorable. He's such a little boy, dissolving in tears when his heart is broken, and then bouncing with delight when all ends well.

There's one scene in this movie that's too difficult to describe, but it's a sort of crazed women's dance marathon, and the way it ends - with the women turning the tables and making the men all dance frenetically together - is so funny, it made me laugh out loud in a way no other silent movie has ever done. The sets have an overpowering, surreal effect - the human beings are always moving about in rooms and on staircases that are far bigger than anything a normal person would experience. The scene where the husband blunders into the detective agency, and is confronted by a synchronized line of tuxedoed detectives on traveling chairs that slide about in formation, is quite unforgettable. It's like a cross between a Fred Astaire dance number and a Kafka nightmare. The ending has a twist I never saw coming, and probably was a big reason why the movie failed at the box office. It's a happy ending, but just bizarre - even in France, I can't imagine an audience in 1923 thinking that this was a believable way to end a quasi-mystery, no matter how well Mosjoukine prepared them in advance with all the surrealist details. I'd really like to see this movie completely restored; it is visually exciting, and deserves a wider audience. Come to think of it, the time may be right for someone even to remake it - it's quite outside of any real time period, and would not come across as dated at all.