J_Mucci

I am appalled at the two reviews that call this a film to be discarded by all but the most hardcore Lugosi fans. This is a wonderful little film that suffers from a) being cut from two films into one and b) being released on DVD with a horrible score. The acting is not only typical of 1920 Germany, but is truly remarkable in many places. The camera-work is quite varied, such as in the top shot a la Busby Berkley of dancers -- animated cutting (a brief fade out/fade in/fade out of the dancer as Bela recalls her -- a tracking shot aside a troika--all very striking). The compositions are well thought out, and the story isn't that hard to follow, for anyone with the intent to do so. People who don't understand silent films really should study up more on it before reviewing them--especially those from this early on, and this is early for Germany; this was the year of Dr. Caligari, after all. What would our reviewer above think of the character Cesare the somnambulist in that film ("terrible acting, it was like he was asleep!")

This was a lavish production, one that has many intricate parts to enjoy. So far as its weaknesses go, yes: Lugosi was never a great actor! Never. I think his best role was in "Son of Frankenstein." But here he is trying to be very subtle. He is not over emoting; he is playing it very cool. Remember in Dracula he didn't do much emoting--it was the voice that carried him. He hasn't got that advantage here. What is remarkable is that there are scenes in which he looks and acts exactly as he does in -- "Glen or Glenda!" He never really grew as an actor.

However, I do feel this is a very enjoyable film, but you can't appreciate it as well now on DVD because it's a 1930 re-edit, probably to capture the market after Dracula. Yes, it is clumsily edited; the titles are very obviously ham-handed; we can only speculate what they originally looked like. That's one thing that we can't do anything about. The many handwritten notes seen in closeup should have been redone, as they are all but illegible now. But worse, is the score that's been released with the DVD; it is truly pathetic. About as passionate as a block of ice, I am not sure the accompanist was even watching the film. And that hurts tremendously. With an engaged score, even this edit of the film could be brought back to life and enjoyed by more people.

One shouldn't be dissuaded from seeing this film because of one disappointed viewer. It is a charming and beautifully crafted film, not often seen in the U.S., but well worth watching. It is very Gallic in its attitudes, which means that it has a certain amount of gallantry, chauvinism, sexism, and a plain, old-fashioned outlook on the sports of love, but it refuses to be pinned down to a formula, or to have a pat ending. I find it ever so much better than Clair's earlier work, and if you can shift your mental gears to the French way of thinking, it is a very rewarding, bittersweet film.

It is amusing to note that almost all viewers are entranced with Hitchcock's technique of using the full film magazine for each shot in ROPE. However, we are so used to seeing film cut, (and we are so absorbed in the storyline) - that no one comments on the fact that when Warner Brothers re-released this film about 10 years ago, onto VHS, they either had no idea what Hitchcock was up to, or the editor had (in von Stroheim's words) nothing on his head but a hat, because there are several real-live, honest-to-goodness cuts in the body of the film, as it now stands. Yes, those famous transitions (jumpcuts when there are no people in the frame, totally black frame caused by a character's jacket obscuring the camera, etc.), but if you look carefully there are at least two cuts to different camera angles. The film begins with a tilt up from the street, and cuts to the closeup of the murder, and that is intentional, but the other cuts occur well into the picture.