Michael Strogoff

The print, I looked at was not, alas, in very good shape. There was extensive chemical damage and some sections where the scene went blank. The titles were also mixed, with dialogue shown in small print, and titles that illuminated the plot in large. Characters and subplots were introduced abruptly.

Given the year this came out, and the staginess of Jacob Adler as Strogoff, all of this is understandable, if not excusable. Adler, "The Great Eagle" of the Yiddish theater, was the patriarch of an acting family, whose children included Stella and Luther Adler. He was born in 1855 in Odessa, Russia, and died in 1926 in New York. In his time, he was considered a great stage actor; the movie begins with clips of him in some of his more famous roles.

In contrast to the primitive screenwriting and acting, the visuals of this Lubin co-production are excellent, with fine stage dressing, and a well-shot fire sequence.

1914 is not a year from which to expect well-produced feature movies. Contrariwise, looking at transitional periods as film-makers striving to make the sort of movies that would be produced in 1926 or 1948 is ridiculous. They were trying to make the best movies they could, and applying the standards of 35 years later, or even twelve, is ridiculous. Nonetheless, later audiences cannot be faulted for noting how techniques and standards have changed. The main interest in seeing this picture is, for me, a chance to look upon a revered figure from a lost world in his only film role.

This old and popular story of Jules Verne gave the producer excellent opportunities for introducing and emphasizing spectacular features. They have used their opportunities unstintingly. Some of the scenes were deservedly applauded, notably the setting ablaze of the river and the startingly realistic fire. The production was staged lavishly. The director evidently loves the picturesque and he knows how to make it live on the screen. "Michael Strogoff" has been filmed before in the single-reel period of motion picture history and it was done well. The latitude which the multiple reel gives to the producer, enabling him to "paint out" the more thrilling episodes, makes this latest film version of the story much superior to the old production. The story of Michael Strogoff, the adventurous messenger of the Czar, who gets his message to the Grand Duke in spite of fate, is too well known to need detailed telling here. Suffice it to say that all the stirring adventures of the messenger were skillfully depicted on the screen, that every sensational and thrilling incident is ably recorded. A great effort was made to adhere faithfully to facts in the matter of uniforms and all the settings both in-door and outdoor. The Tartars and their Emir were particularly fine. In their picturesque garb they were shown swarming about the Russian frontier, destroying the telegraphic connections and harassing the enemy on their light, fast horses. The attack on the Russian guards by the Tartars was realistic and spectacular. Great care had been taken to create and sustain a truly Russian atmosphere, as witness the interior of the Russian inn and the hospitable samovar. Another scene that deserves special mention was the tented camp of the Tartars and the throne of their Emir. The contrasts were particularly happy, and the shifting of scenes from the gorgeous palace and ballroom of the governor to the lowly and secret haunts and surroundings of Ivan and Sanagree formed one of the merits of the feature. The part of Ivan was well rendered and all the female roles were splendidly taken care of. The man who played the part of the Grand Duke was at a loss what to do with himself most of the time. The main part was in the hands of the well-known Jewish actor, Jacob P. Adler, who is said to have been very successful on the so-called Yiddish stage. Mr. Adler has a commanding and magnetic stage presence; he is evidently conscientious in his work, and no doubt possesses more than ordinary histrionic powers. 1 have every hope that he will eventually learn acting before the camera; in this impersonation of Michael Strogoff he is plainly hampered by a lack of camera experience He talks too much and too vehemently. The camera records only the motions of the mouth and not the sounds. Emphatic elocution before the camera is worse than wasted. It fails to convey the idea which is to be conveyed. The mouth is a very important means of expressing emotion before the camera, but the mere rapid and constant moving of the lips and jaws have only a calisthenic value to the actor and fail to reach the audience. - The Moving Picture World, June 20, 1914