Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueDuring the Russian Revolution, a mentally challenged peasant saves then obsesses over a beautiful countess.During the Russian Revolution, a mentally challenged peasant saves then obsesses over a beautiful countess.During the Russian Revolution, a mentally challenged peasant saves then obsesses over a beautiful countess.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 2 victoires au total
Károly Huszár
- Ivan - the Gatekeeper
- (as Charles Puffy)
Johnny Mack Brown
- Russian Officer
- (non crédité)
Albert Conti
- Military Commandant at Novokursk
- (non crédité)
Jules Cowles
- Peasant Who Robs Tatiana
- (non crédité)
Tiny Jones
- Revolutionist at Protest
- (non crédité)
Frank Leigh
- Outlaw Peasant in Cabin
- (non crédité)
Russ Powell
- Man Taking Sergei to Ivan
- (non crédité)
Bud Rae
- Russian Soldier
- (non crédité)
Sam Savitsky
- Military Guard
- (non crédité)
Michael Visaroff
- Cossack Whipping Sergei
- (non crédité)
Avis à la une
In this silent Lon Chaney film, he once again plays a non-traditional role. This time he is a dull-witted peasant, Sergei, during a revolution. He survives by taking food off dead bodies on the battlefield. While at this, he is discovered by a beautiful woman, who enlists his aid in trying to escape. He is primarily responsible for getting her out of a potentially deadly situation. What he doesn't realize is that she is a countess, living the high life, ruling the servants. She never intended any sort of relationship, obviously. He doesn't see it this way. So it is hopeless. He then gets enlisted by a cook, who works in the mansion. He uses Sergei to manipulate his situation, wanting to get his hands on the countess. Sergei just doesn't get it. Chaney is fantastic. His amazing facial expressions and his interpretation of the role are superb.
After recently viewing this film, I was rather perplexed to read the disparaging remarks aimed at Lon Chaney's performance. I will not argue with the general consensus that the film's story line is weak, and the overall feeling of the film is rather somber and oppressive. What would one expect to find when you're dealing with the stark realities of life in Siberia during the Russian Revolution? A light, carefree musical, perhaps? Danish director Benjamin Christensen does a masterful job of capturing the despair and gloom of the period, and the desperation of the central characters. The viewer never really gets to know the background of Chaney's character, Sergei, but his poignant confession to the Countess (who was disguised as a peasant woman at the time) that he never had a friend before provided a glimpse into the loneliness and harshness of Sergei's life. The Countess knew Sergei was `mentally challenged', and used this to her advantage to obtain safe passage to Novokursk. She made Sergei promise to tell any soldiers they met that she was his wife, and to say nothing more. Poor simple Sergei stuck to his story even after being savagely beaten by marauding Red soldiers. Sergei confused the woman's attentions and friendship, and believed it to mean much more.
What impressed me the most about this film was Chaney's performance. Though some dismissed his efforts as being unconvincing, or complained he `does little more than lumber about the set', I came away with a very different opinion. Chaney's gift was not only for make-up-which was expertly employed in this film-but for emotionally compelling pantomime. Chaney's Sergei exuded a rough, animalistic power in the way he moved and expressed himself. The performance was remarkably restrained, considering how easy it would have been to go over the top with this type of character. The one thing that proved to me Chaney's command of his craft is the way he looked out of his eyes. It is one thing to be able to change the expressions on your face to appear to be a simple, dim-witted peasant, but to show that in your eyes requires the height of brilliant acting acumen. Chaney's eyes reflected a supremely vacant expression that matched Sergei's mental state perfectly. Overall, I firmly believe this is one of the best performances of Chaney's career. There is even a very funny comedy scene featuring a drunk Sergei taunting the pompous Mr. Gaidaroff. The film, on the other hand, is certainly not everyone's cup of tea due to its subject matter, but I feel it has a lot of hidden meanings and pathos that can be tapped into to create a much broader picture of life amongst the privileged and lower castes of Revolutionary Russia.
What impressed me the most about this film was Chaney's performance. Though some dismissed his efforts as being unconvincing, or complained he `does little more than lumber about the set', I came away with a very different opinion. Chaney's gift was not only for make-up-which was expertly employed in this film-but for emotionally compelling pantomime. Chaney's Sergei exuded a rough, animalistic power in the way he moved and expressed himself. The performance was remarkably restrained, considering how easy it would have been to go over the top with this type of character. The one thing that proved to me Chaney's command of his craft is the way he looked out of his eyes. It is one thing to be able to change the expressions on your face to appear to be a simple, dim-witted peasant, but to show that in your eyes requires the height of brilliant acting acumen. Chaney's eyes reflected a supremely vacant expression that matched Sergei's mental state perfectly. Overall, I firmly believe this is one of the best performances of Chaney's career. There is even a very funny comedy scene featuring a drunk Sergei taunting the pompous Mr. Gaidaroff. The film, on the other hand, is certainly not everyone's cup of tea due to its subject matter, but I feel it has a lot of hidden meanings and pathos that can be tapped into to create a much broader picture of life amongst the privileged and lower castes of Revolutionary Russia.
As a lifelong fan of Chaney Sr., this film was on a very short list of existing Chaney films I had yet to see. I watched it last night for the first time and was pleasantly surprised. Although I admit this is far from Chaney's best work, I suspect many of the negative reviews, both then and now, come from unmet expectations. "Mockery" does not have grotesque make-up like "Hunchback of Notre Dame". It lacks bizarre story elements like "The Unknown". Chaney only plays one character instead of two, as he did in "A Blind Bargain". And if you wanted to see sets and scenery on a grand scale, as in "Phantom of the Opera", forget about it.
So what does this film have? Well, this melodrama, set in Russia around the time of the revolution, revolves around the theme you see in most of Chaney's films: unrequited love. Chaney's character is a peasant named Sergei, who reminded me of "Lenny", the character portrayed by Lon Chaney Jr. in "Of Mice and Men". Sergei is a good hearted simpleton, unable to understand matters of love. Sergei's love for the Countess, like Quasimodo's longing for Esmarelda, is destined for failure, but he's the only one who cannot see this.
As the story unfolds, we get glimpses into the good and bad (or Jekyll and Hyde, if you will) found in all of us. Sergei's pure love turns to lust. Tatiana's indifference evolves into compassion.
If you're expecting a 1927 era melodrama, you'll get a good one. If you're expecting something bizarre, like "Novokursk After Midnight", you'll have trouble keeping awake.
So what does this film have? Well, this melodrama, set in Russia around the time of the revolution, revolves around the theme you see in most of Chaney's films: unrequited love. Chaney's character is a peasant named Sergei, who reminded me of "Lenny", the character portrayed by Lon Chaney Jr. in "Of Mice and Men". Sergei is a good hearted simpleton, unable to understand matters of love. Sergei's love for the Countess, like Quasimodo's longing for Esmarelda, is destined for failure, but he's the only one who cannot see this.
As the story unfolds, we get glimpses into the good and bad (or Jekyll and Hyde, if you will) found in all of us. Sergei's pure love turns to lust. Tatiana's indifference evolves into compassion.
If you're expecting a 1927 era melodrama, you'll get a good one. If you're expecting something bizarre, like "Novokursk After Midnight", you'll have trouble keeping awake.
During the Russian Revolution, "slow-thinking and ignorant" peasant Lon Chaney (as Sergei) promises to help beautiful waylaid countess Barbara Bedford (as Tatiana Alexandrova) travel to safety in the militarily protected city of Novokursk. In return, Ms. Bedford offers Mr. Chaney food and friendship. Before the couple are rescued, Bolsheviks whip Chaney and attempt to rape Bedford. When they are safe, Bedford gives Chaney a menial job; and, she falls in love with handsome Russian rescuer Ricardo Cortez (as Dimitri).
Oafish Chaney begins to realize Bedford never offered true friendship, as she is a member of the aristocratic class. Another of Chaney's peasant class, rotund Charles Puffy (as Ivan), encourages Chaney to attack his former companion, and her ilk. When the Revolution is won, Chaney believes, "I will be good enough for the Countess," and he hopes to "kiss her" like Captain Cortez kisses her. Fueled with liquor, Chaney decides to rape Bedford. Will his secret love for Bedford be his salvation, or damnation?
Nicely directed, in the last act, by Benjamin Christensen. An interesting earlier scene, wherein Chaney lovingly bathes Bedford's feet, can be seen as the point where Bedford is set up as Sergei's potential "Madonna"-type savior. Mr. Puffy makes a relatively good impression, neatly balancing comic with menacing. Handsome 1940s western star Johnny Mack Brown can be seen as a Russian officer; he quickly became an MGM co-star for no less than Greta Garbo, Joan Crawford and Norma Shearer.
***** Mockery (8/13/27) Benjamin Christensen ~ Lon Chaney, Barbara Bedford, Ricardo Cortez, Charles Puffy
Oafish Chaney begins to realize Bedford never offered true friendship, as she is a member of the aristocratic class. Another of Chaney's peasant class, rotund Charles Puffy (as Ivan), encourages Chaney to attack his former companion, and her ilk. When the Revolution is won, Chaney believes, "I will be good enough for the Countess," and he hopes to "kiss her" like Captain Cortez kisses her. Fueled with liquor, Chaney decides to rape Bedford. Will his secret love for Bedford be his salvation, or damnation?
Nicely directed, in the last act, by Benjamin Christensen. An interesting earlier scene, wherein Chaney lovingly bathes Bedford's feet, can be seen as the point where Bedford is set up as Sergei's potential "Madonna"-type savior. Mr. Puffy makes a relatively good impression, neatly balancing comic with menacing. Handsome 1940s western star Johnny Mack Brown can be seen as a Russian officer; he quickly became an MGM co-star for no less than Greta Garbo, Joan Crawford and Norma Shearer.
***** Mockery (8/13/27) Benjamin Christensen ~ Lon Chaney, Barbara Bedford, Ricardo Cortez, Charles Puffy
A downtrodden and slow-witted Russian peasant first saves the life of, and then fixates upon, a beautiful countess around the time of the Russian Revolution.
One of Lon Chaney's best films, yet little-seen or mentioned, probably because of him wearing so much less make-up than in his more celebrated roles like The Hunchback of Notre Dame or Phantom of The Opera. It doesn't address the politics or historical events of the revolution in any detail, dwelling as it does on personal power dynamics instead, but it's a thoroughly involving tale, mostly due to the detail of the two leads, Chaney and the delicately expressive Barbara Bedford.
It strikes me again how brutal and cruel some of the great creations of the silent era were, dealing in the dread realities of life the same way as the early blues songs, the ancient folk ballads and original fairy tales. A lot of these rough edges were sanded off to make a more palatable fantasy product for the masses as sound came in, but films like this, The Man Who Laughs, The Last Command and even Chaplin comedies like The Kid and City Lights have a gut-punching pathos in the face of ordinary human horror that it's hard to find anywhere today.
7.1/10.
One of Lon Chaney's best films, yet little-seen or mentioned, probably because of him wearing so much less make-up than in his more celebrated roles like The Hunchback of Notre Dame or Phantom of The Opera. It doesn't address the politics or historical events of the revolution in any detail, dwelling as it does on personal power dynamics instead, but it's a thoroughly involving tale, mostly due to the detail of the two leads, Chaney and the delicately expressive Barbara Bedford.
It strikes me again how brutal and cruel some of the great creations of the silent era were, dealing in the dread realities of life the same way as the early blues songs, the ancient folk ballads and original fairy tales. A lot of these rough edges were sanded off to make a more palatable fantasy product for the masses as sound came in, but films like this, The Man Who Laughs, The Last Command and even Chaplin comedies like The Kid and City Lights have a gut-punching pathos in the face of ordinary human horror that it's hard to find anywhere today.
7.1/10.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesThis film was preserved by the George Eastman Museum in Rochester, New York after having initially been thought as lost until a copy was discovered in the 1970s. It was subsequently fully restored by The Film Foundation, established by director Martin Scorsese and others in 1990.
- Citations
Capt. Dimitri: [to the Countess] I apologize for my lips, Countess - and I apologize for my eyes - but I cannot apologize for my heart.
- ConnexionsReferenced in L'homme aux mille visages (1957)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Langues
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- La novela de un mujik
- Lieux de tournage
- Société de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 187 000 $US (estimé)
- Durée
- 1h 15min(75 min)
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 1.33 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant