Svengali

It's been many years since I read DuMaurier's "Trilby." I was a young man then, probably much more impressionable than I am now. I didn't know that there had been a movie made based on the book - let alone several versions. When I came across the title on IMDb recently, I read the summaries and comments on all of them. It seemed to me that only one came close to the book - this 1931 Warner Brothers film, named after the villain of the story. Comparing the casts, one also could come to the conclusion that this would be the best of the films. So, I bought and watched the dvd of this film.

John Barrymore does an excellent job as "Svengali." Marian Marsh is very good as Trilby, and this is her first starring role after a few uncredited roles in films. The rest of the cast are fine in their roles. I did notice that the ending was different, if in the same vein.

The film didn't seem to be as sinister as I recalled Svengali from the book. Perhaps the front of gentleness displayed by Barrymore here assuages somewhat the terror of his character's demonic side. I don't recall if his character had a gentle or sweet side in the book.

The filmmakers did an excellent job in setting the story with the stark appearance of the lodgings and spacious empty hallways in the beginning. Once Trilby comes under Svengali's spell, it seems that the film moves very quickly to the end. I thought there was a little more to the intervening years in the book.

This was a very good portrayal of one person controlling another, especially with dark powers. DuMaurier's villain's name soon transposed into common language. A manipulating person who seeks to control someone is referred to as a Svengali.

Wow. Creating opera singers in Paris was at one point, apparently, all the rage in literature - we have Christine Daae coached by the Phantom of the Opera and here, we have Trilby becoming an opera star under the tutelage of the great Svengali. This 1931 film stars John Barrymore in the title role, Marian Marsh as Trilby, along with Bramwell Fletcher as Billee, Trilby's boyfriend, and Donald Crisp.

The poor, unkempt, dirty Svengali becomes obsessed with the artist's model Trilby. He hypnotizes her and takes over her mind. Though her boyfriend (Bram Fletcher) and the artists believe her dead, five years later, Svengali, now prosperous and clean, appears in concert with his wife, the phenomenal Mme. Svengali, the great opera star. After performing "The Mad Scene from Lucia," she leaves the theater, and her friends recognize her. Just one small problem - Svengali has a weak heart, and he is more and more losing control over her. And now that Billee has seen her, he keeps showing up.

This is a classic film, thanks to the performance of Barrymore and the great sets, which, as many people have mentioned, were inspired by The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. Barrymore brings great humor and a vulnerability to an overtly scary role, and Marsh is adorable. Seventeen years old here, she retired at the age of 30, except for some TV appearances, and died at the age of 93. Blond Bramwell Fletcher, who often appeared on stage throughout his career, is Trilby's love interest. Eleven years after this film was made, he married Barrymore's daughter Diana.

Had this film been made a few years later, it might have been a touch better. The actors and studio were still getting used to the sound process, so the rhythm of the dialogue is a little off. Nonetheless, this is an excellent film, and I'll take any opportunity I can to see the great Barrymore.

Such a story could only be committed to celluloid during the precode era. John Barrymore, as Svengali, makes us empathize with him as we are presented with a very complex villain.

The opening twenty minutes or so of the film are pretty much light-hearted fare as Svengali is presented as a fortune-hunter when it comes to his women pupils and also a very creative panhandler when it comes to his British artist acquaintances also living in the artists' section of Paris. By chance, Svengali meets artists' model Trilby. Trilby is a bit of a dual-natured creature herself. She has the language and bearing of a free spirit, yet she also has angelic delicate features and sports a gendarme's coat that seems to say "No Trespassing!". Svengali is captivated, perhaps for the first time in his life, with another human being, not just with what that human being can do for him. The movie takes a sharp turn into darker territory when Svengali uses his hypnotic hold on young model Trilby to turn her into a singing sensation. He can make her do anything he wants through his hypnotic powers - even marry him. However, when he lets her out of her trance she feels nothing for him. There is a particularly touching scene in which Svengali talks to "the real" Trilby and she says that she has tried to love him but simply does not. Frustrated, he quickly puts her into a trance, and his marionette parrots back her love for him. Heartbroken, he realizes all that is happening when she speaks her affection is that he is talking to himself. As time passes it is interesting to see how Svengali ages, as the weight of holding back Trilby's true will seems to be slowly killing him. The ending is not sewed up neatly at all, and it is a bit shocking to see how it breaks off.

The best parts of this film are John Barrymore's great performance as Svengali and also the art design. If you've ever seen The Cabinet of Doctor Caligari, the art design is quite similar to that, especially in the first part of the film in Paris. The windows and doors all have odd shapes and angles, as the visual style of the whole film takes on a nightmarish and surreal quality.

An exceptional classic film. In a storyline very similar to Dracula, the strange Maestro Svengali (John Barrymore) falls in love with a young girl (Marian Marsh) and uses his powers of hypnotism and mind control to seduce her. Erie, eye catching, strangely romantic and a little twisted, Svengali was everything Dracula should have been. The film is a masterpiece of visuals. The slanted, disproportionate sets and imaginative camera work give many scenes a dreamlike feel. John Barrymore is perfect as the title character. He does not play Svengali as a flatly evil man, but gives him charm, humor and vulnerability. He causes us to pity him for his unrequited love almost more than we fear him for his actions. The talent of the supporting cast does not go to waste either. Marian Marsh gives a good performance as Trilby, the object of Svengali's desire, and Donald Crisp and Luis Alberni provide some comic relief as a couple of struggling artists. Complete with a dark, somewhat open ending, this movie has all the right touches. Svengali is better and more effective than a horror movie without quite being one itself.

The remark of an earlier commentator below caught my eye when he stated that the change in perspective from comedy to serious drama in this film didn't work for him. I've found this to be a most striking feature of the film as well, but I always thought it very effective in giving the film, and the characters, more scope than the average uniform, by-the-book comedy, thriller, horror film, drama, etc. A bit like real life, no?

Anyway, I've always been a fan of this film, and I don't think the acting is at all hokey for its era or genre. The stylized acting of the time, which appears artificial by today's standards, seems to me to go well with the weird expressionist set design in evoking a fantastic world where fantastic things can occur. Also, the chance to see Barrymore ham it up in grand style as Svengali is, in my view, a rare treat, like experiencing a bit of show biz history. I bristled a bit at the review of this film by Scott Weinberg of the Apollo Movie Guide (see "external reviews" link). He states that in 1931 you could entertain people by showing 75 minutes of an airport runway, and that his being born in the 70s may explain why this film put him to sleep. Maybe so. I myself was born in the 50s and also did not grow up with this style of filmmaking, though I probably saw more of it on TV than he did. That doesn't preclude my appreciation of it, any more than it precludes my appreciation for films of the 70s, the 80s, or the 20s for that matter. Good film is good film, and having no appreciation for the first 3 decades of cinema and some of its greatest innovators seems a severe handicap for anyone who writes about film, but at least he was honest about it.

I'm not saying that this film is on a par with the work of Murnau or Eisenstein, but I do think it's a fascinating and stylish look into a bygone era of cinema, and can be appreciated as such.